Texas law keeps "unresponsive", pregnant woman on life support against her will

You mean like a heartbeat?

 

The interest is in not enslaving a person's body against their will for the benefit of another person.

- - - Updated - - -

Biologically human =/= a person. Otherwise it would be illegal to "abort" tumors.

 

You said child, not person. I'd be glad to discuss the difference between a fetus and tumor, but we both know that's just your strawman.

 

See the unbridled DESPERATION to kill this unborn infant?

Who, exactly is being "enslaved"? How can a DEAD BODY be "enslaved"?

Der...

WTF....

 

So you have 1 example with much different circumstances and you think that lets your POV be the right one in this case? Hmm

 

I'm wondering if she has health insurance.

 

It should be implimented on a federal level.

If she's pretty much dead, then she no longer has a 'will' (consciousness), so no harm done.

Better safe than sorry.

The left's desire to kill babies, for no purpose other than using them as 'martyrs' in their abortion crusade is outrageous. This thread'd have made Hitler teary eyed with pride.

 

Braindead people don't have a 'will', since they no longer have a consciousness.

The right to another's life trumps one's 'right' to convenience or to their body (but seeing as she's braindead, her will no longer exists, therefore the point is moot to begin with).

 

A fetus has no rights.

 

I would consider "child" a subcategory of "person".

- - - Updated - - -

The body is not dead. She is brain dead and her husband is aware that according to her own will she wouldn't want to be kept alive on life support. She is being enslaved to ensure the survival of another person and as far as I know, the 13th Amendment makes no such exception to allow for such enslavement.

 

Yes it does - but hey Democrats used to say that about n-rs - they haven't changed much



A fetus' rights trump the rights of the mother, 100% of the time

 

Yeah. The state that turned down allowing the federal government to provide medical care and birth control for a MILLION poor women. Hardly.

And WHO is being forced to PAY for the government's decision? Untold MILLIONS in intensive care for at least 6 months!

The Republicans can deny even the most basic medical care and food to pregnant women and children, but are happy to spend ENORMOUS money in a case like this!

 

So I can enslave you to protect my life?

 

Conservatives. Specifically southern conservatives.

 

Then her 'will' is dead, so she has no rights.

Her will no longer exists, so it's a moot point.

Which is perfectly moral. But again since she is brain dead, therefore she has no 'will' and cannot be 'enslaved', so it's a moot point.

Soldiers are 'enslaved' to ensure the benefits of others, and even if it wasn't a moot point (due to her brain dead status) it'd be perfectly constitutional.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, I'm registered for the SS - in the event of a World War I'd be 'enslaved' and made to fight in order to defend your freedoms

But if you're 'brain dead', you wouldn't have a life anyway. Just like a sperm cell isn't a 'human life' despite being a biological form of a life, a brain dead individual kept alive by machines is no longer a 'human life', and has no will.

 

They don't care that it's a live baby - they're more interested in opposing anything that remotely has a 'pro-life' stance, even if it means murdering a child for the sake of their vile agenda.

Not to mention they contradict their own rhetoric. They admit that the woman is braindead and therefore can be taken off life support, yet at the same time argue that a person who no longer has a consciousness can have a 'will' (and if that were the case, would therefore mean that unborn children must also 'have a will').

It's disgusting and borderline sociopathic

 

In extreme circumstances where the human race is nearly wiped out and every baby counts, I'd understand this move and agree with it for the survival of mankind. But we aren't there.

 

Your statement that it is brain dead is utter conjecture on your part.

 

New York would do the same thing too. I would know. It's happened before. I was there. However it didn't end well for either one of them.

 

Well, liberal...I happen to think that such a position is morally far superior to thinking that women are just coffins.

 

Just like a typical liberal: playing fast and loose with the fact again. How do you know if this child is viable?

Hippocratic Oath: "First, do no harm".

That includes fetuses, pork chop. I would be quite delicious irony if the child turns out gay, as well.

 

Why not call him and give him a clue? Just unplug her and drive over to LA and feed her to an alligator.

Why you pretend to know what you are talking about is no mystery to me. Ask yourself how the doctors have to follow the law but he could just throw her in his car and let the baby die when she stopped breathing.

Sure, she wouldn't want the kid to live without her. Maybe she was planning to get an abortion in the next four or five weeks- at the last minute. It's clear that the father of record doesn't want the child. In that he is arguing that they pull the plug on his living child I would look closer at the reason she is brain dead and because he is so ready to see the baby die I wouldn't pay much attention to what he says she said.

 

What you "Think" seems rather unimportant in this situation, and "If" the baby is female, has brain function, and survives into adulthood she will be lucky enough to have Texas decide how she gets to use her body for her as well.

 

On what grounds? Be specific and cite the relevant statutes and case law.

 

The state is forcing him against his and his wife's will to bring a child into the world that may be disabled. If the state is going to force someone to have a disabled child, they should have to pay for it.