I agreed with what the pope said, btw. I have said before, I respect life and I respect women. I am personally pro life, and I personally am opposed to life support and yanking the plug and killing somebody. This guy is going to have to end life support to his wife eventually, and you are totally and utterly incapable of having empathy or understanding for that.
If you're pro life, how could you feel comfortable pulling the plug on a family member when you could have opposed it? It seems you would refuse life support in the first place or you would never pull the plug. Never pulling the plug would go against her wishes. That should be respected. If the baby died along with her, that would be a natural death. If you and your wife want life support while pregnant and you want to be in charge of killing her after your baby arrives, then make that decision yourself.
I don't think he wants his baby to die. I think he wants to honor his promise to his wife. As I keep saying, somebody is going to eventually be responsible for pulling that plug. Some people don't want to be in that place or position, and are morally and ethically opposed to life support and pulling plugs.
You can repeat as much as you want what you presume to be "her wishes", but there's nothing to verify what the husband is saying. And based on the fact that both the wife and husband were/are EMS professionals, knowing hospital procedures, if it was something they felt strongly about they would have it in writing.
We can argue, the pros and cons of the state law, but emotions, religion, wishes, etc. are all irrelevant nonsense at this point.
For what it's worth, I'm a strong proponent of such "end of life" directives and I also strongly support "assisted suicide" or whatever name they give it these days. But these are all issues related to an individual choosing their own path - those decisions should not impose a death sentence on another human being even if that other human being is only in the early stages of development.
A Canadian conservative is one who believes in limited government and that the government should stay out of our wallets and out of our bedrooms.
Why don't we just have Silvia Browne ask the woman's soul what she wants to do?
And then, in the future, we can use micro-robotics to send a tiny iPad into the womb so the fetus can communicate its wishes in case of something like this happening. Then it can decide whether or not it would want to spend 22 weeks gestating inside of a dead woman so that it can be born severely disabled. These absurd proposals are solutions to equally absurd questions, however rhetorical, found all over this thread.
I remember the Terri Schiavo case and I hope everybody else does too. We had Republicans around the country saying "just wait for the autopsy, it will prove that she was still a person with a functioning brain who was capable of communicating!" The truth was much more depressing. This child will suffer his or her entire life from a terrible disability. The state has no right to force a person to bring such a child into this world under these circumstances. There should certainly be a lawsuit that seeks to give spouses the right to abort a child in cases like this, at least if the pregnancy is early enough (I would say anything under 28 weeks).
Last edited by Mustachio; 01-16-14 at 01:40 PM.
A working class hero is something to be
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.
It makes perfect sense to keep a brain dead woman alive to save the life of the child. Why have 2 people die instead of just one?
Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates