• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge: brain-dead pregnant woman to be removed from life support

That's not quite true according to the statutes...actually.

Even if she had a valid medical directive...here's is how they read in Texas.


But the failed case by the hospital is that the statute requires them to keep the fetus alive until viability. NONSENSE. That's a pro-life hospital administrator trying to get around abortion rights.

Even though you protested about it earlier, I see you're still trying to make this case about abortion rights and it has ZERO to do with abortion rights.
 
RvW is applicable only to humans. A corpse is not human.

her choice was to abort by no reviving her and she has a living husband who is also the father, its applicable

iddont see how that holds up when this law is challenged


if dead people have no rights, **** em

lets chop them up, take all their organs for others etc etc but we dont do that because there are some rights and laws that protect you even after death.
 
That's not quite true according to the statutes...actually.

Even if she had a valid medical directive...here's is how they read in Texas.


But the failed case by the hospital is that the statute requires them to keep the fetus alive until viability. NONSENSE. That's a pro-life hospital administrator trying to get around abortion rights.

Here is the judges ruling

Judges Order on Munoz Matter

The law does not apply because SHE IS DEAD.
 
1.) correct and that window is 24 weeks which was not achieved yet
2.) Her decision is to not revive her which would end her pregnancy, her choice.
also she has a husband, who by law is her, they are one, he is also the father and their is family

i still see zero justification for this law and i cant imagine any reason for it to hold up once challenged and it to be found worthy of violating RvW and other rights.

also dead people do have some rights, well, or at least laws that protect them. abusing your dead body is a crime, after you die if you had a request for your body to be treated in a way according to your religion and i just came along and through it in the wood chipper thats a crime too.

You are free to do as you like so long as you do not infringe upon the rights of others. At this point, we claim the woman's right to choose supersedes the fetus' right to life. That distinction goes away should the woman die, as it can no longer possess a right to choose. So then we go to contract, and an individual may state through contract that they do not wish to be revived should they die and that is also fine...so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of another. However, the fetus brings another into the equation and now you have corpse vs. human, and I would say in that battle human should typically win.

Husband does have property rights over the corpse, but again everything is limited by the rights of others.

And just because there are laws that make something illegal does not mean that the law is based in a right.
 
her choice was to abort by no reviving her and she has a living husband who is also the father, its applicable

iddont see how that holds up when this law is challenged


if dead people have no rights, **** em

lets chop them up, take all their organs for others etc etc but we dont do that because there are some rights and laws that protect you even after death.

I am 100% for recycling. I don't think we should have cemeteries or anything of the sort, it's a waste of land. You're dead, you're dead. Harvest the organs for living humans, recycle the rest. Keep a personal monument of remembrance in your own home.
 
on a side note im actually happy this wasnt me, if i had no kids i would have DEFINITELY went to jail, theres is no way i would have let the hospital disrespect and defile my wife's dead body for two months. Jail time would be worth it to put my family at rest.
 
Even though you protested about it earlier, I see you're still trying to make this case about abortion rights and it has ZERO to do with abortion rights.

It has to do with a reckless attempt to force a dead woman to lay there and gestate a non-viable fetus...which the husband was against. That was a very stealth attempt by the hospital to deny the husband rights to have his wife removed from life support and therefore...the allowing the fetus to pass.

Call it what you will...But as Sarah Palin use to love to say: A pig with lipstick is still a pig.
 
on a side note im actually happy this wasnt me, if i had no kids i would have DEFINITELY went to jail, theres is no way i would have let the hospital disrespect and defile my wife's dead body for two months. Jail time would be worth it to put my family at rest.

They're already "at rest". Dead is dead. The dead don't give a **** about anything, they're dead. You cannot give a **** about anything when dead, you're dead.
 
IE I have no idea, I'll just assume the people in charge of the hospital were a bunch of bible thumpin, slack jawed yokels rather than educated people confused about legislation.

No one believes the law needs to be re-worded?

They weren't at all confused. They were playing an underhanded legal game...and they lost.
 
First of all, unless the patient has a DNR in place (there is a special form) or a DPOA or living will, if they come into the hospital they are considered "full codes".Not sure why you would bring up that example. Weird.

But when they are pronounced dead, the care stops.

This is true, and care does not stop unless an MD orders it.
 
It has to do with a reckless attempt to force a dead woman to lay there and gestate a non-viable fetus...which the husband was against. That was a very stealth attempt by the hospital to deny the husband rights to have his wife removed from life support and therefore...the allowing the fetus to pass.

Call it what you will...But as Sarah Palin use to love to say: A pig with lipstick is still a pig.

You do realize there's no force against the dead woman, yes? Dead people lay there on their own. There was force against the husband's right to property, not the corpse.
 
As I noted in my comments, in reference to the article, the hospital only came to the decision that the fetus was no longer viable either today or very recently. As such, the hospital, in effect, supported the petition of the husband in court. That is why the judge ruled in his favour.

In my view, there's no need to be disgusted with the hospital for following the law and trying to save the fetus - that's honorable. It's also honorable that when they determined the fetus could not survive, they joined the petition to remove life support. I would hope that every hospital could be so ethical and honorable when dealing with difficult situations such as this.

"The hospital" is not the entity making the decisions. The MD is.
 
1.)You are free to do as you like so long as you do not infringe upon the rights of others.
2.) At this point, we claim the woman's right to choose supersedes the fetus' right to life.
3.) That distinction goes away should the woman die, as it can no longer possess a right to choose.
4.) So then we go to contract, and an individual may state through contract that they do not wish to be revived should they die and that is also fine...so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of another.
5.) However, the fetus brings another into the equation and now you have corpse vs. human, and I would say in that battle human should typically win.
6.)Husband does have property rights over the corpse, but again everything is limited by the rights of others.

7.)And just because there are laws that make something illegal does not mean that the law is based in a right.

1.) correct
2.) id say we claim he right to life and her right to choose supersedes the fetus's until it is decently viable
3.) she already made her choice just like with other things, wills, last wishes, how the body is to be treated etc. this isnt un heard of and i see no reason to go against it. again only my opinion and why i want it to go to court. I see no logic to justify it.
4.) correct
5.) but the 14 week has no rights so in the equation its still rights vs none
6.) and legally there are no others he is the husband/father

7.) not sure "exactly" what you are saying but i didnt claim it so it doesnt matter
 
I do not know enough about these things, but how is it possible to keep anything alive inside of something brain dead and decaying? Science is wonderful, but nature does what nature does! This make me want to throw up, for the fetus's sake! :shock:

Greetings, CJ. :2wave:

A person on life support is not 'decaying.'
 
They were?

For what purpose? Please cite evidence.

Ben, I'm not doing this with you. Read the article. See what non existing statutory reason they used to keep the woman on life support. IT WAS NONSENSE!
 
1.) correct
2.) id say we claim he right to life and her right to choose supersedes the fetus's until it is decently viable
3.) she already made her choice just like with other things, wills, last wishes, how the body is to be treated etc. this isnt un heard of and i see no reason to go against it. again only my opinion and why i want it to go to court. I see no logic to justify it.
4.) correct
5.) but the 14 week has no rights so in the equation its still rights vs none
6.) and legally there are no others he is the husband/father

7.) not sure "exactly" what you are saying but i didnt claim it so it doesnt matter

The "14 week thing" is human life with the potential to be what we'd agree is a person. A dead person has no potential. Corpse has no rights, so we have the right to life on part of the fetus vs right to property on part of the husband. In that case, I'd err on the side of human life.

There's no logic to deny the life of a human over desires of inanimate objects.
 
How can you disagree? The hospital's defense was published what . They were WRONG.

They had zero guarantee that if they kept that deformed fetus alive to viability that it would live. And if it lived...and it would have been against the wishes of the father, would the hospital assume financial liability for however long the child lived?

Man, you guys wish it was that easy to get out of caring for your children! LOL. What a fantasy.
 
Last edited:
I am 100% for recycling. I don't think we should have cemeteries or anything of the sort, it's a waste of land. You're dead, you're dead. Harvest the organs for living humans, recycle the rest. Keep a personal monument of remembrance in your own home.

i find that repulsive and hugely disrespectful and a violation of rights. You would have to kill me to take any member of my families body and do with it as YOU wish and not as they or i wanted.

I mean really, you show up for my daughter body or wife body for recycling and its not what they wanted or what thier religion wants? you WILL have to shoot me.

just saying lol :)

some people have religions that if you did that to them they dont make it to their kingodm or after life etc etc
in 2014 i would never support such a thing
 
The "14 week thing" is human life with the potential to be what we'd agree is a person. A dead person has no potential. Corpse has no rights, so we have the right to life on part of the fetus vs right to property on part of the husband. In that case, I'd err on the side of human life.

There's no logic to deny the life of a human over desires of inanimate objects.

And where law in question is concerned, it was never applicable because she was dead.
 
They're already "at rest". Dead is dead. The dead don't give a **** about anything, they're dead. You cannot give a **** about anything when dead, you're dead.

weird, are you saying in your story we are all dead? who is they? lol
try to keep up
 
And where law in question is concerned, it was never applicable because she was dead.

Indeed, an inanimate object's desires are not applicable particularly when they conflict with human life.
 
Back
Top Bottom