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

Ben K. said:

No you haven't. You've posted their position on when life sustaining treatment (as stated under law) may become unnecessary and are under no further obligation to provide. You have not demonstrated any malfeasance on the part of the hospital.

Click to expand...

Bull****, Ben....

You're just being lazy. You want ME to go back and cherry pick my posts and collect post numbers. I posted that information several times.

And besides...if you simply disagree...then so be it. No skin off my teeth...or finger tips.

Ikari said:

1.)It is true, rights are held by the individual, not property. A corpse is not human, it is not an individual, it is not even alive. It is at best property, and property has no rights.

2.)These are just emotional arguments you're making because you are caught up in the case. Emotion has no place in law.

Click to expand...

1.) again not true as already discussed and theres more people involved than just the the wife
2.) nope they are legal ones

besides me saying this would never have to me, which was emotional

the rest i base on law, thanks but you dont get to make that decision, you can try and give me your opinion but just like mine thats all it is

and so far you havent presented anything that sways my opinion not one logical thing, not sure why this bothers you especially on an opinion debate which i dont even usually do on most topics.

AGENT J said:

1.) again not true as already discussed and theres more people involved than just the the wife
2.) nope they are legal ones

besides me saying this would never have to me, which was emotional

the rest i base on law, thanks but you dont get to make that decision, you can try and give me your opinion but just like mine thats all it is

and so far you havent presented anything that sways my opinion not one logical thing, not sure why this bothers you especially on an opinion debate which i dont even usually do on most topics.

Click to expand...

it's not already discussed, you just made a statement and pretended it to be fact. But rights are rooted in the individual and to be an individual you must be alive. Dead things are dead, inanimate objects have no rights. You can disagree with that all you want, it is your right; but you're wrong. It's just not possible for inanimate objects to possess rights.

The law, BTW, was that the body had to be kept warm in order to preserve the life of the unborn; so obviously you are not basing your arguments on law, but rather what you'd like the law to be. Emotion has clouded your reason.

Ikari said:

1.)You are in fact talking about property vs. life, no matter how much you wish to hide it.
2.) The husband has right to property over the corpse of his former wife.
3.)The fetus is a living, human organism.
4.) It's very clearly property vs. life for anyone who wants to be honest enough to admit it.

Click to expand...

1.) nope just your opinions :shrug:
its funny i thought you just got angry and almost had meltdowns when facts defeat your posts but even when talking opinion if someone simply doesnt agree you get flustered to, thats weird.
2.) wife/husband/family all have rights
3.) yes that is correct
4.) nope just your opinion LMAO keep trying though its cute and funny

AGENT J said:

1.) nope just your opinions :shrug:
its funny i thought you just got angry and almost had meltdowns when facts defeat your posts but even when talking opinion if someone simply doesnt agree you get flustered to, thats weird.
2.) wife/husband/family all have rights
3.) yes that is correct
4.) nope just your opinion LMAO keep trying though its cute and funny

Click to expand...

There's no flustering here, you're inventing it to satiate your own ego.

I never said that the husband didn't have rights. I did in fact say that he had right to property in this case. It is very clearly the life of the fetus vs the property rights of the husband. No matter how much you want to say otherwise, you cannot distract from this fact. Live vs. property, you come down on the side of property and I come down on the side of life. That's all there is to it.

Ikari said:

1.)Quit lying, I never claimed everyone was dead.
2.) I did in fact state that the husband has property rights, do please try to keep up.
3.) You're being overly emotional and it's not helping your arguments.

Click to expand...

1.) you said they are already at rest they are dead when talkign about my family :shrug:
2.) im ahead of you since i never claimed you didnt say this lol
3.) no emotions involved at all in this, you fail again

like i said i only had ONE post based on emotion, the rest i base on my opinion and law, this is afact you can never change :shrug:

Maenad said:

He didn't describe 'decaying.' He described contractures, a normal muscle event when someone becomes comatose. If there is an anticipation the person will come out of the coma, the staff is supposed to move the limbs and exercise the muscles so they will not become immovable.

Click to expand...

I was referring to the husband stating that when he went to kiss her forehead, she smelled like death, instead of her usual scent.

Removable Mind said:

Bull****, Ben....

You're just being lazy. You want ME to go back and cherry pick my posts and collect post numbers. I posted that information several times.

And besides...if you simply disagree...then so be it. No skin off my teeth...or finger tips.

Click to expand...

No, you simply can't go back and read. You clearly stated the hospital was using "underhanded techniques". I asked you to prove that in any sense. You tell me to read. I read what the hospital intended. I don't see what the underhanded techniques are.

You're in support of lazy legislation staying on the books until the next controversy comes around I take it? It should state a brain dead persons status is decided by next of kin or living will....no exceptions of pregnancy.

Ikari said:

1.)it's not already discussed, you just made a statement and pretended it to be fact.
2.) But rights are rooted in the individual and to be an individual you must be alive. Dead things are dead, inanimate objects have no rights. You can disagree with that all you want, it is your right; but you're wrong. It's just not possible for inanimate objects to possess rights.

3.) The law, BTW, was that the body had to be kept warm in order to preserve the life of the unborn;
4.) so obviously you are not basing your arguments on law, but rather what you'd like the law to be.
5.) Emotion has clouded your reason.

Click to expand...

1.) thats because its true per the examples
2.) see 1#
3.) yes this was the texas law
4.) wrong again and your dishonest is further showing, i have stated the hospital did the right thing BY TEXAS LAW and i have also said the the law needs challenged because in my opinion it violates other laws and rights. So YES i am factually basing it on law
5.) lol another failed lie and defleciton

And this could turn into another Karen Quinlan case:

When she was 22, Quinlan became unconscious after arriving home from a party. She had consumed diazepam, dextropropoxyphene, and alcohol (however, it is disputed whether any drugs (diazepam, dextropropoxyphene) were found in her system). After she collapsed and stopped breathing twice for 15 minutes or more, the paramedics arrived and took her to a hospital, where she lapsed into a persistent vegetative state. After she was kept alive on a ventilator for several months without improvement, her parents requested the hospital to discontinue active care and allow her to die. The hospital refused, and the subsequent legal battles made newspaper headlines and set significant precedents. The New Jersey Supreme Court eventually ruled in her parents' favor. Although Quinlan was removed from mechanical ventilation during 1976, she lived on in a persistent vegetative state for almost a decade until her death from pneumonia in 1985.

Click to expand...

Karen Ann Quinlan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If it does and the woman does not die when removed from life support, then the fetus will come to term and be delivered anyway.

AGENT J said:

1.) you said they are already at rest they are dead when talkign about my family :shrug:
2.) im ahead of you since i never claimed you didnt say this lol
3.) no emotions involved at all in this, you fail again

like i said i only had ONE post based on emotion, the rest i base on my opinion and law, this is afact you can never change :shrug:

Click to expand...

OMG...this is just ridiculous. They are already at rest, indeed. The person already died, they are at rest. You cannot be at more rest than dead. You're trying to just play a pronoun game and it's ridiculous. This is just dishonest skulduggery to avoid the points.

Everything comes down to rights. The dead woman has no rights as it is dead. The husband has right to property over the corpse of his former wife. And the fetus is a living, human life. So it's life vs. property. As I said, you take property and I take life; there is nothing more than that.

Ikari said:

1.)There's no flustering here, you're inventing it to satiate your own ego.
2.)I never said that the husband didn't have rights.
3.) I did in fact say that he had right to property in this case.
4.) It is very clearly the life of the fetus vs the property rights of the husband.
5.) No matter how much you want to say otherwise, you cannot distract from this fact.
6.) Live vs. property, you come down on the side of property and I come down on the side of life.
7.) That's all there is to it.

Click to expand...

1.) another failed deflection
what ego the one where i admit this has to go to court to decided because theres no rulling and its just my opinion of how the court case will pan out? that ego? thats HILARIOUS
2.) i didnt say you said that either
3.) yes you did say that
4.) yes you have this opinion
5.) see #4
6.) see #4
7.) yes you have an opinion that is all there is to it currently

Removable Mind said:

They weren't at all confused. They were playing an underhanded legal game...and they lost.

Click to expand...

You are making allegations for which you've provided no evidence. Provide proof that the hospital made a "reckless attempt" by "stealth." Name the hospital administrator whom you have claimed elsewhere is "pro-life."

Or, alternatively, you could just stick to facts rather than spinning your judgments based on your own bias.

AGENT J said:

1.) thats because its true per the examples
2.) see 1#
3.) yes this was the texas law
4.) wrong again and your dishonest is further showing, i have stated the hospital did the right thing BY TEXAS LAW and i have also said the the law needs challenged because in my opinion it violates other laws and rights. So YES i am factually basing it on law
5.) lol another failed lie and defleciton

Click to expand...

You made no example. Inanimate objects have no rights, do you contend that point? What is your proof then? I have a neigh infinite set of inanimate objects without rights.

you don't like the law is all, you got emotional talking about how you're going to fight people and blah blah blah, that's all there is to it. You didn't base an argument in law as RvW has no bearing here and the State law was as the hospital followed. You're just making things up to pretend you have a point and to gloss over your emotional outburst. But you haven't actually made a valid argument.

polgara said:

I was referring to the husband stating that when he went to kiss her forehead, she smelled like death, instead of her usual scent.

Click to expand...

What does death smell like? I have worked with dying patients and even cleansed bodies and put them in body bags. I noticed no odor. I think the man is just being dramatic. Nobody smells good in the hospital, particularly if they haven't been bathed and I doubt that she has been. A comatose person on life support has a body that is functioning just like it did before it became comatose with the exception of things like the brain and the muscles going into contracture. The person does not lie there and 'decay.'

You should read up on people who have been buried alive. One of the founding fathers, I forget which one, left instructions for his body to lie open above ground until it began to decay to be sure he was dead. In 'the old days' a lot of people got buried in a comatose state, the woke up. that was discovered when old cemeteries were dug up and moved.

AGENT J said:

1.) another failed deflection
what ego the one where i admit this has to go to court to decided because theres no rulling and its just my opinion of how the court case will pan out? that ego? thats HILARIOUS
2.) i didnt say you said that either
3.) yes you did say that
4.) yes you have this opinion
5.) see #4
6.) see #4
7.) yes you have an opinion that is all there is to it currently

Click to expand...

It was not failed deflection, you're trying to read into that which does not exist. I did not say that "I would have to go to jail" and make other threats over the case, that was you. And you stating that it's my opinion is wishful thinking. The fetus is living human life and the husband has right to property over his former wife's body. It's life vs. property, you choose property and I choose life; that's all there is to it. All this other deflection you're throwing out there is to try to cover that fact. It's ok to be for property over life, you're entitled to your opinion. But to claim it's not property vs life is just dishonest nonsense.

Ikari said:

1.)OMG...this is just ridiculous. They are already at rest, indeed.
2.) The person already died, they are at rest. You cannot be at more rest than dead.
3.) You're trying to just play a pronoun game and it's ridiculous. This is just dishonest skulduggery to avoid the points.
4.) Everything comes down to rights.
5.) The dead woman has no rights as it is dead. The husband has right to property over the corpse of his former wife.
6.) And the fetus is a living, human life.
7.) So it's life vs. property. As I said, you take property and I take life; there is nothing more than that.

Click to expand...

1.) now they are not, they factually are not
2.) again thank you for proving my point, me, the baby and the family are all still alive, aka NOT DEAD
3.) no you factually made the mistake of guessing wrong and assuming what i meant and simply cant admit this fact. WHen i said my family was at rest it meant ALL OF US. again YOUR fault, YOUR mistake lol SOrry this fact will never change
4.) i agree with this opinion
5.) the woman. husband and family all have rights as shown earlier
6.) correct
7.) yes you stated this opinion of yours earlier

AGENT J said:

1.) now they are not, they factually are not
2.) again thank you for proving my point, me, the baby and the family are all still alive, aka NOT DEAD
3.) no you factually made the mistake of guessing wrong and assuming what i meant and simply cant admit this fact. WHen i said my family was at rest it meant ALL OF US. again YOUR fault, YOUR mistake lol SOrry this fact will never change
4.) i agree with this opinion
5.) the woman. husband and family all have rights as shown earlier
6.) correct
7.) yes you stated this opinion of yours earlier

Click to expand...

Life vs property, that's what it comes down to. That is fact. You choose property, I choose life. That's all there is to it. You're making an awful song and dance here to try to pretend it's something that it's not. You can just admit it, you take property over life.

Ikari said:

1.) You made no example. Inanimate objects have no rights, do you contend that point? What is your proof then? I have a neigh infinite set of inanimate objects without rights.

2.) you don't like the law is all
3.), you got emotional talking about how you're going to fight people and blah blah blah, that's all there is to it.
4.) You didn't base an argument in law as RvW has no bearing here and the State law was as the hospital followed.
5.) You're just making things up to pretend you have a point and to gloss over your emotional outburst. But you haven't actually made a valid argument.

Click to expand...

1.) another posted lie
2.) wrong i think the TEXAS law violate rights and other laws
3.) another failed deflection
4.) see #1
5.) see #1

lol and nothing has change i want this to go to court and the texas law is challenged and loses rights and other laws :shrug: nothing emotional there another fact that proves your post wrong

AGENT J said:

1.) another posted lie
2.) wrong i think the TEXAS law violate rights and other laws
3.) another failed deflection
4.) see #1
5.) see #1

lol and nothing has change i want this to go to court and the texas law is challenged and loses rights and other laws :shrug: nothing emotional there another fact that proves your post wrong

Click to expand...

It's not a posted lie. The Texas law could not violate the rights of the woman as the woman is no longer a woman and corpses have no rights.

But where's your proof in all this, I asked and got nothing but deflection. If inanimate objects have rights, then surely you can demonstrate this positive claim, yes?

Ikari said:

1.)It was not failed deflection, you're trying to read into that which does not exist.
2.) I did not say that "I would have to go to jail" and make other threats over the case, that was you.
3.) And you stating that it's my opinion is wishful thinking.
4.) The fetus is living human life
5.) and the husband has right to property over his former wife's body.
6.) It's life vs. property, you choose property and I choose life; that's all there is to it.
7.) All this other deflection you're throwing out there is to try to cover that fact.
8.) It's ok to be for property over life,
9.) you're entitled to your opinion.
10.) But to claim it's not property vs life is just dishonest nonsense.

Click to expand...

1) yes it was, and not i didnt
2.) correct i said in one thread that was labeled ON A SIDE NOT, wonder what that means lol and it had smiles and laughs in it that i would be in jail because i wouldn't have let this happen, there were no other threats. Fats prove you wrong again. Said not, meaning nothing to do with why i want the law to go to court, thanks for pointing that fact out since it proves your post wrong.
3.) nope its fact
4.) correct
5.) the wife, husband and family all have rights
6.) yes you keep repeating this opinion i know
7.) you havent presented any fact nor did i deflect
8.) never said i was
9.) yes i know thank you
10.) nope its just pointing out what your opinion is


this is fun i could do this all night but i have to go, but ill be back and my opinions and facts wont change

AGENT J said:

1) yes it was, and not i didnt
2.) correct i said in one thread that was labeled ON A SIDE NOT, wonder what that means lol and it had smiles and laughs in it that i would be in jail because i wouldn't have let this happen, there were no other threats. Fats prove you wrong again. Said not, meaning nothing to do with why i want the law to go to court, thanks for pointing that fact out since it proves your post wrong.
3.) nope its fact
4.) correct
5.) the wife, husband and family all have rights
6.) yes you keep repeating this opinion i know
7.) you havent presented any fact nor did i deflect
8.) never said i was
9.) yes i know thank you
10.) nope its just pointing out what your opinion is


this is fun i could do this all night but i have to go, but ill be back and my opinions and facts wont change

Click to expand...

All you have here is opinion and emotion. You are more than free to exercise both, but emotion has no place in law. The "wife" has no rights, it is no longer a wife, it is no longer human, it is a thing. Things do not have rights. Less you want to demonstrate that inanimate objects have rights, I await your argument for it. But until then, it will be filed right next to "The earth is 6000 years old".

So with your inability to demonstrate your positive claim that inanimate objects have rights, we are left with just one situation. The fetus, a living human life, and the property rights of the husband over the corpse of his wife. As such, till you can demonstrate your positive claim, rationally we acknowledge that it is life vs property. The thing is, you just seem like you do not want to admit the side you're on. There's no opinion on life vs. property, that is fact. Less you can demonstrate otherwise. But you can't, or at least haven't.

Keep running your mouth, but you're not putting forth an argument. Dead is dead, the dead have no rights. What's alive is the fetus and the husband (please don't say something like "you don't think that there are other people alive other than the husband and fetus" because that would just be dishonest tripe and we don't need any more of that from ya), so the life of the fetus vs. the property rights of the husband. That's functionally what this comes down to. You can at least admit that you take property over life instead of trying to do this little song and dance to make it look otherwise.

Maenad said:

What does death smell like? I have worked with dying patients and even cleansed bodies and put them in body bags. I noticed no odor. I think the man is just being dramatic. Nobody smells good in the hospital, particularly if they haven't been bathed and I doubt that she has been. A comatose person on life support has a body that is functioning just like it did before it became comatose with the exception of things like the brain and the muscles going into contracture. The person does not lie there and 'decay.'

You should read up on people who have been buried alive. One of the founding fathers, I forget which one, left instructions for his body to lie open above ground until it began to decay to be sure he was dead. In 'the old days' a lot of people got buried in a comatose state, the woke up. that was discovered when old cemeteries were dug up and moved.

Click to expand...

Lots of scary movies were made about people being buried alive. I believe that the cemetaries in Louisiana attached a rope with a bell to the hand of a person being buried, that rang outside the crypt, to prevent burying a person that wasn't dead. :shock:

I don't know if the husband was being dramatic, but the stress and sadness he was experiencing is certainly understandable.

Maenad said:

"The hospital" is not the entity making the decisions. The MD is.

Click to expand...

I would not be surprised if the lawsuit comes to fruition that they don't try to throw each other under the bus.

nota bene said:

You are making allegations for which you've provided no evidence. Provide proof that the hospital made a "reckless attempt" by "stealth." Name the hospital administrator whom you have claimed elsewhere is "pro-life."

Or, alternatively, you could just stick to facts rather than spinning your judgments based on your own bias.

Click to expand...

Yes, I am biased. No, I can't name which of the admins was or is pro-life. However, it would be impossible for the hospital administrators...of which there are too many to pick a name...had to have known that their defense would not make it past a hearing. And it didn't. But they made the call anyway.

No where in the Texas Statutes does it say that a hospital...under such conditions...MUST place and keep a dead woman on life support TO ALLOW A NON-VIABLE FETUS to develop to VIABILITY STAGE. NON-FRICKIN-SENSE.

And I'm talking about someone among all of the folks listed in the link below...had to make such a legal call. This has become such a hot topic for the past couple of months that they had to prepare legally to make the claim that they did.

Executive and Administrative Staff

Then somebody had to make the call if the hospital was forced to delivery a fetus prior to a normal 39 to 40 week gestation period...it was a calculated risk to keep the fetus alive long enough to delivery it premature if necessary.

Then, there was documented evidence that the fetus was seriously damaged. By denying the husband the right to have the support removed...in effect, they would have also denied him the right to request the fetus been aborted. It was only 14 weeks old when the woman died.

Believe what you will about this hospital and its decision makers...there is no other conclusion that to view the defense given in court today as a stealth move to circumvent abortion laws.