By now, you've probably heard that a judge has ordered that a brain-dead pregnant woman be removed from life support, even though her fetus is 22 weeks gestational age.
Just for reference, here's what that age looks like.
Her husband says she never wanted to be hooked up to machines, though there's little indication that they ever had a conversation about whether that would apply if she were pregnant and the unborn child still alive. News articles give the impression she left no written directives at all, and her supposed wishes are being based on family members' recollections of conversations.
Of course, the justification here is that the fetus is probably disabled. Because ending the life of a disabled unborn child is much better than letting him or her be born and given to someone who would care for him or her to raise, right?
I think the hospital, should they comply with this order without trying to appeal it, ought to insist for their own protection on monitoring the fetus via ultrasound and fetal distress monitors while the mother's life support is discontinued. They ought to measure any thrashing, struggling, signs of distress as the unborn child fights to get oxygen that is no longer available. They should record all of that, every moment of sickening, heartbreaking struggle as the unborn child slowly dies.
They should do it so that if her family ever sues the hospital, the hospital can show those tapes in court to prove that they considered themselves to have two patients: one brain dead, the other very much alive. And that they only complied with the direct and intentional killing of the second patient under court order, and under duress.
The ironic thing here is that all sorts of pro-abort groups have lined up to insist that life support be removed, even though they are sort of agreeing here that whatever the mother's wishes for her unborn child might have been--and remember, we don't know what those were--the father has the absolute right to pull the plug and end his unborn child's life. Most of the time, these same groups insist that the father has no rights at all over the life or death of his unborn child, and that if the woman wants to pay somebody to shred his kid in utero, he doesn't get a say. But now, they're all about the father's "rights" here.
As several people on other sites have pointed out, the bottom line for the "pro-choice" groups is that it's all good so long as the outcome is a dead baby. The only choice they ever cheer is the choice that ends the life of an unborn child. Because we just can't afford ever to let people think that maybe, just maybe, the child's life has value of his or her own.
UPDATE: The ghouls at Planned Parenthood can go ahead and schedule their celebration party; another unborn baby is dead. Granted, the mother apparently wanted this child, and the father got to make the sole decision to kill his offspring, which isn't what they usually celebrate--but what do the abortion ghouls care so long as unborn life is determined to be worthless and disposable?