Saturday, January 25, 2014

The only choice they ever cheer

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?

11 comments:

John InEastTX said...

test

John InEastTX said...

Erin, you are very wrong about the motivations of those who agree that this is the right decision.

We believe that there are certain things that the State can't do. One of which is to interfere with the reproductive choices a family makes.

No one is cheering. This is not a good outcome. But it is the outcome that the family gets to choose to make because we are not going to allow the State to step in.

You would have this done differently. That's cool, but you don't get to make that decision for anyone but yourself.

Red Cardigan said...

John, do you hear yourself?

The "reproductive choices a family makes?"

It is the law of the land that only a woman gets to make reproductive choices. Her body, her choice, remember?

And there is no evidence--NONE--that this woman wanted her baby dead. On the contrary, the fact that she was 14 weeks pregnant at the time of her collapse is fairly strong evidence that she wanted this baby.

So you're essentially saying that you're in favor of a father ordering his unborn child killed when the mother isn't in a position to make the decision.

Fine. Own that, then--or admit that the dead baby outcome is the thing that counts, not the woman's right to choose.

John InEastTX said...

So you're essentially saying that you're in favor of a father ordering his unborn child killed when the mother isn't in a position to make the decision.

I'm saying something very specific that is not exactly what you are attributing to me. Here it is:

I am saying that when the mother is brain-dead with no chance of revival, the woman's next of kin should make the decision about whether or not the brain dead woman's body is kept on extraordinary life support measures to support the fetus.

John InEastTX said...

In previous post, replace "next with kin" with "person who hold medical power of attorney, or if the brain dead mother has not assigned a medical power of attorney, the decision should be made by the next of kin"

Red Cardigan said...

So, John, you'd be just as happy if the father were fighting the hospital to keep the unborn baby alive? Or is it only a good thing because he wants the child dead?

You, personally, might be okay either way. But the pro-abort harpies screeching for this child's death would line up with the hospital if the scenario were reversed, and the father wanted his child kept alive.

John InEastTX said...

"So, John, you'd be just as happy if the father were fighting the hospital to keep the unborn baby alive? Or is it only a good thing because he wants the child dead?"

How long have you known me, Erin, that you think you have to ask that question?

Yes, I would be just as happy if the father were fighting to keep the child alive.

Because I'm pro - choice

As in people get to choose these sorts of things for themselves.

"But the pro-abort harpies screeching for this child's death would line up with the hospital if the scenario were reversed, and the father wanted his child kept alive."

So what?

Even if I grant your assumption about screeching harpies, which I don't, that has nothing to do with my belief that in these tragic situations, the designated medical power of attorney holder, or if no such person is designated, then the next of kin, should be the person making the choice as to whether or not extraordinary measures should be taken to support the fetus until it is viable.

Not The State...

John InEastTX said...

"So, John, you'd be just as happy..."

You know - I usually ignore that sort of rhetoric, but this time I'll make it explicit.

I'm not happy about what happened. I doubt anyone is.

I'm glad that the courts have ruled that the State doesn't get to decide this, but nobody is having a celebration party over this family tragedy.

Shadowfax said...

I am prolife, but I think it is totally wrong to keep a dead human body on life support as an incubator.

It is tragic that the mother and baby died, but the reality is that the baby should have died when the mother did.

I am a mother of many, and I have lost many to miscarriage. I know what loss is, and I fully believe the babies I lost were, indeed, babies, but I don't see this issue as a "prolife" issue. Keeping a body alive to incubate another is creepy, and to me, very much descralizes what should be sacred.

If the baby is indeed viable, by all means do a C-section when the mother dies and try to save one life. But don't prop a dead body up on life support for weeks.

I felt horrible for the family of this mother, and I am outraged they are being vilified. I would want my family to make the same decision for me and my unborn baby. I die, baby dies (unless baby is viable and can be saved by C-section). Human bodies are more than incubators.

Just because techonologically something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done.

Barbara C. said...

But the baby didn't die. It was alive and viable. And they could have kept the mother alive until the child was brought to term and then let the mother go. Or they could have removed the baby then and there and begun life-saving procedures. Other babies have survived being born at 22-weeks.

The family chose to sit back and let this baby die instead of giving it a chance.

Muscovite said...

I agree with Shadowfax. I have the same concern that keeping the mother on machines merely as an incubator, while well-intentioned, is dehumanizing and offends against her human dignity. At any rate, it doesn't seem like a slam dunk that Evil triumphed over Good in this case.