Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   Conservative lawmakers in LA are big fans personal freedom and limited government, unless it's the freedom to make the painful choice for yourself on whether or not to pull the plug on your brain-dead pregnant wife, which they want to decide for you   (rawstory.com ) divider line
    More: Sick, limited government, political freedom, lawmakers  
•       •       •

1653 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Apr 2014 at 5:28 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



61 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-04-25 04:15:07 PM  
Christians. Worshipping a guy who wasn't afraid to die in agony by making sure other people live on in as miserable state as possible.
 
2014-04-25 04:20:00 PM  
Proposed by a Democrat?

[button-space-laser-animated.gif]

// last one off this retarded rock, turn all the lights on to ensure no future civilization can rebuild from the ashes
 
2014-04-25 04:23:49 PM  

SilentStrider: Christians. Worshipping a guy who wasn't afraid to die in agony by making sure other people live on in as miserable state as possible.


{Oh, you! .jpg}
 
2014-04-25 05:22:06 PM  
i think every Republican should jump right on this Schaivo-esque case IMMEDIATELY!!!!
 
2014-04-25 05:22:56 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Proposed by a Democrat?

[button-space-laser-animated.gif]

// last one off this retarded rock, turn all the lights on to ensure no future civilization can rebuild from the ashes


Yeah.  Noticed that.  Rather disappointing.

It only mentions the family's wishes.  I suppose it would be rare to include such a specific situation in your medical directives, especially if you're that young (child bearing age) -- you might not have directives at all.

But what if YOUR wishes with regard to this situation were clear and documented, I wonder?
 
2014-04-25 05:30:08 PM  
So there are the death panels.
 
2014-04-25 05:30:32 PM  
ZOMG DEATH PANELS
 
2014-04-25 05:36:06 PM  
You know what, as long as the family doesn't have to continue to pay for the life support, it doesn't seem that bad to me.
 
2014-04-25 05:36:22 PM  
So who's paying for the care?
 
2014-04-25 05:36:48 PM  
I hope these ghost babies have supportive families, because the state of Louisiana sure as shiat ain't gonna pay for them to have a decent upbringing.

But I guess that fetus should have thought about that before it chose to develop inside a dead lady.
 
2014-04-25 05:37:06 PM  
Women as incubators, yay!
 
2014-04-25 05:41:32 PM  

zarker: You know what, as long as the family doesn't have to continue to pay for the life support, it doesn't seem that bad to me.


Yea.  You know we should keep that corpse hooked up to life support so it can incubate other fetuses once it's hatched the one it's carrying.
 
2014-04-25 05:41:33 PM  
Add life support when being brain dead to Obamacare, and see what happens...
 
2014-04-25 05:41:45 PM  
Well a brain dead woman certainly no longer has any particular rights overriding a fetus's right to life, but as I understand it the intense cocktail of medications that is usually needed to support a not-a-corpse is pretty hostile to fetal development. That is, unless its pretty much ready to come out already you'll turn it into pudding.

So fark off with this grandstanding.
 
2014-04-25 05:45:50 PM  
Does this "of" belong to anyone?
 
2014-04-25 05:47:50 PM  
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-04-25 05:49:08 PM  
I would love to see a Venn diagram of politicians who support laws like this (and anti-abortion laws), and those who oppose "Obamacare" because they believe it to be government interfering in patients' medical decisions. I bet it would be a near-perfect circle of derp.
 
2014-04-25 05:52:28 PM  
Conservatives care about the preborn and the braindead. Anything in between is shown their bootstraps.
 
2014-04-25 05:59:39 PM  

Pimparoo: I hope these ghost babies have supportive families, because the state of Louisiana sure as shiat ain't gonna pay for them to have a decent upbringing.

But I guess that fetus should have thought about that before it chose to develop inside a dead lady.


Except that the fetus will be at least as damaged as the lady when it's "delivered". Necrosis is a little unhealthy for the little bundle of joy.

Small gubmint
 
2014-04-25 05:59:42 PM  
This sounds like the most important law-related item I could think of this month. I'm so happy it's being discussed. The usefulness of this purposed law will be talked about for decades to come.
 
2014-04-25 06:00:26 PM  
Rep. Jay Morris (R), said while concerns for the mother were understandable, "We need to look at the child."

Stop opposing a minimum wage law for starters.
 
2014-04-25 06:03:22 PM  
I'm a supporter of a woman's right to choose.  It's her body, her choice.  When it comes to a woman's autonomy versus the rights of a fetus which isn't yet a separate life, I value the woman's autonomy more.

But this isn't that situation.  If a woman is brain dead, she has no autonomy to preserve and there is no right to choose to protect.  So long as the state will pay for the care, I'm OK with not letting the family kill a fetus to protect autonomy that no longer even exists.

In other words:

Rights of the person whose body it is > Rights of a fetus not yet able to live on its own > Rights of third parties

My opinion, of course.
 
2014-04-25 06:04:10 PM  
Attention Conservatives:  Women aren't axlotl tanks.

That is all.
 
2014-04-25 06:06:06 PM  
I think a few stillborn babies might eventually change thier minds from the fantasy world were women kept alive by machines can give birth to healthy, cute, adorable, babies.
 
2014-04-25 06:06:36 PM  
"Rep. Jay Morris (R), said while concerns for the mother were understandable, "We need to look at the child We don't give a rat's ass."
 
2014-04-25 06:18:59 PM  

Emposter: I'm a supporter of a woman's right to choose.  It's her body, her choice.  When it comes to a woman's autonomy versus the rights of a fetus which isn't yet a separate life, I value the woman's autonomy more.

But this isn't that situation.  If a woman is brain dead, she has no autonomy to preserve and there is no right to choose to protect.  So long as the state will pay for the care, I'm OK with not letting the family kill a fetus to protect autonomy that no longer even exists.

In other words:

Rights of the person whose body it is > Rights of a fetus not yet able to live on its own > Rights of third parties

My opinion, of course.


It's the right of the spouse to determine end of life medical decisions, period.  If a woman is brain-dead, her right to choose becomes the spouses' right to choose, not the state's.

I personally think it's disgusting that these conservative politicians are trying to get between families and their doctors to enforce their own Christian Taliban worldviews.
 
2014-04-25 06:26:17 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: Rep. Jay Morris (R), said while concerns for the mother were understandable, "We need to look at the child."

Stop opposing a minimum wage law for starters.


Pre-born, you're fine. Pre-school, you're farked.
 
2014-04-25 06:33:49 PM  

Fark It: Emposter: I'm a supporter of a woman's right to choose.  It's her body, her choice.  When it comes to a woman's autonomy versus the rights of a fetus which isn't yet a separate life, I value the woman's autonomy more.

But this isn't that situation.  If a woman is brain dead, she has no autonomy to preserve and there is no right to choose to protect.  So long as the state will pay for the care, I'm OK with not letting the family kill a fetus to protect autonomy that no longer even exists.

In other words:

Rights of the person whose body it is > Rights of a fetus not yet able to live on its own > Rights of third parties

My opinion, of course.

It's the right of the spouse to determine end of life medical decisions, period.  If a woman is brain-dead, her right to choose becomes the spouses' right to choose, not the state's.

I personally think it's disgusting that these conservative politicians are trying to get between families and their doctors to enforce their own Christian Taliban worldviews.


As I said, that's my opinion of how the rights should be prioritized.  As to who makes end of life decisions and in what circumstances, that is a creation of law, and will change if the law is changed.

I'm an atheist.  Religion has nothing to do with my opinion.  I don't believe in God or souls, nor do I believe that life begins at conception or any such nonsense.  What I DO believe is that a person's control of their own body takes precedence over a potential future life.  I do not , however, believe that a third party's control over the body of another takes precedence over a potential future life.  That is all.

You are free to have your own opinion of how to prioritize such things.  I imagine your opinion will matter about as much as mine here...not at all.
 
2014-04-25 06:39:29 PM  

Emposter: I'm a supporter of a woman's right to choose.  It's her body, her choice.  When it comes to a woman's autonomy versus the rights of a fetus which isn't yet a separate life, I value the woman's autonomy more.

But this isn't that situation.  If a woman is brain dead, she has no autonomy to preserve and there is no right to choose to protect.  So long as the state will pay for the care, I'm OK with not letting the family kill a fetus to protect autonomy that no longer even exists.

In other words:

Rights of the person whose body it is > Rights of a fetus not yet able to live on its own > Rights of third parties

My opinion, of course.


1. By that logic, we can ignore the directives people have about organ harvesting and extract all the bits we need whether they consented to being an organ donator or not, bodily autonomy be damned.

2. I somehow doubt the state is going to pay for the care of the woman.

3. This is not going to do fun things to the foetus. But, as usual, it's not about the foetus, it's about backwards fundies trying to shove women "back into their place" as incubators so men can get on with the thinking.
 
2014-04-25 07:00:25 PM  

Shedim: Emposter: I'm a supporter of a woman's right to choose.  It's her body, her choice.  When it comes to a woman's autonomy versus the rights of a fetus which isn't yet a separate life, I value the woman's autonomy more.

But this isn't that situation.  If a woman is brain dead, she has no autonomy to preserve and there is no right to choose to protect.  So long as the state will pay for the care, I'm OK with not letting the family kill a fetus to protect autonomy that no longer even exists.

In other words:

Rights of the person whose body it is > Rights of a fetus not yet able to live on its own > Rights of third parties

My opinion, of course.

1. By that logic, we can ignore the directives people have about organ harvesting and extract all the bits we need whether they consented to being an organ donator or not, bodily autonomy be damned.

2. I somehow doubt the state is going to pay for the care of the woman.

3. This is not going to do fun things to the foetus. But, as usual, it's not about the foetus, it's about backwards fundies trying to shove women "back into their place" as incubators so men can get on with the thinking.


With regards to 1, not really.  If the woman did not want her organs harvested, that's a conscious decision made while alive, and I'd want it honored.  Similarly, if the woman had an Advanced Medical Directive that stated she wanted to be taken off life support even if pregnant, I'd want that honored too (Perhaps even a simple verbal communication of what she wanted, though I prefer something in writing with witnesses).  That's the woman's choice, and as stated before, I put the woman's choice above the a potential future life.  I do not, however, put the FAMILY'S wishes (as contrasted with the mother's wishes) above a potential future life.  Again, my opinion, you are welcome to your own.

2.  Possibly, but that's my requirement to support this initiative.  Not that the legislators care what my requirements are, of course.

As to 3, if the fetus can't be saved, then it's not a potential future life.  I'm fine placing the wishes of the family over a potential future flesh lump.  I didn't see anything in the article indicating that this is true however.  I'm happy to revise my little chart for you.

person whose body it is > fetus not yet able to live on its own but able to be saved > third parties > fetus not able to be saved
 
2014-04-25 07:04:40 PM  
Well, someone has to decant the axlotl tank before it can be "retired".
 
2014-04-25 07:13:34 PM  
Cruzan v. Director Missouri Dept of Health

Roe v. Wade

2 reasons this law will never fly.
 
2014-04-25 07:24:06 PM  

Shedim: 1. By that logic, we can ignore the directives people have about organ harvesting and extract all the bits we need whether they consented to being an organ donator or not, bodily autonomy be damned.


I'm ok with this.

Although Israel solved this problem.  If you're not an organ donor, then every organ donor is ahead of you on the list to receive organs.  So if you are an organ donor, you get first dibs.  Seems entirely fair and solves the problem 100% as far as I am concerned.
 
2014-04-25 07:26:48 PM  

Emposter: I'm a supporter of a woman's right to choose.  It's her body, her choice.  When it comes to a woman's autonomy versus the rights of a fetus which isn't yet a separate life, I value the woman's autonomy more.

But this isn't that situation.  If a woman is brain dead, she has no autonomy to preserve and there is no right to choose to protect.  So long as the state will pay for the care, I'm OK with not letting the family kill a fetus to protect autonomy that no longer even exists.

In other words:

Rights of the person whose body it is > Rights of a fetus not yet able to live on its own > Rights of third parties

My opinion, of course.


And when the fetus is born brain damaged and/or physically impaired thanks to your concern for its rights, will your concern extend to ensuring it's continued care and welfare, or does that devolve back onto "the family"?
 
2014-04-25 07:28:42 PM  

Unknown_Poltroon: Shedim: 1. By that logic, we can ignore the directives people have about organ harvesting and extract all the bits we need whether they consented to being an organ donator or not, bodily autonomy be damned.

I'm ok with this.

Although Israel solved this problem.  If you're not an organ donor, then every organ donor is ahead of you on the list to receive organs.  So if you are an organ donor, you get first dibs.  Seems entirely fair and solves the problem 100% as far as I am concerned.


Indeed.  That seems quite fair.
 
2014-04-25 07:41:03 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Emposter: I'm a supporter of a woman's right to choose.  It's her body, her choice.  When it comes to a woman's autonomy versus the rights of a fetus which isn't yet a separate life, I value the woman's autonomy more.

But this isn't that situation.  If a woman is brain dead, she has no autonomy to preserve and there is no right to choose to protect.  So long as the state will pay for the care, I'm OK with not letting the family kill a fetus to protect autonomy that no longer even exists.

In other words:

Rights of the person whose body it is > Rights of a fetus not yet able to live on its own > Rights of third parties

My opinion, of course.

And when the fetus is born brain damaged and/or physically impaired thanks to your concern for its rights, will your concern extend to ensuring it's continued care and welfare, or does that devolve back onto "the family"?


A) Do you have any actual evidence that this happens?  There's nothing in the article indicating that it does (the Texas case in the article was a specific case where blood flow was affected).
B) If you do, then, unlike Conservatives, I believe the State's responsibilities continue after birth.  So, yes.
 
2014-04-25 07:42:37 PM  
We can't abort, because that goes against God's plan.

Keeping dead people hooked up to breathing machines and blood pumpers is A-OK though.
 
2014-04-25 07:57:57 PM  

Nabb1: SilentStrider: Christians. Worshipping a guy who wasn't afraid to die in agony by making sure other people live on in as miserable state as possible.

{Oh, you! .jpg}



Sorry, I was feeling a bit cynical this afternoon.
 
2014-04-25 08:56:59 PM  
As usual state legislators are talking medical nonsense. The state which doctors would call "brain death" is legally and practically equivalent to death. At that point you're just pumping fluids through a corpse. Unless the baby is viable when brain death occurs and can be removed soon, it's probably not going to turn out well.
 
2014-04-25 09:12:57 PM  

Emposter: A) Do you have any actual evidence that this happens? There's nothing in the article indicating that it does (the Texas case in the article was a specific case where blood flow was affected).
B) If you do, then, unlike Conservatives, I believe the State's responsibilities continue after birth. So, yes.


For point B, I applaud your consistency. I may not agree with where you started from, but I can respect it.

For point A, take a high school-level biology approach. The fetus is an extension of the host and shares blood. Therefore, the womb is a representation of the entire biochemistry. Lack of oxygen, poor nutrient intake, blood borne diseases, and extreme shifts in temperature are all reflected in the baby; death of the host is not much of an extension in that logical process.

Now, if the mother dies and the baby can be viably extracted immediately, by all means, save the life. But this is not such a case; it's turning hooking a pump to the heart and turning mom into a baby aquarium on the off-chance that things might turn out not-completely-terrible for the fetus. Conservatives worship birth.
 
2014-04-25 09:27:15 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Emposter: A) Do you have any actual evidence that this happens? There's nothing in the article indicating that it does (the Texas case in the article was a specific case where blood flow was affected).
B) If you do, then, unlike Conservatives, I believe the State's responsibilities continue after birth. So, yes.

For point B, I applaud your consistency. I may not agree with where you started from, but I can respect it.

For point A, take a high school-level biology approach. The fetus is an extension of the host and shares blood. Therefore, the womb is a representation of the entire biochemistry. Lack of oxygen, poor nutrient intake, blood borne diseases, and extreme shifts in temperature are all reflected in the baby; death of the host is not much of an extension in that logical process.

Now, if the mother dies and the baby can be viably extracted immediately, by all means, save the life. But this is not such a case; it's turning hooking a pump to the heart and turning mom into a baby aquarium on the off-chance that things might turn out not-completely-terrible for the fetus. Conservatives worship birth.


For A, there is no "proof," because thank god this hasn't been an actual issue until very recently. But some of us would like to solve problems BEFORE they actually arise instead of afterward.

And that is unfortunately going to be an issue: babies will be born to dead mothers in less than perfect condition and need more care than the family can provide--and since in this case the state most definitely forced this child to be born, it is only fair the state be responsible for its care.
 
2014-04-25 09:28:50 PM  
Unknown_Poltroon:
Although Israel solved this problem.  If you're not an organ donor, then every organ donor is ahead of you on the list to receive organs.  So if you are an organ donor, you get first dibs.  Seems entirely fair and solves the problem 100% as far as I am concerned.

Wow, that is a good system.  I've always thought organ donation should be opt-out rather than opt-in, but I like this too.  I wonder if they have something in place to prevent someone from jumping on the list as soon as their health starts going south tho.
 
2014-04-25 09:29:25 PM  
Brain-dead and pregnant. That's how we like `em down hyeah in Luzanna.
 
2014-04-25 09:31:14 PM  

Gyrfalcon: For A, there is no "proof," because thank god this hasn't been an actual issue until very recently. But some of us would like to solve problems BEFORE they actually arise instead of afterward.


I'm not sure if I follow you (long week, not so good brainy worky right now).

There's no proof that biochemistry of the host impacts the fetus? Or no proof that the fetus will be harmed due to this kind of medical and mechanical bastardization?
 
2014-04-25 09:38:11 PM  
GOP not libertarian enough by far.  Democrats are worse.
 
2014-04-25 09:50:40 PM  

mcnguyen: Unknown_Poltroon:
Although Israel solved this problem.  If you're not an organ donor, then every organ donor is ahead of you on the list to receive organs.  So if you are an organ donor, you get first dibs.  Seems entirely fair and solves the problem 100% as far as I am concerned.

Wow, that is a good system.  I've always thought organ donation should be opt-out rather than opt-in, but I like this too.  I wonder if they have something in place to prevent someone from jumping on the list as soon as their health starts going south tho.


Heh, like signing up for Obamacare right after you get sick?

I would imagine that the people who are against it for religious reasons won't change their mind. Haredim and hasidim and pretty farking stubborn and retarded.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah_study and funny hats
 
2014-04-25 09:59:09 PM  
"LA" in the headline got me again. Must remind myself that "LA" does not always equal "Los Angeles."
 
2014-04-25 10:02:52 PM  
I had a hard time getting thru that headline without feeling subby was shouting at me in his best "special" voice...
 
2014-04-25 10:03:55 PM  

silo123j: i think every Republican should jump right on this Schaivo-esque case IMMEDIATELY!!!!


There's a little detail in the article you may have overlooked.
 
2014-04-25 10:24:34 PM  

Emposter: Shedim: Emposter: I'm a supporter of a woman's right to choose.  It's her body, her choice.  When it comes to a woman's autonomy versus the rights of a fetus which isn't yet a separate life, I value the woman's autonomy more.

But this isn't that situation.  If a woman is brain dead, she has no autonomy to preserve and there is no right to choose to protect.  So long as the state will pay for the care, I'm OK with not letting the family kill a fetus to protect autonomy that no longer even exists.

In other words:

Rights of the person whose body it is > Rights of a fetus not yet able to live on its own > Rights of third parties

My opinion, of course.

1. By that logic, we can ignore the directives people have about organ harvesting and extract all the bits we need whether they consented to being an organ donator or not, bodily autonomy be damned.

2. I somehow doubt the state is going to pay for the care of the woman.

3. This is not going to do fun things to the foetus. But, as usual, it's not about the foetus, it's about backwards fundies trying to shove women "back into their place" as incubators so men can get on with the thinking.

With regards to 1, not really.  If the woman did not want her organs harvested, that's a conscious decision made while alive, and I'd want it honored.  Similarly, if the woman had an Advanced Medical Directive that stated she wanted to be taken off life support even if pregnant, I'd want that honored too (Perhaps even a simple verbal communication of what she wanted, though I prefer something in writing with witnesses).  That's the woman's choice, and as stated before, I put the woman's choice above the a potential future life.  I do not, however, put the FAMILY'S wishes (as contrasted with the mother's wishes) above a potential future life.  Again, my opinion, you are welcome to your own.

2.  Possibly, but that's my requirement to support this initiative.  Not that the legislators care what my requirements are, of course.

As to 3, if the fetus can't be saved, then it's not a potential future life.  I'm fine placing the wishes of the family over a potential future flesh lump.  I didn't see anything in the article indicating that this is true however.  I'm happy to revise my little chart for you.

person whose body it is > fetus not yet able to live on its own but able to be saved > third parties > fetus not able to be saved


So woman whose body it is > the state > spouse & other family > fetus not able to be saved. Because it is the state here that we're talking about stepping in on behalf of the fetus, and women carrying a child, not "person" either.

My chart goes woman > spouse, the rest of you bugger off.

/And the biggest risk here is why stop at fetus?
 
Displayed 50 of 61 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report