Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Husband wants to pull the plug on pregnant wife

122 posts in this topic

Posted

is it an overreach cwg?

 

I would say so. Anytime the government decides they can step in and start making decisions disregarding the recognized legal  personal choices of individuals is an overreach.

 

And for those of you who will undoubtedly use the "what about the rights of the unborn child..." argument, here's my take:

  • The unborn child has no rights until it is born, a birth certificate is issued declaring it a citizen and officially recognizing the child as a family member.
  • The unborn child has no more rights than you did as a few days old and having medical procedures done without your consent, such as circumcision, immunizations, etc.
  • As a child, you have no rights regarding any part of your life until you are no longer a minor.

Sorry, blast away if you must, my opinion and it's not been swayed in nearly 45 years...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

i agree. im seeing what cwg thinks.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

This is an intensely personal family decision made under terrible circumstances that the government is involved in that affects just the family and is done for the sole purpose of placating voters that will never face the same situation. What do you think?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I agree. How did the government even know to get involved in this? It's a personal family decision being made. Who violated patient/doctor confidentiality and HIPAA by disclosing this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

This is an intensely personal family decision made under terrible circumstances that the government is involved in that affects just the family and is done for the sole purpose of placating voters that will never face the same situation. What do you think?

I understand your point about it being a family matter. But the fact that an 18 week old unborn fetus is involved certainly complicates the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I would say so. Anytime the government decides they can step in and start making decisions disregarding the recognized legal personal choices of individuals is an overreach.

And for those of you who will undoubtedly use the "what about the rights of the unborn child..." argument, here's my take:

  • The unborn child has no rights until it is born, a birth certificate is issued declaring it a citizen and officially recognizing the child as a family member.
  • The unborn child has no more rights than you did as a few days old and having medical procedures done without your consent, such as circumcision, immunizations, etc.
  • As a child, you have no rights regarding any part of your life until you are no longer a minor.
Sorry, blast away if you must, my opinion and it's not been swayed in nearly 45 years...
A child has the right to life and safety....that is not given nor taken away from them by their parents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Would it make any difference to anyone if the husband wanted the child to be born but the state, or insurance companies wanted to remove life support? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

A child has the right to life and safety....that is not given nor taken away from them by their parents.

 

It's not a child until born.

 

"Family lawyers have said it will be difficult to convince a Texas judge to grant an injunction or restraining order to put the mother's wishes ahead of her child."

 

Why not? The mother's wishes are always put ahead of the child once it's born until it's 18 years old. There's nobody defending the rights of a child or being a proxy voice for a child when it comes to circumcision, immunizations and other medical procedures performed on children until they're old enough to make such decisions themselves under the law (age 18).

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Would it make any difference to anyone if the husband wanted the child to be born but the state, or insurance companies wanted to remove life support? 

 

I'd be willing to bet the state would be nowhere in sight if that were the case. After all, we are talking about Texas. 

 

If the fetus is brought to near term and is born via Caesarian and the baby is not healthy as a result of the mother's medical condition, stand by for major lawsuits.

 

The medically accepted limit of an abortion is 22 weeks max before it's considered a late term abortion and serious medical considerations must be made. However, because this is Texas, they have made abortions nearly impossible whereas in most other states, it wouldn't even be a newsworthy story.

 

The real issue here is, however, nobody in the entire family wants this to continue and everyone on both sides of the family wants to follow the wishes of the wife/daughter/sister, and they are not even being allowed the choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yes, only the Army can make those kinds of decisions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It's not a child until it is born.

).

That is a whole different argument and nothing more than your opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

. There's nobody defending the rights of a child or being a proxy voice for a child when it comes to circumcision, immunizations and other medical procedures performed on children until they're old enough to make such decisions themselves under the law (age 18).

We are not talking about a decision to be circumcised here. We are talking about the right to life.

And when it cones to screw names, yours us perfect. Because when it comes to you....nobody is definitely home upstairs.

Damn you are really one dumb fuger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites