Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Husband wants to pull the plug on pregnant wife


  • Please log in to reply
121 replies to this topic

#16 carpantherfan84

carpantherfan84

    Abductive Reasoner

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,732 posts

Posted 30 December 2013 - 01:36 PM

The tinderbox is a sad sad place, where the lives of babes and invalids alike are debated as one would debate the proper seasoning for an evening meal.

#17 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,774 posts

Posted 30 December 2013 - 03:49 PM

I would say there is no problem in waiting a few months, taking the child, letting the mother pass.  If the child passes too, then no problem, if it lives, then you have avoided a tragedy.  Husband is not liable for the bills, but let the state take it over if they want to prolong the process.

 

Stirs is literally advocating for a nanny state if it fits his worldview

 

literally



#18 SmokinwithWilly

SmokinwithWilly

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 678 posts

Posted 30 December 2013 - 04:21 PM

Sadly, this is probably going to end up being a learning tool for many mothers/fathers. The one thing I didn't see in either article was whether or not the mother's wishes were in writing. There will probably be a new form in many OBGYN offices now for new mothers that allows them to determine how they would want to proceed should something like this occur. Look for this to end up in the Supreme Court.

 

Personally, I believe the father should have a choice in what happens to her. I can't even imagine what he is going through. How do you sit there and wait for 6 weeks while the state turns your wife into an incubator when it goes against everything you know that she wanted.

 

With that law, Texas could force a rape victim who ends up on life support as the result of her attack to carry her rapists baby to term. That's insane and definitely something the government has no right in deciding for anyone.



#19 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,774 posts

Posted 30 December 2013 - 04:50 PM

Well non white male conservative christian governments at least



#20 Anybodyhome

Anybodyhome

    USN Retired

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,122 posts
  • LocationWherever I May Roam

Posted 30 December 2013 - 05:25 PM

If the only reason the government is involved is because of the fetus, it's sad... on several fronts. The husband's wishes, shared by the wife are not being considered. The wife's wishes, as interpreted and attempted to be carried out by the husband, are not being considered either.

 

And for any of you who are genuinely concerned about your family having to go through something like this, do as was stated earlier- living will, power of attorney, etc. so your rights cannot be taken away by the state or whomever.

 

You have no idea how many lives are being turned upside down right now because someone else decided their laws and political agenda are more important than the lives of all the people involved in this.



#21 Panther17

Panther17

    HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,952 posts

Posted 31 December 2013 - 11:01 AM

This is why when you get married get a will/trust durable POA etc so you DO have a say.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using CarolinaHuddle mobile app

 

Good advice but it sounds like in this case in Texas it wouldn't matter since the baby's rights overrule the mother's. 



#22 Goondal

Goondal

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,356 posts
  • LocationSafety Harbor, FL

Posted 31 December 2013 - 11:31 AM

This is so sad.  I do not see how anybody can support the cruel actions of the state here.



#23 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,774 posts

Posted 31 December 2013 - 11:36 AM

Waiting on all my personal freedom lovers/ big government haters to come up and totally denounce this blatant state overreach

#24 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,099 posts
  • LocationMontford

Posted 31 December 2013 - 01:18 PM

is it an overreach cwg?



#25 Anybodyhome

Anybodyhome

    USN Retired

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,122 posts
  • LocationWherever I May Roam

Posted 31 December 2013 - 02:22 PM

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...



#26 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,099 posts
  • LocationMontford

Posted 31 December 2013 - 02:26 PM

i agree. im seeing what cwg thinks.

 

 



#27 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,774 posts

Posted 31 December 2013 - 08:38 PM

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?

#28 Anybodyhome

Anybodyhome

    USN Retired

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,122 posts
  • LocationWherever I May Roam

Posted 31 December 2013 - 08:53 PM

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?



#29 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,475 posts
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon

Posted 31 December 2013 - 09:07 PM

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.

#30 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,475 posts
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon

Posted 31 December 2013 - 09:08 PM

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.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com