Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Husband wants to pull the plug on pregnant wife


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
121 replies to this topic

#25 Anybodyhome

Anybodyhome

    USN Retired

  • Joined: 07-July 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 7,890
  • Reputation: 2,638
HUDDLER

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

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 23,826
  • Reputation: 3,108
HUDDLER

Posted 31 December 2013 - 02:26 PM

i agree. im seeing what cwg thinks.

 

 



#27 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 24,865
  • Reputation: 2,555
SUPPORTER

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

  • Joined: 07-July 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 7,890
  • Reputation: 2,638
HUDDLER

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

  • Joined: 30-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 20,323
  • Reputation: 5,875
HUDDLER

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

  • Joined: 30-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 20,323
  • Reputation: 5,875
HUDDLER

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.

#31 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • Joined: 01-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 13,004
  • Reputation: 2,372
HUDDLER

Posted 31 December 2013 - 09:14 PM

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? 

 



#32 Anybodyhome

Anybodyhome

    USN Retired

  • Joined: 07-July 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 7,890
  • Reputation: 2,638
HUDDLER

Posted 31 December 2013 - 09:17 PM

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).

 

 

 

 



#33 Anybodyhome

Anybodyhome

    USN Retired

  • Joined: 07-July 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 7,890
  • Reputation: 2,638
HUDDLER

Posted 31 December 2013 - 09:23 PM

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.



#34 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 24,865
  • Reputation: 2,555
SUPPORTER

Posted 31 December 2013 - 11:25 PM

Yes, only the Army can make those kinds of decisions

#35 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • Joined: 30-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 20,323
  • Reputation: 5,875
HUDDLER

Posted 01 January 2014 - 09:43 AM

It's not a child until it is born.
).


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

#36 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • Joined: 30-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 20,323
  • Reputation: 5,875
HUDDLER

Posted 01 January 2014 - 09:45 AM

. 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