Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The article doesn't say what functions mechanical support is providing. I believe in the case of the 13-y.o. girl, it was only heartbeat and oxygen, not nutrition/hormones, etc. The original article didn't say how the team felt about the process, but how the husband wanted the baby born.
Dunno. I still think it's rather ghoulish to incubate a fetus/baby in a dead body and if he's born and lives, to know that.
She isn't literally dead or the baby would be dead as well. Legal death isnt the same as physical death. She is not a dead body or she would be decomposing. Her body is still alive according to scientific criteria for life. Jellyfish don't have brains but they are alive. The baby isn't incubating in a corpse. The mother is not cognizant but her body is very much alive and her cells are continuing to divide etc. And the baby is healthy and growing, something impossible in a corpse. I am surprised I need to even explain that.
So.. Who pays for the bill then, if the state is forcing her to remain 'alive'? In any case, just let her die. Her wishes are being disregarded by the state. Ironic that 'govt needs to mind its own business'-Texas is doing this.
Yes let's think of money because that is the only thing that matters in life. Good old Mammon and its many worshippers.
So if roe v Wade is based on their plied right to privacy I would think this is non of anyones business but the woman her husband and the doctors. If it is decided to continue the pregnancy the pro choicers need to shut up and accept it because that is what roe was deciding. That it is not your business.
Correct, and not something most people would be aware of if they only read many of the short articles that were out regarding this horrific situation. It was a nightmare situation. Her body was in a state of rigor mortis, so much so that her husband could not hold her hand because the bones would crack. Frankly I don't even want to know anyone who, upon knowing the truly gruesome details, thinks what they did at that hospital is OK.
Rigor mortis does go away you know. It isn't like a corpse stays in it forever.
The article doesn't say what functions mechanical support is providing. I believe in the case of the 13-y.o. girl, it was only heartbeat and oxygen, not nutrition/hormones, etc. The original article didn't say how the team felt about the process, but how the husband wanted the baby born.
Dunno. I still think it's rather ghoulish to incubate a fetus/baby in a dead body and if he's born and lives, to know that.
It is not what you think or want but what the family (husband, parents want). I can't imagine that doctors would not want to allow a viable fetus/baby to be given the chance to live. It's been done before. The woman is brain dead but machines can keep her necessary organs functioning including nutrition to provide life support for the unborn child. What is the difference between having a baby born prematurely and put into a machine incubator than having the mother's body continue to function to provide life? I am sure that the doctors performed all kinds of tests to assure that the baby was doing well and that the mother's "death" didn't affect it.
She isn't literally dead or the baby would be dead as well. Legal death isnt the same as physical death. She is not a dead body or she would be decomposing. Her body is still alive according to scientific criteria for life. Jellyfish don't have brains but they are alive. The baby isn't incubating in a corpse. The mother is not cognizant but her body is very much alive and her cells are continuing to divide etc. And the baby is healthy and growing, something impossible in a corpse. I am surprised I need to even explain that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthofHere
It is not what you think or want but what the family (husband, parents want). I can't imagine that doctors would not want to allow a viable fetus/baby to be given the chance to live. It's been done before. The woman is brain dead but machines can keep her necessary organs functioning including nutrition to provide life support for the unborn child. What is the difference between having a baby born prematurely and put into a machine incubator than having the mother's body continue to function to provide life? I am sure that the doctors performed all kinds of tests to assure that the baby was doing well and that the mother's "death" didn't affect it.
You resurrected a 4 year old post. The baby boy was born healthy and went home to dad.
A while back, I saw a pod cast about how doctors determine if someone is brain dead or not. There's a step by step procedure that ALL doctors are supposed to follow. If indeed, this woman still has stem activity, she's NOT brain dead.
ALSO, the baby was not necessarily going to be delivered at 24 weeks. They were going to wait until 24 weeks, and assess and determine from there.
CD needs to auto close these old threads I would not call this a "Current Event"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
