BDBoop
Platinum Member
- Banned
- #1
Why is this discussion even happening. In the face of the wishes of herself, her husband, her parents, why do "small government" conservatives believe that the government should have a say in whether this woman lived or died, when she would have had no extraordinary measures taken, were she not pregnant.
When Pro-life Goes Frankenstein: The Case of Marlise Munoz | Morgan Guyton
She was removed from life support today, not just per a judge's order, but because the hospital chose not to appeal.
We should never have heard of her. Her husband should have found her, she should have been allowed to die, and that should have been the end of the story.
Texas hospital removes brain-dead pregnant woman Marlise Munoz from life support - CBS News
May she rest in peace.
Next, I hope to see a lawsuit if the hospital attempts to bill the family for anything more than her arrival at the emergency room.
When Pro-life Goes Frankenstein: The Case of Marlise Munoz | Morgan Guyton
Indeed, Rachel Cox at LifeNews berates Erick for wanting to honor his wife's wishes about her end-of-life care:
Why is this father trying to find all the reasons why his wife and unborn child should be removed from life support and left to die, and not the reasons why they shouldn't? I find it very frustrating and disheartening that Erick Munoz thinks this way and also frightening that so many people actually agree with him. I believe these hopeless, negative attitudes about the Munoz family's situation are caused mainly by one thing: abortion. Abortion causes society to devalue human beings. When the abortion industry, media, and politicians pound in our heads over and over that unborn babies are blobs of disposable tissue, it's easier to see why someone would not be motivated to preserve the life of their "clump of cells."
Of course. It's all abortion's fault. That's why Erick and his wife's parents, all of whom want to end life support, are seeking closure and the ability to grieve their loss. Because the abortion industry has corrupted their minds. That's why Erick doesn't want a brain-dead body that is only a shell of a person to be artificially respirated as a super-expensive, organic fetus incubator. Elizabeth Landau writes that using the terms "brain-dead" and "life support" is a big part of the problem. When the brain no longer functions, a person is not just "brain-dead"; they are all the way dead. "Life support" is a misnomer in such cases because what's happening with the person's body is not life, but just a sort of zombie un-death, no different than if a mad scientist figured out how to create an organ plantation in which livers and kidneys and stomachs and hearts could be harvested from recently dead people and incubated outside of human bodies to be transplanted in the future (hey, it might not be a bad idea, but it isn't human life).
A truly Christian pro-life position is concerned with not letting people play God by ending unborn children's lives unnaturally with technology. The pro-life position becomes Frankenstein when it demands that technology be used to disallow nature from taking its course with human life. According to NIH data, God is the ultimate abortionist, terminating about half of all fertilized eggs, and about 15-20 percent of the fetuses of known pregnancies. If it became technologically possible to extract brand-new zygotes from the uterus and grow them in fail-proof incubators in which God would not be allowed to play God with human life so that the gestation rate would be absolutely 100 percent, would the pro-life movement call for that too?
She was removed from life support today, not just per a judge's order, but because the hospital chose not to appeal.
We should never have heard of her. Her husband should have found her, she should have been allowed to die, and that should have been the end of the story.
Texas hospital removes brain-dead pregnant woman Marlise Munoz from life support - CBS News
DALLAS - A Texas hospital removed life support from a pregnant, brain-dead woman following a judge's order that it was misapplying state law to disregard her family's wishes, the family's lawyers said.
Attorneys for Erick Munoz, the husband of Marlise Munoz, released a statement Sunday afternoon saying the order had been followed.
"Today, at approximately 11:30 a.m. central time, in accordance with the order of the 96th District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, issued Friday, January 24, 2014, Marlise Munozs body was disconnected from 'life support' and released to Mr. Munoz," Heather L. King and Jessica H. Janicek, Munoz's attorneys, said in a statement emailed to the press. "The Munoz and Machado families will now proceed with the somber task of laying Marlise Munozs body to rest, and grieving over the great loss that has been suffered. May Marlise Munoz finally rest in peace, and her family find the strength to complete what has been an unbearably long and arduous journey."
May she rest in peace.
The case has raised questions about end-of-life care and whether a pregnant woman who is considered legally and medically dead should be kept on life support for the sake of a fetus. It also has garnered attention on both sides of the abortion debate, with anti-abortion groups arguing Munoz's fetus deserves a chance to be born.
Hospital officials have said they were bound by the Texas Advance Directives Act, which prohibits withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from a pregnant patient. But in his brief ruling, Wallace said that "Mrs. Munoz is dead," meaning that the hospital was misapplying the law. The ruling did not mention the fetus.
The hospital has not pronounced her dead and has continued to treat her over the objections of both Erick Munoz and her parents, who sat together in court Friday.
Next, I hope to see a lawsuit if the hospital attempts to bill the family for anything more than her arrival at the emergency room.