Pregnant Women Lose Civil Rights

[bodecea]

Her husband just didn't want to be saddled with a baby which is no reason to murder the baby.

Oh, so now you can even interpret what people are thinking. Geez, I didn't realize conservatives had such powers, no wonder they want to make all these rules, they know exactly what others are thinking.....you all need to assist in crime solving with such powers.

Remember people doing the same thing with the Terri Schiavo case.

 

[bodecea]

How can you claim that a woman is brain dead and put on life support to save the life of the baby, THEN claim that the rights of a living woman were violated?

Many leftists weep at every live birth. Clearly Dana is one of those.

That's such bullshit. How do you come up with such dribble?

What you see Uncensored doing is creating a ridiculous lie to argue against. That's all he's got.

 

[NeoTemplar]

This is happening all over states that have imposed restrictions on abortion. One case that wasn't in the article that happened just a year or so ago. A pregnant woman in Texas was found on the floor of her home by her husband. She wasn't breathing and he called 9-11. She was resuscitated and taken to the hospital. She was diagnosed as brain dead. However because she was 14 weeks pregnant, the hospital ignored her written wishes of DNR and not hooking her up to machines to keep her alive, the hospital hooked her up to machines. The husband had to go to court to get her taken off the machines. The state of Texas tried to incubate a mostly dead fetus in a dead woman's body.

This is what happens to women when their rights are taken from them only because she's pregnant and the state gives the fetus more rights than the living woman.

Pregnant, and No Civil Rights - NYTimes.com

The OP's is contradicting herself this post is most definitely misleading because its makes the argument that the woman not aborting the fetus is what killed her and that this is going to lead to taking all abortion rights from women but I see no evidence of that whatsoever, at this point the fetus was obviously more alive than its mother and according to the courts the father has no say so in whether the fetus is aborted or not so it was the right decision.

 

[Derideo_Te]

This is happening all over states that have imposed restrictions on abortion. One case that wasn't in the article that happened just a year or so ago. A pregnant woman in Texas was found on the floor of her home by her husband. She wasn't breathing and he called 9-11. She was resuscitated and taken to the hospital. She was diagnosed as brain dead. However because she was 14 weeks pregnant, the hospital ignored her written wishes of DNR and not hooking her up to machines to keep her alive, the hospital hooked her up to machines. The husband had to go to court to get her taken off the machines. The state of Texas tried to incubate a mostly dead fetus in a dead woman's body.

This is what happens to women when their rights are taken from them only because she's pregnant and the state gives the fetus more rights than the living woman.

Pregnant, and No Civil Rights - NYTimes.com

The OP's is contradicting herself this post is most definitely misleading because its makes the argument that the woman not aborting the fetus is what killed her and that this is going to lead to taking all abortion rights from women but I see no evidence of that whatsoever, at this point the fetus was obviously more alive than its mother and according to the courts the father has no say so in whether the fetus is aborted or not so it was the right decision.

The dying fetus did not have the right to overrule her DNR. The court ruled in her favor.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That's such bullshit. How do you come up with such dribble?

Isn't your purpose in this thread to mourn the opportunity for an abortion lost?

 

[Uncensored2008]

The dying fetus did not have the right to overrule her DNR. The court ruled in her favor.

The baby wasn't dying.

She died, the baby was alive.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What you see Uncensored doing is creating a ridiculous lie to argue against. That's all he's got.

What is ridiculous about it? Isn't every live birth the tragedy of an abortion never performed?

 

[emilynghiem]

Not that it was difficult to get condoms before. Now don't go off on how "the pill" is great for medical reasons, because you specifically cited reducing abortion. That's done easily with better condom use, and you can get them almost everywhere.

Perhaps you should educate yourself first before going any further.

Study Free Birth Control Slashes Abortion Rates TIME.com

Free vs cheap. Of course free gets used more. I wasn't arguing that, I was saying contraception was cheap and easy to get long before obamadon'tcare came along, no matter what Sandra Fluke tells you.

You didn't read the link, did you?

EFFECTIVE birth control reduces the incidence of abortions. Cheap isn't as effective.

OK and how does effective birth control
reduce the incidence of
* rape
* incest
* sexual and relationship abuse/fraud
* sex slavery and trafficking
* military and prison rape

If we address the root cause of all forms of sexual abuse,
this stops not only unwanted pregnancy and abortion
but all these other social ills from abusing women, children and sex.

So wouldn't focusing on the root cause of abuse in the first place
do more good by solving several problems on all levels?

I don't buy the argument that most abortions are caused by sexual abuse. While SOME undoubtedly are, and reducing such abuse would clearly reduce those, many are not, and would be untouched by that effort, laudable as it is.

it depends how you define sexual abuse.

I happen to find that if people do not agree to get pregnant, then the sex was abused or the relationship was abused.
But that is up to each person to come to that understanding and cannot be mandated or forced by anyone else.

I have a very high level of consent, where someone has to consent on all levels to truly consent
or else it's coercion or abuse.

Most people don't even know what consent is because we are so
used to being pressured, bullied and forced to compromise.

I have only seen two schools that practiced noncoercive principles.

To most people it is considered the norm to emotionally and verbally abuse others.

You can see on this board.
People accuse each other, and basically charge and convict people first,
and then put them on the defense to prove otherwise. So they are guilty until proven innocent,
or wrong until proven right.

This is completely backwards and abusive.

So we'd have to agree what is consent and what is abuse,
what is coercion and what is informed choiced,
and maybe we could agree how much of sexual relations
involve emotional conditions, pressure and abuse and are not
people's free and full consent.

I happen to have very high standards after I understood how easily
people get pressured and think they are consenting.

I cannot impose or prove that, but by raising awareness and standards,
then more people can refrain from abusive relations including those that abuse sex.

If it hurts, it's abuse.
And you can see that a lot more hurt goes on because people aren't
careful to respect boundaries with sexual relations and people get hurt all the time.

According to the domestic violence and women's shelters "if it hurts, it's abuse"
so I go by that standard. it's up to each person to decide what standard they want to go by.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The dying fetus did not have the right to overrule her DNR. The court ruled in her favor.

The baby wasn't dying.

She died, the baby was alive.

Your profound ignorance on how pregnancies work is on display.

The woman was not breathing ergo the fetus was not being supplied with any oxygen either so it was also dying. It was probably already brain damaged from the loss of oxygen at the point in time that they tried to resuscitate her.

 

[Rikurzhen]

On top of that the fetus was mostly dead.

Just when I think liberals have reached the outer limit on parody, you prove me wrong.

The dead woman was forced to be put on machines to incubate a dead fetus.

The dead woman is dead, so she no longer has civil rights.

 

[Derideo_Te]

To most people it is considered the norm to emotionally and verbally abuse others.

That should not be the "norm" under any circumstances.

 

[emilynghiem]

This is happening all over states that have imposed restrictions on abortion. One case that wasn't in the article that happened just a year or so ago. A pregnant woman in Texas was found on the floor of her home by her husband. She wasn't breathing and he called 9-11. She was resuscitated and taken to the hospital. She was diagnosed as brain dead. However because she was 14 weeks pregnant, the hospital ignored her written wishes of DNR and not hooking her up to machines to keep her alive, the hospital hooked her up to machines. The husband had to go to court to get her taken off the machines. The state of Texas tried to incubate a mostly dead fetus in a dead woman's body.

This is what happens to women when their rights are taken from them only because she's pregnant and the state gives the fetus more rights than the living woman.

Pregnant, and No Civil Rights - NYTimes.com

The OP's is contradicting herself this post is most definitely misleading because its makes the argument that the woman not aborting the fetus is what killed her and that this is going to lead to taking all abortion rights from women but I see no evidence of that whatsoever, at this point the fetus was obviously more alive than its mother and according to the courts the father has no say so in whether the fetus is aborted or not so it was the right decision.

The dying fetus did not have the right to overrule her DNR. The court ruled in her favor.

I would say that to prevent the state from imposing into spiritual decisions of life and death,
the family should write out their agreements in advance, similar to the Terri Schiavo case that got determined by court.

I do not agree with the judges or courts playing God,
so if people don't want that, then it's better to spell out directives and make sure there is an agreement.

If the couple does not agree with state laws, you may have to move to another state
or change the laws or something to prevent imposition. I agree this is ridiculous!

If you don't want spiritual matters decided by the state, then set these up to be private jurisdiction
and keep them out of state hands. Why wait for conflict to come up again? We should address this already!

 

[Derideo_Te]

This is happening all over states that have imposed restrictions on abortion. One case that wasn't in the article that happened just a year or so ago. A pregnant woman in Texas was found on the floor of her home by her husband. She wasn't breathing and he called 9-11. She was resuscitated and taken to the hospital. She was diagnosed as brain dead. However because she was 14 weeks pregnant, the hospital ignored her written wishes of DNR and not hooking her up to machines to keep her alive, the hospital hooked her up to machines. The husband had to go to court to get her taken off the machines. The state of Texas tried to incubate a mostly dead fetus in a dead woman's body.

This is what happens to women when their rights are taken from them only because she's pregnant and the state gives the fetus more rights than the living woman.

Pregnant, and No Civil Rights - NYTimes.com

The OP's is contradicting herself this post is most definitely misleading because its makes the argument that the woman not aborting the fetus is what killed her and that this is going to lead to taking all abortion rights from women but I see no evidence of that whatsoever, at this point the fetus was obviously more alive than its mother and according to the courts the father has no say so in whether the fetus is aborted or not so it was the right decision.

The dying fetus did not have the right to overrule her DNR. The court ruled in her favor.

I would say that to prevent the state from imposing into spiritual decisions of life and death,
the family should write out their agreements in advance, similar to the Terri Schiavo case that got determined by court.

I do not agree with the judges or courts playing God,
so if people don't want that, then it's better to spell out directives and make sure there is an agreement.

If the couple does not agree with state laws, you may have to move to another state
or change the laws or something to prevent imposition. I agree this is ridiculous!

If you don't want spiritual matters decided by the state, then set these up to be private jurisdiction
and keep them out of state hands. Why wait for conflict to come up again? We should address this already!

I agree.

The problem is that the states have fallen into the hands of those who want to impose their religious beliefs onto their citizens which is why the hospital staff acted in that manner. They were afraid to violate state laws that are patently unconstitutional.

How we roll back this threat to our rights is going to take long term action in order to replace the incumbents or to file suit in the courts in order to have these laws overturned.

 

[Stephanie]

holy smoke I've heard it all now. it's a gawddamn civil right to KILL your children.

how sick and twisted that we as a society are so frikken HOPELESS

These same people wail over animals being abused but claim women are losing THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS because we don't supply an abortion killing clinic on every street corner for them

 

[RKMBrown]

You are one evil POS. You just can't wait to kill babies can you.

what kind of POS would say THAT ^ to conscientious women concerned about this EVIL political trend...?

Yeah... odd when defending the lives of babies is considered evil. What kind of person does it take to come to the conclusion that a baby's life is not worth saving.

Perhaps a person who thinks an adult American citizen's rights don't end just because she's female....and pregnant.

Yeah but a female baby has no rights, that your point? You have to be outside the birth canal to have rights? Or are you saying babies do not have the right to live and parents can put them down for "financial" reasons?

Who said a female baby has no rights?

Abortionists.

 

[RKMBrown]

We have a certain segment of our population who wants to meddle in and control the lives of others. Basic rights, as guaranteed by our Constitution, have no meaning to them.

Which is what Conservatives are saying about ACA and federal mandates
taking away personal freedom and liberty in health care choices.

Yeah cause forcing someone to buy health insurance is the same as killing a child... oh wait no those are different.

 

[Valerie]

Welcome to Parents Against Personhood! We are an advocacy organization dedicated to fighting "personhood" ballot initiatives and legislation, and raising voter awareness about how personhood poses dangerous potential consequences to infertility treatment, birth control, and pregnancy care.

Parents Against Personhood -

Find out more about how personhood can threaten women's and families' access to medical care:

• Infertility Treatment
• Birth Control
• Pregnancy Care

 

[Uncensored2008]

Your profound ignorance on how pregnancies work is on display.

Oh?

The mother was brain dead, her vital functions continued via machine - the baby can live, but leftists hate nothing more than a living baby.

What did I not get right?

The woman was not breathing ergo the fetus was not being supplied with any oxygen either so it was also dying. It was probably already brain damaged from the loss of oxygen at the point in time that they tried to resuscitate her.

Extremely unlikely. The baby is much more resilient at that state due to the low consumption requirements - you clearly have no idea how fetal development occurs.

 

[Valerie]

The personhood movement seeks to end elective abortion by declaring that the constitutional rights of human beings apply from the moment that fertilization of an egg begins. To personhood supporters, a single-cell zygote is the legal and moral equivalent of any other human being, and should possess all the same constitutional rights as its mother.


Personhood supporters believe that legal recognition of embryonic personhood holds the key to overturning Roe v Wade by invoking the so-called “Blackmun Exception” to the equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment:


However, this view creates a number of unavoidable logical conflicts with real-world situations such as ectopic pregnancy, where a doctor is forced to terminate the pregnancy to save the life of the mother. If the two lives are precisely equivalent, it cannot be morally acceptable to deliberately kill one of them, even if the alternative is to do nothing and let both die.


Likewise, hormonal contraception and infertility treatment involve potential risks to microscopic embryos which would clearly not be permissible in the context of a newborn infant. If the embryo is legally considered a person with the same rights and protections of newborn infants, the legality and availiabilty of these common forms of medical care is called into serious question.


As of 2011, no personhood legislation or amendment has yet been passed. Nobody on either side can say with certainty exactly how legislatures and courts would interpret personhood in any specific area. However, what is clear is that personhood would involve a radical reexamination of every aspect of our legal framework which deals with individual rights, and that it carries serious potential consequences for doctors, patients, and families.


Parents Against Personhood - Legislation

 

[Uncensored2008]

Welcome to Parents Against Personhood! We are an advocacy organization dedicated to fighting "personhood" ballot initiatives and legislation, and raising voter awareness about how personhood poses dangerous potential consequences to infertility treatment, birth control, and pregnancy care.

Parents Against Personhood -

Find out more about how personhood can threaten women's and families' access to medical care:

• Infertility Treatment
• Birth Control
• Pregnancy Care

Like I said, every live birth is a tragedy to you ghouls.