Reply to Texas judge grants woman’s request for abortion despite state ban

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Texas judge grants woman’s request for abortion despite state ban"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]So where are the conservatives on this one? They've been awfully quiet minus one or two peeps earlier. [/quote].

The talking point seems to be that they searched around to find her to bring the suit as if there is something wrong with that.  Of course they did and now the stupidity and cruelty of these laws is more exposed.[/quote]

The talking point (and court ruling) was that "she wasn't sick enough".... yet.

They prefer to have her go all the way down the road to sepsis, nevermind that it hadn't happened yet, she wasn't septic YET. She only MIGHT die, but the baby MIGHT live a whole hour, so it's worth it![/quote]

+1. A death from T18 is really horrific. If my fetus had this diagnosis, I had reached 20 weeks, I  risk my health and fertility to have the chance to hold, name and baptize my baby before it died. To get that hour or two to meet my child.  But I would hope that I would be strong enough to not bring a child into this world so they can have a short, incredibly painful life and suffocate to death. Because that’s what parenting is.  It’s putting your wants and needs behind those of your children. And I would hope I was strong enough not to make my child to suffer that way for my wants and needs.

I bet  Ken Paxton and many of the R gouls have living wills that specify life sustaining care be withdrawn in homeless cases because they would not want to live and die the way the are forcing this baby to live and die. I bet none of them are volunteering to have pain meds withdrawn and medically induced comas reversed so that they can be woken up and be full conscious for the sole purpose of fully experiencing an agonizing death. Why would we do this to a newborn?

If Kate Cox proceeded with her pregnancy, once her child was born, we allow parents to refuse life sustaining care in hopeless situations. And we would condemn her if she put a child on life support just to delay their inevitable death.  Because it’s futile and cruel.

We allow adults to draw up documents and sign DNRs and respect that they do not want to live in pain with terminal conditions.  So why are we requiring women to serve as life support machines for fetuses with terminal diagnoses?   Not healthy babies temporarily dependent on their mom. Babies that are unlikely to reach or survive childbirth and, if the do, will died shortly thereafter.  I mean, we have the “parental rights” to demand we not say gay in schools and ban library books, but not to decide that we love our unborn children enough to spare them a painful death they cannot understand.

We don’t preserve life at all costs for terminally ill children or adults. We recognize this as a personal (and legally protected) decision that adults make for themselves. And tragically, some parents must make for their kids.. Why is the standard different for a terminally ill fetus?  And why is the “pro life” brigade so insistent that the child must remain on mommy life support and be born at term just to suffer a swift and agonizing death?  Ken Paxton and the State of TX  is saying that if this baby makes it to term, mom can then withhold care and watch her child suffocate. But not until then.

It’s unbelievably cruel— for the baby and the parents. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics