Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. Am I the only one who if I was the mother here would want any chance my baby had at life? I am pro-choice to be clear (or at least pro-choice as it used to be, not late term, reasonable limits), but God, if I was that mom I would not care what they did to me to give my baby a chance at survival.

I am confused by the reaction here. I’ve had multiple pregnancies and in any one of them, I would have done almost anything to ensure the survival of the baby.

if I was 35 weeks pregnant sure. But not 9 weeks. Because the baby will be gravely disabled. dead bodies cannot actually gestate healthy babies.

Well, it’s happened before at 16 weeks in the literature. I don’t know if it’s happened earlier. But 35 weeks is a far outlier position. Nobody is keeping anyone alive at 35 weeks. That baby would just be delivered. So you aren’t actually saying anything here.

Sustaining people for months on vents at their own expense (financially, ethically, biologically), against their own wishes, their families wishes, the medical team'a oath of "do no harm" is really effed up. You are a dead person's biological tissue to sustain a fetus against their will.

We have no idea whether this is against her wishes or not.

But let’s explore this. How far are you going to take this position? A woman gets in a car accident at 35 weeks. She cannot survive. Should her body be stabilized enough to deliver the baby by c-section? Or is that using a dead person’s biological tissue against her will, in your view?

What if the car accident happened at 30 weeks? 26? 20? Etc.

Is this always using a dead person’s biological tissue against their will, in your view?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not to mention the fact that the they are trying to hold the family responsible for the medical expenses. If the government is forcing her body to be used as an incubator, why should her family have to pay f or it?

I'd pull the plug myself-this is terrible.

Which is why crazy strangers aren’t allowed to make medical decisions for people they have never even met. And also why hospitals have security guards. Yikes!

What are you going on about. I was talking if it was my family you f@cking moron. Yikes to you who is probably praising the lord at what is happening to this poor woman-meanwhile you are a crap human.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not to mention the fact that the they are trying to hold the family responsible for the medical expenses. If the government is forcing her body to be used as an incubator, why should her family have to pay f or it?

I'd pull the plug myself-this is terrible.

Which is why crazy strangers aren’t allowed to make medical decisions for people they have never even met. And also why hospitals have security guards. Yikes!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another horrific consequence of abortion bans. Plus this poor fetus will not likely survive. This is truly disgusting.

https://apnews.com/article/pregnant-woman-brain-dead-abortion-ban-georgia-a85a5906e5b2c4889525f2300c441745

I am old enough to remember being called hysterical because we said the GOP simply wanted women to be incubators.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not to mention the fact that the they are trying to hold the family responsible for the medical expenses. If the government is forcing her body to be used as an incubator, why should her family have to pay f or it?

I'd pull the plug myself-this is terrible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another horrific consequence of abortion bans. Plus this poor fetus will not likely survive. This is truly disgusting.

https://apnews.com/article/pregnant-woman-brain-dead-abortion-ban-georgia-a85a5906e5b2c4889525f2300c441745

This isn’t about abortion, it is about activist healthcare professionals abusing this poor woman’s body to make a political statement.

And it is gross.

Smith’s family says Emory doctors have told them they are not allowed to stop or remove the devices that are keeping her breathing because state law bans abortion after cardiac activity can be detected — generally around six weeks into pregnancy.

There is no law saying they have to keep this woman’s body alive. This is awful, unethical and public use of women’s bodies to make political points.

None because our country is being run by evil vile supposed "christians".

Well wait a second. No, the law doesn't explicitly state that they must keep the woman's body alive. But the problem is, the law DOES state that they can't cause an abortion once a fetal heart beat is detected. Since stopping life support is absolutely going to result in termination of the fetus, I can understand why they are scared to cease life support for the mother.

Even there is exception for "life of mother" since she is brain dead, you can't legally argue that the fetus is harming her, right?

I think the doctors are right to be concerned that they'd be accused of the crime of ending the life of a fetus. What protections do they have?

Anonymous wrote:So awful. Truly treating her like an incubator, her humanity and her family be damned. I hope they lawyer up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So is the state going to be responsible for that astronomical hospital bill?

The fetus?

The woman's family?

Ultimately it will be a gofundme.

The American Healthcare system everybody!

She was a nurse. Why wouldn't her health insurance company be paying? Her baby would be covered, too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am copying and pasting my post:
If I died when the baby was nine weeks, no. Not a chance. There is no way to bring a healthy baby into the world given those circumstances and bankrupting my family while my body rotted from the inside is an absolute.no.

Maybe if I were 30 weeks.

Adding: it is not extreme at all to not want your body to shut down over 30 plus weeks and incur lifelong and crippling debt.

How on earth is THAT position extreme?

As a practical matter how is she incurring lifelong debt? She will die, and they can’t recover money from a corpse. Why the exaggerated references to lifelong debt and bankruptcy? The taxpayers and hospitals will pay for this, not her family. Georgia isn’t a community property state, which is the more common situation where medical debt before death can attach to the surviving spouse.

Also, comatose women on vents have birthed babies before. It’s a terrible situation but you are being extreme by not at least acknowledging that has happened.

Again, extreme language.

I get that you would not want to do this yourself. But the discussion here on DCUM has been so extremist that I find it baffling.

Every moment this woman is on life support the baby is experiencing medical.trauma that will follow the family and their finances for life.

Comatose women have given birth...not braindead women who were out on life support at NINE WEEKS!!

How specifically is the family going to have financial trauma follow them? If the child survives, are you referring to the cost of raising a child?

How do you know for sure there has not been a case of survival like this before? I do not know for sure one way or another but I did a quick NIH search and found the case below which is 16 weeks, and there are references to others. I don’t understand how you can be so certain. Are you a medical researcher?

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8141338/

The problem here is that every scenario is unique. A medical ethics article published a few years ago referred to 30 such cases, 12 of which resulted in a live birth, and the fact that the older the fetus the better the odds of survival. But ethical considerations go beyond just that. They include medical consent (by the patient if that is known, or surrogate) and how the human body is treated after death.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am copying and pasting my post:
If I died when the baby was nine weeks, no. Not a chance. There is no way to bring a healthy baby into the world given those circumstances and bankrupting my family while my body rotted from the inside is an absolute.no.

Maybe if I were 30 weeks.

Adding: it is not extreme at all to not want your body to shut down over 30 plus weeks and incur lifelong and crippling debt.

How on earth is THAT position extreme?

As a practical matter how is she incurring lifelong debt? She will die, and they can’t recover money from a corpse. Why the exaggerated references to lifelong debt and bankruptcy? The taxpayers and hospitals will pay for this, not her family. Georgia isn’t a community property state, which is the more common situation where medical debt before death can attach to the surviving spouse.

Also, comatose women on vents have birthed babies before. It’s a terrible situation but you are being extreme by not at least acknowledging that has happened.

Again, extreme language.

I get that you would not want to do this yourself. But the discussion here on DCUM has been so extremist that I find it baffling.

Every moment this woman is on life support the baby is experiencing medical.trauma that will follow the family and their finances for life.

Comatose women have given birth...not braindead women who were out on life support at NINE WEEKS!!

How specifically is the family going to have financial trauma follow them? If the child survives, are you referring to the cost of raising a child?

How do you know for sure there has not been a case of survival like this before? I do not know for sure one way or another but I did a quick NIH search and found the case below which is 16 weeks, and there are references to others. I don’t understand how you can be so certain. Are you a medical researcher?

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8141338/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So is the state going to be responsible for that astronomical hospital bill?

The fetus?

The woman's family?

Ultimately it will be a gofundme.

The American Healthcare system everybody!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read this thread and I understand more why DCUM was so utterly shocked and confused that voters across the country did not share DCUMs position on abortion in the 2024 election. You are seen as extremist but you don’t understand that.

Most Americans don’t see a pregnant mother as “biological material.”

Dcum does.

I am sure they lovingly visit the graves of their dear departed biological material and place beautiful flowers in the memory of said biological material.

Engraved on headstone: Here lies our departed biological material.

Yeah, there is a vast gap between DCUM and most Americans on the issue of abortion, and this thread is just an example of that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read this thread and I understand more why DCUM was so utterly shocked and confused that voters across the country did not share DCUMs position on abortion in the 2024 election. You are seen as extremist but you don’t understand that.

Most Americans don’t see a pregnant mother as “biological material.”

Dcum does.

I am sure they lovingly visit the graves of their dear departed biological material and place beautiful flowers in the memory of said biological material.

Engraved on headstone: Here lies our departed biological material.