Brain-dead pregnant woman’s life support can be switched off, Irish court rules

[PizzaSHARK]

Doctors have said her body wouldn't have lasted three more weeks.

But he's speaking hypothetically! Or he will be now.

[Redfingers]

Just gotta string it out....there's still a chance this barely alive nonviable human could possibly live inside this decomposing corpse.

Can't take it off life support....that's abortion....wait, it's just taking someone off of artificial life support.

[Redfingers]

The thing is, there's literally a statute on the books to where the doctors were afraid to take this woman off of life support even though they wanted to, and the family wanted to. And this was brought before a judge who ruled that this statute does not apply in this case.

So you have the doctor, the family, and a judge all in agreement that this woman should be taken off life support.

You also have a judge saying that this statute does not apply in this case. So whatever kind of crazy legislation you're concocting in your head, at the end of the day it has to sit before a judge, and if the judge rules that the statute does not apply via his understanding of that statute, then the statute doesn't apply.

And keep in mind this is a law in Ireland, which is one of the most conservative countries on this issue within western countries. Which means that if you disagree with this decision, you essentially are too extreme for Ireland, which literally allowed a woman to die recently due to pregnancy complications rather than allow her to have an abortion.

[nevermore]

How many men destroyed humanity?



How many men improved it?

Yeah, that's right.

Destroy (absolute) is not the opposite of improve (gradual) so you're presenting a false choice.

Not to mention if we really wanted to go into how many people actually do something to make the world a better place VS how many people are just useless resource-sucking leeches... I have a hunch which way the scales would tip.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, I'd like to add that this whole every life is sacred notion is fairly new and mostly prevalent in developed countries.

If you just go back 100-150 years, people even in Western countries (especially in rural areas) had a lot more children. My great-grandfather had 15(!!) siblings. 5 of those died after birth or as little children. Infant mortality was sky-high.
The parents were probably sad (or maybe a bit relieved since there was one less mouth to feed), but it really didn't matter that much.

This whole aaaaaah cutesie babyyyy SACRED LIFE stuff is a result of the modern era where people usually have 1-3 children and they all stay alive thanks to modern medicine.
In other countries the parents don't even give names to their kids until they reach a certain age because they can't even be bothered (that, and superstition).

[Funkyjunky]

Disgusting or not, there was a chance the fetus could live whereas a corpse has no feelings.

The family has feelings.

IF the baby survived and IF it would have normal brainfunctions it would have feelings. What kind of feelings do you think the kid would have?

"A CHANCE" - Even Ireland doesnt base that kind of decisions on luck. That would be .....

[Poopymonster]

Because we're biased. We give more rights to an animal the cuter it is.

Poison a rat? No issue.

Poison a dog? Issue.

Have you seen a ultrasound? Do they look cute? No, they look a twitching potato, even worse once born, they become noisy. Unless it's to the parents, then it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

[Deleted]

Here's a photo of a fetus at 18 weeks.
It's nasty so don't click the link unless you can handle gross stuff:

want me to go on about what parts have developed and what parts are already functioning propperly?
Also, you are aware you are looking at DISSECTION, its by its very nature distorted from reality, as the gut isn't splayed open in foetuses?.

Also I like how what I said is "demonstrably wrong" even though at this stage most of the internal organs are so severely under-developed they're non-functional. I was born 5 weeks early and had lung problems throughout my childhood because of it, how the f* do you think this... thing would ever stay alive?

Well you are not dead? non functional lungs = death in case you were under the impression the lungs were like the appendix.
As for the demonstrably wrong bits:

thing that doesn't even resemble a human yet,

Your own link resembles a human being.

has no brain activity,

the brain has activity (not function mind) at 12 weeks.

has not developed most of its internal organs and is

your won link showed them, you asserted develop, not function, and the lungs and the heart are functioning, at this point, and in this context functioning is defined as sufficient to sustain itself, which (those) organs can do.

So it IS non-viable, wtf is your point?

it wont die in five minutes after the abortion, it will lie there and struggle to breathe until either it starts haemorrhaging or other internal systems that are not fully developed give out.
Thats what i mean.

[Wells]

The obsession with late term abortion is weird and dishonest.

[Deleted]

No. It isn't. And I have no idea where you got that impression.

Yes, yes it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_death
your heart can beat independently of your brain, however your lungs need brain stem activity, if you have brain stem activity you cannot be declared brain dead in any jurisdiction.
So it is the definition of alive legally as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_death
is the legal standard.
What part of this is hard to understand?
I mean you have said "brain death" before so i assumed you were versed in the concept.

People who are on respirators because they cannot breathe are still living persons.

depending on why, No.

I mean you're trying to declare all fetuses of any stage of development to be "persons", but basing that on a quality that is objectively not characteristic of early-term fetuses, where abortion is currently permitted.

im basing it on the quality that they are people.
im not concerned with their level of brain, lung, or kidney function, nor am i concerned with their "personality".

If your arguments don't apply equally to a 2-week-old embryo and a 9-month-old pre-birth fetus,

They do, apply equally, as the foetus doesn't magically switch species at some point in the foetal stage.
For me the Zygote is just as human and alive and worthy of protection as the 98 year old.
(and any and all points in between, excluding 99+ they have had their lives, forced euthanasia for them.)

You're using "progressive" like it's both a bad word, and applicable here. And neither is true.

Its not a good word either.
and more importantly its not synonymous with nor linked too, egalitarianism.

You can't have an egalitarian society that bans abortions, because banning abortion is inherently an attack on women's rights.

You cant have an egalitarian society that allows abortions as then foetuses don't have the same rights as other people.
also, as long as men don't have assess to abortion, you can have equality still.
Equality is everyone having equal rights, not the rights you deem important equally.

I'm not sure "I'm only destroying women's rights by accident, not on purpose" is really an improvement.

there are two people, who should get precedence?.
is choosing the one that would be more harmed wrong?
as a general rule when choosing between two things either try for as much gain as possible and least harm, and if there is harm compensate the harm.
Like no abortions, but any women pregnant gets extra help from society to cope with this.
You know, the reasonable way to resolve differing interests societally speaking.

So you'd be in favor of forcing private citizens to donate extra organs or tissue to strangers, on the basis of "having empathy" with those strangers, not just the donor?

This is the violinist one again, its stupid.
and the situation is not comparable.

Because that's literally the same exact argument.

except its not in any way shape or form, Consent, direct responsibility, level of harm, and i could go on.

There isn't anything "wrong" with abortion.

Even in the case of a 14 year old girl raped by her father, abortions still kills a human being, its even if you attribute near zero worth to the foetus, Wrong to some degree, no matter how small.

But it isn't "wrong" to have a tooth pulled, either, and trying to moralize about it is ridiculous.

Your tooth isn't a living human being.

- - - Updated - - -

No one was talking about sub humanity. That's all you.

Oh this was not an implicit argument about foetuses not being able to have basic life functions and thus why abortions is cool?
See this is an abortion thread, and i just assumed that was your position.

- - - Updated - - -

Bodily autonomy is a human right, yes. And since a fetus (pre-abortion deadline in the respective country) is not even close to having these rights, autonomy is were it's at buddy. Abortion is an autonomy right.

The only reason there's late term abortions is because of medical emergencies that require it to save either/both lives, or close to that effect.

You cant read can you?.

[Daethz]

Only 18 weeks? I wonder if it has even grown a brain yet.
Yes, she should be allowed to be taken off life support.

Here's one thing to think about, should a woman be tortured for months just to save the life of her unborn child?
Not saying shes actually capable of being tortured, but still.

And if shes completely braindead how is her body even supporting a baby, if I'm not mistaken the brain controls everything.
So wouldn't it be likely the baby die anyway.

[Deleted]

isn't even close to being a person and isn't worthy of the rights that come with it.

you do know taht this standard works just as well for:
Jews, black people, various tribes and armenians.
I could go on but i think you have gotten my point and will now proceed to go into emotional affect as to why my argument was bad instead of actually refuting it.

Personhood is what entitles humans to rights.

being alive and not in utero is what gives them rights.
There is no requirements for personality.

- - - Updated - - -

Only 18 weeks? I wonder if it has even grown a brain yet.

Yes.

Here's one thing to think about, should a woman be tortured for months just to save the life of her unborn child?

She is dead.
Dead people get zero rights in comparisons with non dead people.
also you cant torture dead people, they cant feel pain to start.

Not saying shes actually capable of being tortured, but still.

Then why did you say it?.

And if shes completely braindead how is her body even supporting a baby, if I'm not mistaken the brain controls everything.
So wouldn't it be likely the baby die anyway.

And this is the reason the court gave for allowing it, the foetus wasn't going to make it.
Nobody should argue that you should turn it off in case the foetus was likely to make it to viability.
because she is dead.

[Endus]

Anyway, your views are truly disturbing and vile. IMO.

The constant issue with your argument here is that it's entirely circular and without basis. And inconsistent.

The necessary consequence of your argument is that all miscarriages are homicides, and should be investigated by the police. Every single one. And any woman, having done anything that might have contributed in any way to said miscarriage, would potentially be charged with negligent manslaughter, at the least. Even if she didn't know she was pregnant at the time.

And you have no justification for declaring the fetus to be a human being. You just keep insisting that it is one, on no rational basis whatsoever. And then you act aghast when people dare to call you out on that irrationality.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, yes it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_death
your heart can beat independently of your brain, however your lungs need brain stem activity, if you have brain stem activity you cannot be declared brain dead in any jurisdiction.
So it is the definition of alive legally as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_death
is the legal standard.
What part of this is hard to understand?
I mean you have said "brain death" before so i assumed you were versed in the concept.

You might want to re-read your sources again, because they contradict your claim in every respect. They support my statements, not yours.

im basing it on the quality that they are people.

And yet, you've provided absolutely no reason why we should consider such an undeveloped fetus to be a person in the first place.

Your tooth isn't a living human being.

Neither is a first-term fetus. By definition.

You keep using words incorrectly. Just because you don't like the definition of "human being", that doesn't actually change the definition, or allow you to expand it to cover things that clearly do not fall under that definition.

[Deleted]

im basing it on the quality that they are people.
im not concerned with their level of brain, lung, or kidney function, nor am i concerned with their "personality".

What is your position on parasitic twins?

Your posts makes me wonder if you are consistent in that regard.

[pateuvasiliu]

Destroy (absolute) is not the opposite of improve (gradual) so you're presenting a false choice.

Hitler resulted in the deaths of millions, right? ( let's blame the entirety of WW2 on him ).

Vaccines saved way more over the years.

The harm people did isn't even close to the improvements other people did.

And honestly '' he might be the new Hitler '' is pretty much one in a billion.

[ItachiZaku]

That's messed up. That FAM has to be gutted.

[Deleted]

Hitler resulted in the deaths of millions, right? ( let's blame the entirety of WW2 on him ).

Result is too cheap of a weazle word in that context and its obviously wrong to go the scapegoat approach.

Make it "Hitler commanded and oversaw the death of Millions"

[pateuvasiliu]

Result is too cheap of a weazle word in that context and its obviously wrong to go the scapegoat approach.

Make it "Hitler commanded and oversaw the death of Millions"

I really doubt he knew about every single death. Hitler wasn't omnipotent and there are plenty voices that say he wasn't the head of the ''operation''.

But yes, even saying Hitler is responsible for all of the deaths, there is still much more good done by good people than bad.

[Deleted]

I really doubt he knew about every single death. Hitler wasn't omnipotent and there are plenty voices that say he wasn't the head of the ''operation''.

He was the head just not the brain. Its not nice that you missdub "commanded and oversaw the death of Millions" to "every single death".

But yes, even saying Hitler is responsible for all of the deaths, there is still much more good done by good people than bad

In contrast to Hitler who was a bad person but did mostly good?

[pateuvasiliu]

He was the head just not the brain. Its not nice that you missdub "commanded and oversaw the death of Millions" to "every single death".


In contrast to Hitler who was a bad person but did mostly good?

As in, saying someone might be the new Hitler is way less realistic than saying he'll be a genius that does good.

There's been few people like Hitler compared to the amount of people that made groundbreaking discoveries that helped humanity.

[Deleted]

As in, saying someone might be the new Hitler is way more realistic than saying he'll be a genius that does good.

Hitler was getting understimated by his eviroment but he was in no way or form a genius he got mostly lucky that he catched the French off guard by taking a high risk venture through Belgium.

Germany was fed up with the Treaty of versailles anyway and a Hitler wouldnt have been necessary to just scrap it.
Overall the 2nd World War was a netloss and we have still Mountains of rubbles left by it even if they have a grassy covering today.



Dat genius.