Pregnant Women Lose Civil Rights

[Mertex]

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.

Talk to your party member, Uncensored.....he just accused every Liberal of wanting every pregnancy to end in abortion. Talk about backward and abusive.

 

[Noomi]

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?

Her rights were violated - you think it would be okay for someone to dig up your dead body and drag it around?

 

[Mertex]

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

I can't believe the level of ignorance displayed from those discussing this, especially you, with your ignorant statement. If you really believe what you say, then why do people make wills, if they no longer have rights once they die?

She made her decision while she was alive, and that is upheld by the courts. This incident happened in Texas, where we have Republican leaders who claim they want less government but somehow put themselves (government) into situation where they have no business. Fortunately, saner heads prevailed or that poor man would have found himself with a "vegetable" for a child to raise and take care of, and of course, then Republicans would have insisted that he receive no help (after they caused the problem), because it isn't the government's job to help with the medical expenses they (government) were responsible for creating.

 

[Noomi]

Do you want me to have health insurance? Is that not meddling and controlling the lives of others?

The state has an interest in having a healthy population of workers. The alternative was to implement universal healthcare however the extreme right obstructed that proposal so the Heritage Foundation proposal was implemented instead. That was a rightwing plan that included tax penalties for those who didn't have healthcare.

Workers must be born before being "healthy" producers.

Obamacare is reducing the incidence of abortions.

National Abortion Rate Sees Huge Drop As More Women Are Using Birth Control ThinkProgress

Between 2008 and 2011, the national abortion rate declined by 13 percent, according to a new report from the Guttmacher Institute that will be published in a forthcoming issue of the Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health journal. That puts 2011′s abortion rate at 16.9 abortions per every 1,000 women of reproductive age, the lowest rate recorded since Roe v. Wade legalized the procedure in 1973.

“The decline in abortions coincided with a steep national drop in overall pregnancy and birth rates,” Rachel Jones, the lead author of Guttmacher’s study, explained in a statement accompanying the new report. “Contraceptive use improved during this period, as more women and couples were using highly effective, long-acting reversible contraceptive methods, such as the IUD. Moreover, the recent recession led many women and couples to want to avoid or delay pregnancy and childbearing.”

Personal responsibility in ones personal sex life would even reduce the incidences of those pesky, unwanted babies.

Most of the babies mentioned by the OP seemed to have been wanted.

 

[Mertex]

Men have no place in the reproductive freedom debate.

Bullshit, you fucking fascist.

You're a nasty person who resorts to insults due to your inadequacy in debating and shouldn't even be discussing this....surely you would not be a good candidate to be given any say so in any reproductive freedom debate.

 

[Mertex]

“I want to know why you can't be happy to be free to live your life as you choose. You want and need to take that freedom from everyone else and force everyone to live the way you do.”

Because as is common to most authoritarian conservatives they're afraid of diversity, dissent, and expressions of individual liberty. Most on the right feel the need to compel conformity to justify rightist dogma, where dissent undermines that dogma, which can't be tolerated.

Harry, the translator ring for this one

Steph....most of us on this forum understand what he is saying. You claim you want less government yet Republicans want "government" ruling over women's wombs.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Men have no place in the reproductive freedom debate.

Bullshit, you fucking fascist.

You're a nasty person who resorts to insults due to your inadequacy in debating and shouldn't even be discussing this....surely you would not be a good candidate to be given any say so in any reproductive freedom debate.

I'm not the fascist who equates reproductive freedom as a right belonging only to women and rejecting the notion that men have reproductive rights. If you're looking for a nasty person, look no further than Dana7360.

 

[Katzndogz]

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?

Her rights were violated - you think it would be okay for someone to dig up your dead body and drag it around?

It's not a violation of civil rights! Surely you don't believe that the dead have civil rights. You can't be that stupid.

 

[Mertex]

Men have no place in the reproductive freedom debate.

Bullshit, you fucking fascist.

You're a nasty person who resorts to insults due to your inadequacy in debating and shouldn't even be discussing this....surely you would not be a good candidate to be given any say so in any reproductive freedom debate.

I'm not the fascist who equates reproductive freedom as a right belonging only to women and rejecting the notion that men have reproductive rights. If you're looking for a nasty person, look no further than Dana7360.

I"ve not seen her calling anyone names. If you believe men have reproductive rights then argue in that defense, but there is no need for getting nasty. I think men's reproductive rights end where a pregnant women's rights begin, though. I know the military hospitals used to require the husband's signature in order for the woman to have her tubes tied, don't know if that has changed, but I'm not sure that is even a requirement outside of the military. It may not seem fair from the perspective of a man, but then, it doesn't seem fair from the women's perspective to have a man dictate whether or not she should get pregnant or not.

As far as abortions, the state's pretty much have legislation that limits when a woman can get an abortion and for what reasons. My argument is that most Republicans want to do away with the whole process altogether and that cannot be. If a woman's life is at stake, it is her decision to make whether or not she wants to risk her life. I would think most husbands would support that.

 

[Katzndogz]

Men have no place in the reproductive freedom debate.

Bullshit, you fucking fascist.

You're a nasty person who resorts to insults due to your inadequacy in debating and shouldn't even be discussing this....surely you would not be a good candidate to be given any say so in any reproductive freedom debate.

I'm not the fascist who equates reproductive freedom as a right belonging only to women and rejecting the notion that men have reproductive rights. If you're looking for a nasty person, look no further than Dana7360.

Of course men have reproductive rights. A woman cannot stop a man from having a vasectomy no matter how many children she wants. She cannot make him have a vasectomy against his will.

 

[Mertex]

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?

Her rights were violated - you think it would be okay for someone to dig up your dead body and drag it around?

It's not a violation of civil rights! Surely you don't believe that the dead have civil rights. You can't be that stupid.

The dead were not always dead. You seem to not be able to grasp much. If the dead have no rights, why then have wills? Surely that is a simple question which you should be able to answer?

 

[Care4all]

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?

She and her husband were EMTs and knew what paperwork to complete to prevent being put on machines.

She had a written Do Not Resuscitate and written orders to never hook her up to a machine.

The husband tried to prevent it and then later tried to get the machines turned off. The hospital refused and the husband had to go to court to get the machines turned off. Her husband's and her civil rights were violated.

As with all the women in that article. One of the women died.

She wasn't being resuscitated. Her husband just didn't want to be saddled with a baby which is no reason to murder the baby. The civil rights of a dead person can't be violated. It's a matter of law. The dead have no civil rights. So HER civil rights were not violated. The husband's civil rights were not violated since nothing was done to him. The only person that had any civil rights was the baby.

Since Marlise did not have an abortion, it could be presumed that she wanted her baby alive. Keeping her on life support until the baby's birth is the conclusion that the evidence suggests.

Do you have any clue whatsoever as to what it would cost to keep a dead body viable for the remaining 25 weeks until that 14 week fetus reached full term? You are talking about 6 months of ICU hospitalization. Are you prepared to cover those kinds of medical costs which would probably total a couple of million dollars? Do you know any EMT's that make that kind of income? Would forcing the husband into bankruptcy not be a violation of his rights?

Another bogus argument. Hospitals routinely write off uncollectible charges, assuming there was no health insurance to begin with. Inability to pay medical bills is almost never the sole reason for bankruptcy. There is also Medicaid, which merely requires people to pay for some of these costs before the government picks up the tab.

I doubt the DNR order was signed after she became pregnant, so her wishes regarding this particular circumstance are unknown. This is analogous to a will that was executed before having children. Should their interests be ignored just because the will hadn't been updated?

You can doubt all you want and make up excuses for you to be able to condone putting a dead woman on machines to incubate a mostly dead fetus but it still won't make what's happening right.

It doesn't matter when she signed it. What matters is that she did sign it and it was her legal wishes. No one should be able to override her civil rights.

Did you read the article? Did you see where women are being put in jail for having miscarriages? Women now have to defend their freedom just because of a miscarriage. One woman died because she was forced to have a c section she didn't want to have.

And you think that's ok.

men would never tolerate this, if it were being done to them.... they know what is best for us though....

 

[Rikurzhen]

I think men's reproductive rights end where a pregnant women's rights begin, though.

Liz Jones:

Because he wouldn’t give me what I wanted, I decided to steal it from him. I resolved to steal his sperm from him in the middle of the night. I thought it was my right, given that he was living with me and I had bought him many, many M&S ready meals.

The ‘theft’ itself was alarmingly easy to carry out. One night, after sex, I took the used condom and, in the privacy of the bathroom, I did what I had to do. Bingo.​

 

[Rikurzhen]

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?

Her rights were violated - you think it would be okay for someone to dig up your dead body and drag it around?

It's not a violation of civil rights! Surely you don't believe that the dead have civil rights. You can't be that stupid.

The dead were not always dead. You seem to not be able to grasp much. If the dead have no rights, why then have wills? Surely that is a simple question which you should be able to answer?

The sperm of dead men:

The first baby born as a result of sperm taken from an already dead man was successfully delivered in Los Angeles earlier this month. Gaby Vernoff had become pregnant using sperm that had been taken from her husband Bruce, 30 hours after his unexpected death in 1995.​

 

[Mertex]

I think men's reproductive rights end where a pregnant women's rights begin, though.

Liz Jones:

Because he wouldn’t give me what I wanted, I decided to steal it from him. I resolved to steal his sperm from him in the middle of the night. I thought it was my right, given that he was living with me and I had bought him many, many M&S ready meals.

The ‘theft’ itself was alarmingly easy to carry out. One night, after sex, I took the used condom and, in the privacy of the bathroom, I did what I had to do. Bingo.​

Unfortunately there are a lot of people on this earth that have no morals, but I don't see where your link/source disproves any of what I said. We have a law against stealing and yet people steal.....and this is what this woman did. Unfortunately for the guy, it would probably be very hard to prove.

 

[Katzndogz]

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?

Her rights were violated - you think it would be okay for someone to dig up your dead body and drag it around?

It's not a violation of civil rights! Surely you don't believe that the dead have civil rights. You can't be that stupid.

The dead were not always dead. You seem to not be able to grasp much. If the dead have no rights, why then have wills? Surely that is a simple question which you should be able to answer?

The dead have no civil rights. Wills are to protect the property rights of heirs. It's not a right of the deceased. Wills are set aside all the time by contestants.

When was the last time you saw someone who violated the civil rights of a dead person? Like never. The dead have no legal capacity so they cannot even have someone on their behalf enforce their rights.

 

[Mertex]

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?

Her rights were violated - you think it would be okay for someone to dig up your dead body and drag it around?

It's not a violation of civil rights! Surely you don't believe that the dead have civil rights. You can't be that stupid.

The dead were not always dead. You seem to not be able to grasp much. If the dead have no rights, why then have wills? Surely that is a simple question which you should be able to answer?

The sperm of dead men:

The first baby born as a result of sperm taken from an already dead man was successfully delivered in Los Angeles earlier this month. Gaby Vernoff had become pregnant using sperm that had been taken from her husband Bruce, 30 hours after his unexpected death in 1995.​

Okay, this ^^^ sounds really macabre, but I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

 

[Katzndogz]

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?

Her rights were violated - you think it would be okay for someone to dig up your dead body and drag it around?

It's not a violation of civil rights! Surely you don't believe that the dead have civil rights. You can't be that stupid.

The dead were not always dead. You seem to not be able to grasp much. If the dead have no rights, why then have wills? Surely that is a simple question which you should be able to answer?

The sperm of dead men:

The first baby born as a result of sperm taken from an already dead man was successfully delivered in Los Angeles earlier this month. Gaby Vernoff had become pregnant using sperm that had been taken from her husband Bruce, 30 hours after his unexpected death in 1995.​

Notice that the dead man had absolutely no say in the harvesting and use of his sperm. After death the corpse became the property of his wife who could do with it whatever she wanted with it.

 

[Rikurzhen]

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?

Her rights were violated - you think it would be okay for someone to dig up your dead body and drag it around?

It's not a violation of civil rights! Surely you don't believe that the dead have civil rights. You can't be that stupid.

The dead were not always dead. You seem to not be able to grasp much. If the dead have no rights, why then have wills? Surely that is a simple question which you should be able to answer?

The sperm of dead men:

The first baby born as a result of sperm taken from an already dead man was successfully delivered in Los Angeles earlier this month. Gaby Vernoff had become pregnant using sperm that had been taken from her husband Bruce, 30 hours after his unexpected death in 1995.​

Okay, this ^^^ sounds really macabre, but I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

You believe that a dead pregnant woman has a right to an abortion but here is a dead man having his sperm extracted so that he can become a dead father.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Here's the same story from last week:

Stephanie Lucas of Tucson, Arizona turned to crowdfunding site GoFundMe to raise money to extract the sperm from her brain-dead fiancé so she could have his baby. As reported by ABC 15, the man in question, Cameron Robinette, died in a motorcycle accident on Halloween and, to honor the man she had hoped to spend the rest of her life with, Stephanie hopes to be artificially inseminated with Cameron’s sperm to carry on his legacy.
​

Here's another story dealing with Australia's Supreme Court decision from last December:

A WOMAN who wants to use her dead husband's sperm to start the family they dreamt of has won the right to do so in a landmark South Australian court decision.

The Supreme Court says the "determined and courageous" woman is entitled to take possession of, and use, the sperm in IVF treatments to have her late husband's child.
​