Redux: Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"

[Bells]

Dead people stand outside triage models ... as opposed to living people.
Its only by your use of political language that you decree its simply a moral issue of one person who happens to have practically zero chances of recovery as opposed to including another person who has a very real (inasmuch as Ewa Wisnierska had a very real ...) chance of survival.



On the contrary, loaded questions aren't honest, period.

IOW the way you pose the question is open to scenarios which leave it open to both yes and no responses.

it could be forgivable as something innocent if you did it once or twice ... but when you do it repeatedly (while simultaneously failing to address criticisms of your questions for being loaded) it tends to be interpreted as a form of intellectual dishonesty.

In other words, you don't want to look like an ass for thinking using the body of a dead woman as an incubator without consent is acceptable.

---

And that would be? Quite honestly I'm an advocate for compulsory organ donation if you end up as a beating heart cadaver, frankly if you die and any organs you have are consider viable for donation they should be taken, it seem wrong to me to allow people to forbid their organs when they aren't using them anymore.

Arguing for a 'potential' person adds the dangers that would see lives changed drastically.

Think of the many many religious conservatives who believe masturbation is illegal because it is allowing a potential person to be lost..

While you may be an advocate for compulsory organ donation, we aren't talking about that, unless of course your argument is that a woman is only good for her womb and the State's use of it? Because notice the hospital or the State is not salivating over her heart or lungs, kidneys or corneas or liver. No, they are salivating over her uterus because apparently that is what defined her. Not her wishes to not be kept on life support for heaven knows how long, not her husband's or parents wishes to allow her to die with dignity as she wished, not who she was as a person when she lived. No, what defines her is her uterus and the State has taken ownership of it and are using her dead body without consent.

See, most people I know who have an ounce of sense find that creepy and just simply wrong.

And as I've state before repeatedly now I/m well aware of that and is for a court of law to see if the family can get Marlise terminated on that legal technicality, as well as any medical bills waved.

Brain dead, even by Texas law, is "dead".

So?

So indeed.

legal disputes happen, nothing can stop that. Sueing the hospital and winning might help prevent this dispute from happening again

And if they lose, then it will only keep maintaining the rule that a woman is only as good as her womb.

Do you have proof the health insurer is being charged?

Assuming you are an American, I want you to look at your policy and see if your insurer will continue to cover your medical costs when you are dead.

Does that change ethics?

See, normal people who have a brain and can think would tell you that using the body of a woman without consent when she is dead, because the State and a hospital wholly unconnected to the woman has decided to use her womb without consent, is unethical.

But I could be wrong, because there are some people who have no sense of 'ethics' or what constitutes right and wrong and have to ask questions repeatedly because they just don't understand that defining a woman by her fucking uterus and keeping her dead body alive artificially so they can use her uterus without consent is pretty fucked up. But that's just me.:shrug:

 

[Asguard]

How about for the care of the foetus if it survives?

Interesting, why should the state foot the bill for the baby? If a women makes the unilateral decision to have a child then the father is required to pay for it and you would be the first to call him a dead beat if he didn't.

 

[lightgigantic]

In other words, you don't want to look like an ass for thinking using the body of a dead woman as an incubator without consent is acceptable.

---

On the contrary, hijacking one's intelligence to repeatedly ask loaded questions makes one look like an ass, period.

:shrug:

 

[Bells]

Interesting, why should the state foot the bill for the baby? If a women makes the unilateral decision to have a child then the father is required to pay for it and you would be the first to call him a dead beat if he didn't.

Well lets see, the State has demanded that she be used for her womb to grow a baby because they have refused to adhere to her wishes nor that of her next of kin, to let her die with dignity. Should the State foot the bill of the medical care of the foetus when it is born because they have forced the issue and forced it to be born that way?

Will the family's insurance cover the baby's care, seeing the circumstances and the inevitability that it would be born with severe problems because the dead mother was, well, dead for so long before she was found? Would insurance see the mother's death and the subsequent medical conditions of the foetus or the "child" as a pre-existing condition?

---

On the contrary, hijacking one's intelligence to repeatedly ask loaded questions makes one look like an ass, period.

Not my place to word things so you don't look like an ass.

You think keeping her alive against her wishes and without consent of her next of kin in a macabre experiment to grow a foetus is acceptable, because as you see it, since she is dead, then she has no rights and the rights of the possible person in her womb triumphs her now dead rights. In short, pro-lifer's like you have managed to find a way into a dead woman's womb and taken ownership of it. Which further reiterates the point that this thread was designed to show how many see women.

What would Marlise Munoz have made of all of this?

We'll never know. She can no longer form words. Can no longer form thoughts. It's arguable that we shouldn't even be referring to a "she", to a "her", because if she's brain-dead, as her family has consistently said, then she meets the legal criteria for death in all 50 US states, and what's been tethered to machines in a hospital in Fort Worth, Texas, for the past seven weeks isn't exactly a mother. It's an artificially maintained ecosystem, an incubator for a foetus that has somehow been given precedence over all other concerns: the pain of Marlise's husband and parents; their wishes to put an end to this; their best guess about what her desires would have been; her transformation, without any possibility of her consent, into a mere vessel.


​

See LG, when you say "Its only by your use of political language that you decree its simply a moral issue of one person who happens to have practically zero chances of recovery as opposed to including another person who has a very real (inasmuch as Ewa Wisnierska had a very real ...) chance of survival.", this is the reality of such belief systems.

Your discomfort at my political language is ironic, considering it is politics and the hospital's political views which has seen a dead woman being artificially kept alive as an incubator for a foetus without consent. And it is the law, driven by the politics of the religious rights which is conferring the status of incubator, be it dead or alive, on women, even without their consent.

Look at Asguard's argument about who should pay for the foetus' medical bills if it manages to survive? Look at his attitude about women in general. The sneering disdain and the frank issues he has with women and women's rights. It merely mirrors that of the politics of the religious rights. And so does yours. The rights of what you deem to be a person, even from the moment of conception, should trump the rights of the dead vessel carrying it, so much so that allowing the mother and her next of kin, her wishes to die with dignity when 14 weeks pregnant and not be kept artificially alive and her body used without consent does not even enter your mind as being even somewhat wrong or discomforting. When the State passes laws that deems women to be mere incubators and people agree with such laws, then the language surrounding it will always be political, because you are simply incapable of considering the woman outside of her role as an incubator if she is pregnant. All that matters above all else is the foetus she is carrying. Her rights, even her own rights over her corpse and the rights of her husband and her parents over her corpse falls to the wayside. Women are mere incubators and vessels. The language is political because women want to be considered as being more than that and Marlise Munoz's grieving husband and parents saw her as more than an incubator. What a shame the State does not.

 

[billvon]

You think keeping her alive against her wishes and without consent of her next of kin in a macabre experiment to grow a foetus is acceptable, because as you see it, since she is dead, then she has no rights and the rights of the possible person in her womb triumphs her now dead rights.

If you read sentences like that before you post them, you won't look so dumb.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Arguing for a 'potential' person adds the dangers that would see lives changed drastically.

Think of the many many religious conservatives who believe masturbation is illegal because it is allowing a potential person to be lost..

I think you missed the idea of degrees, there are degree to potential people, just like when you go on about viability, if a fetus suddenly becomes a person when it is viable than 3rd trimester abortions would be immoral. Semen is far less of a potential person then a embryo and less then a fetus, etc, etc. Also again this is an issue of a dead persons rights, not about inhibiting freedom of living people.

While you may be an advocate for compulsory organ donation, we aren't talking about that, unless of course your argument is that a woman is only good for her womb and the State's use of it?

When she DEAD, sure why not? Of course all her organs are of use, her womb is only useful if there a fetus in it though.

Because notice the hospital or the State is not salivating over her heart or lungs, kidneys or corneas or liver. No, they are salivating over her uterus because apparently that is what defined her. Not her wishes to not be kept on life support for heaven knows how long, not her husband's or parents wishes to allow her to die with dignity as she wished, not who she was as a person when she lived. No, what defines her is her uterus and the State has taken ownership of it and are using her dead body without consent.

No it what inside her uterus that is the cause of this issue... I notice you can't even say fetus anymore, this is all about "her" womb, seriously, just like a pro-life with your semantic twisting.

Oh question: what is dying with dignity, I mean she already dead, right? So how can she "die with dignity" would she not need to die again or something?

See, most people I know who have an ounce of sense find that creepy and just simply wrong.

OOOhh scathing.

Brain dead, even by Texas law, is "dead".

Yes, but if you haven't notice the prolifers have been fighting brain-dead as the legal defintion for a few years now, and got all lawyered up on this, court of law is going to have to reveiw this.

So indeed.

Your not much for explainations?, perfer to remain splenetic and sulky I see.

And if they lose, then it will only keep maintaining the rule that a woman is only as good as her womb.

Yeah for dead pregnant women, living women (pregnant or not) will still have full rights as people, and frankly dead people don't have many rights anyways, be them men or women. Honestly where is the slippery slope to female enslavement here?

Assuming you are an American, I want you to look at your policy and see if your insurer will continue to cover your medical costs when you are dead.

That really does not answer my question.

See, normal people who have a brain and can think would tell you that using the body of a woman without consent when she is dead, because the State and a hospital wholly unconnected to the woman has decided to use her womb without consent, is unethical.

Yeah when you say it like that, but that just inverse pro-lifer speak for "She died but we can save the life inside her, but those evil pro-deathers want th kill her baby" Yeah I'm sure lots of normal people would side with that as well. Cuddos on the insulting my normality and/or inteligence.

But I could be wrong, because there are some people who have no sense of 'ethics' or what constitutes right and wrong and have to ask questions repeatedly because they just don't understand that defining a woman by her fucking uterus and keeping her dead body alive artificially so they can use her uterus without consent is pretty fucked up. But that's just me.:shrug:

Again with the emotional pleading, what in her womb, in her uterus that people would bend laws to try to bring to term? Your completely twisting the reality in highly bias sematics, just like a pro-lifer. Women are not being defined here, dead pregnant women are, but not living women, this is not an issue of women's rights being striped! Honestly if your going to term it like that than either her husband or the state now owns her 'fucking uterus', so now a women is literally property of someone else, so it is absolutely retarded that you twist this as women's right issue. Ethically this is the issue of a dead person verse a potential person. Legaly this is the case deciding if Marlise is dead, therefor the right of husband to terminate or not dead-ish enough and therefor can be kept alive until the fetus is brough to term via some dickish pro-life law. Honestly I just want to see what happens, and want to just ignore yours and the pro-lifers irrational, hatefilled, flemmy yelling.

 

[Bells]

If you read sentences like that before you post them, you won't look so dumb.

The irony is that you are so defensive of the pro-life position but you find the realities of what is actually happening to be distasteful and any mention of what the State and a hospital is doing to the corpse of a dead woman is "dumb" in your opinion.

 

[lightgigantic]

Not my place to word things so you don't look like an ass.

It is however your place to word things so you don't sound like an ass ... like, maybe, perhaps, not limiting your discussion techniques from asking loaded questions to making accusations against the arguments you falsely attribute to people (or even accusations *against the people themselves*) ... and then moving back to the same loaded questions.

You ply one inaccurate piece of information on top of another and never *once* do you see this as an opportunity to rectify the mistakes in the information you put forward, but instead see this as an opportunity to go forward even more head strong like the radical fanatic you are.

:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

If you read sentences like that before you post them, you won't look so dumb.

dumb *ass*, actually

 

[Bells]

I think you missed the idea of degrees, there are degree to potential people, just like when you go on about viability, if a fetus suddenly becomes a person when it is viable than 3rd trimester abortions would be immoral. Semen is far less of a potential person then a embryo and less then a fetus, etc, etc. Also again this is an issue of a dead persons rights, not about inhibiting freedom of living people.



When she DEAD, sure why not? Of course all her organs are of use, her womb is only useful if there a fetus in it though.



No it what inside her uterus that is the cause of this issue... I notice you can't even say fetus anymore, this is all about "her" womb, seriously, just like a pro-life with your semantic twisting.


OOOhh scathing.



Yes, but if you haven't notice the prolifers have been fighting brain-dead as the legal defintion for a few years now, and got all lawyered up on this, court of law is going to have to reveiw this.



Your not much for explainiations, perfer to remain splenetic and sulky I see.



Yeah for dead pregnant women, living women (pregnant or not) will still have full rights as people, and frankly dead people don't have many rights anyways, be them men or women. Honestly where is the slippery slope to female enslavement here?



That really does not answer my question.



Yeah when you say it like that, but that just inverse pro-lifer speak for "She died but we can save the life inside her, but those evil pro-deathers want th kill her baby" Yeah I'm sure lots of normal people would side with that as well. Cuddos on the insulting my normality and/or inteligence.



Again with the emotional pleading, what in her womb, in her uterus that people would bend laws to try to bring to term? Your completely twisting the reality in highly bias sematics, just like a pro-lifer. Women are not being defined here, dead pregnant women are, but not living women, this is not an issue of women's rights being striped! Honestly if your going to term it like that than either her husband or the state now owns her 'fucking uterus', so now a women is literally property of someone else, so it is absolutely retarded that you twist this as women's right issue. Ethically this is the issue of a dead person verse a potential person. Legaly this is the case deciding if Marlise is dead, therefor the right of husband to terminate or not dead-ish enough and therefor can be kept alive until the fetus is brough to term via some dickish pro-life law. Honestly I just want to see what happens, and want to just ignore yours and the pro-lifers irrational, hatefilled, flemmy yelling.

Prime example of when pro-lifers feel insulted when their actual stance becomes reality.

Thank you Fetus, for making my example for me.

 

[lightgigantic]

The irony is that you are so defensive of the pro-life position but you find the realities of what is actually happening to be distasteful and any mention of what the State and a hospital is doing to the corpse of a dead woman is "dumb" in your opinion.

its simply your inability to actually *discuss* things outside of models of inferior argument (loaded questions, information assimilation issues, etc) that people are finding *dumb*.
:shrug:

 

[ElectricFetus]

Prime example of when pro-lifers feel insulted when their actual stance becomes reality.

Thank you Fetus, for making my example for me.

I'll consider that vague and inconsequential statement your leaving of this argument. If you don't want to argue ethics or any kind of valid arguments at all and just remain around the bottom of Graham's hierarchy, there nothing I can do about it.

 

[Bells]

I'll consider that vague and inconsequential statement your leaving of this argument. If you don't want to argue ethics or any kind of valid arguments at all and just remain around the bottom of Graham's hierarchy, there nothing I can do about it.

It is difficult to argue the ethics of this debate with someone who would only value their spouse as a breeder.

As I said, you made the point for me. That to some of you, a woman is merely that, a breeder. Her personhood, her wishes, her wants, her history, who she is or was as a person, her personhood, her right to respect and recognition for her person and her rights and her rights to have her body not be desecrated and defiled and kept alive against her direct wishes and that of her next of kin matters not. Because to some of you, she is and always will be a breeder and whatever rights she may have had before that point of conception goes out the window and she becomes a mere breeder. And if keeping her corpse artificially ventilated to grow a foetus in it, then so be it.

That is what women are good for. Breeding.

So thank you.

 

[Asguard]

Well lets see, the State has demanded that she be used for her womb to grow a baby because they have refused to adhere to her wishes nor that of her next of kin, to let her die with dignity. Should the State foot the bill of the medical care of the foetus when it is born because they have forced the issue and forced it to be born that way?

Will the family's insurance cover the baby's care, seeing the circumstances and the inevitability that it would be born with severe problems because the dead mother was, well, dead for so long before she was found? Would insurance see the mother's death and the subsequent medical conditions of the foetus or the "child" as a pre-existing condition?

Do you actually have evidence of that and should a fathers insurance refuse to pay for a child with cerebral palsy (for example) if the father tells a women that the child should be aborted and she refuses? when does a partner have ANY say over whether a child should be born or any say over paying for it?

 

[Capracus]

Fetus of Texas woman on life support 'distinctly abnormal,' family lawyers say

Even at this early stage, the lower extremities are deformed to the extent the gender cannot be determined,” the statement says.

In addition the statement says the fetus as swelling of the brain — “hydrocephalus” — as well as possible heart problem.

“Quite sadly, this information is not surprising due to the fact that the fetus, after being deprived of oxygen for an indeterminate length of time, is gestating within a dead and deteriorating body, as a horrified family looks on in absolute anguish, distress and sadness,” the statement from Munoz's lawyers Heather King and Jessica Janicek read.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...t-distinctly-abnormal-family-lawyers-say?lite

Another prime candidate for Texas personhood.

 

[Bells]

After weeks of emotional national debate, the evidence in the case of a husband seeking to remove his pregnant wife from life support will be explored at a hearing Friday.

Two issues need to be decided, said Alex Wilson Albright, senior lecturer at the University of Texas School of Law.

“There’s the fact issue: Is she dead? And then there’s a legal issue: If she’s dead, what does Texas law require the hospital to do?”

---

At the hearing before state District Judge R.H. Wallace, witnesses could testify and documentation be introduced.

---

His attorneys sent an email Wednesday with information about the condition of the fetus.

“Although we believe it has no legal relevance to the pending litigation, we believe just as strongly that there be absolutely no misconception about the condition of the fetus or the status of Marlise Muñoz’s deceased body,” Heather King and Jessica Janicek wrote.

“According to the medical records we have been provided, the fetus is distinctly abnormal. Even at this early stage, the lower extremities are deformed to the extent that the gender cannot be determined. The fetus suffers from hydrocephalus. It also appears that there are further abnormalities, including a possible heart problem, that cannot be specifically determined due to the immobile nature of Mrs. Muñoz’s deceased body.

---

Brain-death is pronounced after a series of neurological tests, such as those that determine if the patient has a gag reflex or if their eyes are fixed.

“Those tests should all be in the medical record,” Winslade said.

Marlise Muñoz could be brain-dead, Winslade said, but “the hospital is stalling because they don’t want to make the declaration of death — because then the body would become property of the family.”

If the case is delayed long enough, the fetus, which is about 22 weeks, could become viable. That means it could be delivered before life support is turned off.

After reviewing the evidence, the judge could make an immediate ruling or deliver it later.

“It’s very hard to predict,” Winslade said.

Some judges, he said, would make a ruling on the spot.

“Other judges would hold off and make a ruling when the news media is not around,” he said.

Wallace is a Republican appointed by Gov. Rick Perry in 2010. He was elected without opposition two years later.

​

There are no words to describe what they are doing that that family.

 

[iceaura]

when does a partner have ANY say over whether a child should be born

When they are the ones giving birth to it, of course.

or any say over paying for it?

Everybody in a consensual sexual union has had an equal say in the financial liabilities. The pregnant ones would have of course all say in the management of their bodies - why would that be an issue?

 

[wynn]

But I could be wrong, because there are some people who have no sense of 'ethics' or what constitutes right and wrong and have to ask questions repeatedly because they just don't understand that defining a woman by her fucking uterus and keeping her dead body alive artificially so they can use her uterus without consent is pretty fucked up. But that's just me.

It's tough to be enlightened, innit?

All those stupid, worthless, evil people one has to contend with. Blegh!

 

[Asguard]

When they are the ones giving birth to it, of course. Everybody in a consensual sexual union has had an equal say in the financial liabilities. The pregnant ones would have of course all say in the management of their bodies - why would that be an issue?

So why should the state not the father pay for the child in this case?
If its that far along surly he knew that she was pregnant and if its that far along she had obviously decided she wanted to keep it so why should the state pay for it?

 

[iceaura]

So why should the state not the father pay for the child in this case?

It shouldn't. It should pay civil damages for the abuse of the woman and desecration of her body, also for the damages it has inflicted by abrogating the rights of next of kin, and of course the medical and caretaking cost of any harm it has done the eventual child by its choice of incubator and enforced circumstances of gestation.

And maybe somebody could be criminally prosecuted - using unconsenting people's bodies for other people's "utility" is almost certainly a crime of some kind, even in Confederate (slavery and Jim Crow) State.

If its that far along surly he knew that she was pregnant and if its that far along she had obviously decided she wanted to keep it

14 weeks is still early enough to change one's mind, and dead people don't make those decisions anyway. Their next of kin make them.

All those stupid, worthless, evil people one has to contend with. Blegh!

Stupid is as stupid does, worthlessness is contingent, but using people's bodies for their utility to somebody else, without consent and by coercion, is one of the standard criteria for evil. Without sliding into the characteristic wingnut identification of person with stance, we can observe that advocacy of evil is dubious argument even on a science forum.