Dead pregnant woman forced to stay on life support, due to TX State law

by adamah 285 Replies latest social current

• 

  Comatose

  It is somehow not that surprising that a bunch of ex-jehovahs witnesses think its okay to tell others what to do in regards to morals, ethics, and their own loved ones lives. Not surprising, but still incredibly annoying.

  If this dead womans own parents and her loving husband think she should be off life support, how the hell do any of you even feel comfortable giving your opinions? Must be due to years of being told everyone else is wrong, and its up to the small minority with morals to uphold the standard.
• 

  Apognophos

  It is somehow not that surprising that a bunch of ex-jehovahs witnesses think its okay to tell others what to do in regards to morals, ethics, and their own loved ones lives. Not surprising, but still incredibly annoying.

  It must be nice not having any strong convictions!
• 

  Violia

  Oh for heavens sake, comatose, we are just having a discussion here. No one is telling the family what to do except the hospital the woman is in. It is a very sad situation.

  There is no reason we can't bring feelings and emotions into the discussion. We are allowed to have them. We are not telling the family what to do, we are expressing our feelings.

  A Judge will have to decide this case b/c if all we needed were laws, then we would only need someone who could READ. Judges interpret the meaning, and implications of the law.

  Another thing, if they do find the baby is doing well, the father and grandparents may feel differently. If the baby survives to birth and is OK, imagine how they might feel then. I can't imagine them not wanting the baby. But if they don't for sure someone will.
• 

  Apognophos

  It's okay, Comatose just forgot that forums are for discussion, and thought for a moment that the outcome of a forum debate is a legally binding order on the subjects of the debate. He comes from Universe #789641, where the government is a forumocracy, so it's understandable.
• 

  adamah

  Apo said-

  It must be nice not having any strong convictions!

  Comatose didn't say that, so that's a straw man.

  The point is, it's nice to offer rational arguments that actually SUPPORT those convictions (conclusions), since that's the entire basis of justified true beliefs. Generally speaking, the degree of conviction should correspond with the evidence; that's part of the basis for saying 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence', since the depth of conviction should be based on the available evidence, and not the reverse, where people allow their conclusions to be formed BEFORE they examine evidence, and influence the evidence they're willing to examine.

  As JT implied, emotional appeals are often not arguments, but attempts to tug on heart-strings by trying to elicit a cognitive-blocking emotional reaction ("but it's a BAY-BEEEEE...."). Fact is, a vulnerability to emotional appeals is a common trait found in ex-JWs, since the WTBTS attracts people INTO the cult based PRIMARILY on emotional appeals (fear, love, etc); it takes active work to identify when an 'appeal to emotion' card is being played, since it's often used with a weak argument to distract one from the illogic being used.

  Violia said- Another thing, if they do find the baby is doing well, the father and grandparents may feel differently. If the baby survives to birth and is OK, imagine how they might feel then.

  And they MAY NOT, and MIGHT NOT. How can you say, when you don't even KNOW them?

  Violia said- I can't imagine them not wanting the baby. But if they don't for sure someone will.

  You're projecting your emotions onto them again, since YOU cannot imagine it. That's an 'appeal to personal ignorance', based on that since YOU cannot imagine it, it's simply NOT possible for anyone ELSE to not want a baby, either.

  And sure, if the infant survives, the State likely will be rightly sued by the father and forced to pay the ENORMOUS bill, not only for legal expenses, but for a lifetime of medical care needed to pay for maintaining a severely cognitively-impaired shell of a body for however long the child manages to survive. The cost will be HUGE, and the State of TX will have no one else to blame but itself, since it assumed the role of God by making a decision that no one BUT the family should've been allowed to make.

  Apo said- It's okay, Comatose just forgot that forums are for discussion, and thought for a moment that the outcome of a forum debate is a legally binding order on the subjects of the debate. He comes from Universe #789641, where the government is a forumocracy, so it's understandable.

  Huh?

  Adam
• 

  Apognophos

  adamah, we're really talking past each other, not at each other (in fact, this seems to happen between a lot of people and you, on this forum). I offered a rational argument for my viewpoint. Comatose then got angry at us for suggesting that the family's wish to take the mother off life support was wrong, so I was simply pointing out sarcastically that forums do not constitute 'telling someone what to do'. Forums are for discussion for the sake of personal expression and information exchange; they are not legally binding judgments, and the parties being discussed will never even see these posts.
• 

  adamah

  Apo said- adamah, we're really talking past each other, not at each other (in fact, this seems to happen between a lot of people and you, on this forum).

  Tone trolling? Any unsolicited suggestions to help me overcome my ignorant reasoning, or work on my tone?

  Apo said- Comatose then got angry at us for suggesting that the family's wish to take the mother off life support was wrong, so I was simply pointing out sarcastically that forums do not constitute 'telling someone what to do'. Forums are for discussion for the sake of personal expression and information exchange; they are not legally binding judgments, and the parties being discussed will never even see these posts.

  OF COURSE Comatose and I didn't mean it LITERALLY, as if JWN members were telling Erick Munoz what to do! That's a straw-man distraction, since OBVIOUSLY the family isn't reading here...

  The BROADER POINT is that Texas STATE LAW in essence means that others who engaged in such 'busy-body' intrusive thinking that violates personal autonomy rights have already decided for the Munoz family 15 years ago, LONG BEFORE this situation came up; the decision was removed from the Munoz family's hands years ago. The legislators in Austin passed a law based on such theologically-driven wish-based 'busy-body' thinking, in essence codifying those sentiments into 199.049.

  Apo said- I offered a rational argument for my viewpoint.

  Yeah, and what was it again?

  In fact, if you'd like to argue the case of the State of Texas, explaining how the best interests of the citizens of the State are served and outweigh the rights of the family to respect personal autonomy, with the State intruding into what should be an intensely private and personal family matter, then be my guest. We haven't seen a discussion of the issue since it went off the rails after degenerating into tired ol' shop-worn emotional appeals (devoid of an argument, AKA flak).

  Adam
• 

  Apognophos

  Any unsolicited suggestions to help me overcome my ignorant reasoning, or work on my tone?

  Your reasoning is not ignorant, and your tone isn't the problem. I'm referring to your habit of not listening to people. No matter what they say, you just post the same information again about Texas law. It's like you think we believe that our suggestions are going to be taken by some lawyer in Texas and used to win a case. We're just spouting opinions here, so I don't know why you keep repeating the same information as if this constitutes having an argument. If you can explain why you're copy-pasting your own posts over and over, I would appreciate it.
  
  The term "tone trolling" seems like a two-edged sword, are you sure you want to go there? I could more easily accuse Comatose of tone trolling for complaining that people like me have differing opinions from the ones bemoaning the situation, or accuse you of it for complaining about people making emotional appeals.

  I offered a rational argument for my viewpoint.

  Yeah, and what was it again?

  My argument was that (a) life begins at conception, and therefore this is a matter of life-and-death, and thus (b) the rights of the fetus to continue living thus trump the rights of the father and family to not have a relative kept on life support when she is already legally dead. The former rights violation is a matter of life-and-death and the latter is a matter of sentiment, therefore the former violation takes priority.
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  Nicely done FHN. You derailed the argument into an unrelated appeal to emotion, the very thing of which you accused me.

  Where did I accuse you of derailing the conversation? And why did you go on, after this comment, with a several paragraph comment, if you are truly indignant? I suggest trying some relaxation techniques, such as breathing exercises, a hunk of dark chocolate, a walk, put on some good music and dance, etc. Works for me when I get worked up. This is a discussion on an internet forum, not a UN policy making conference. To read the emotion you're putting into your comments, one might think you've had a pregnant mate on life support or maybe you have an anxiety disorder or something. Calm down, please. It's easier to take you seriously when you don't sound irate.
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  If this dead womans own parents and her loving husband think she should be off life support, how the hell do any of you even feel comfortable giving your opinions? Must be due to years of being told everyone else is wrong, and its up to the small minority with morals to uphold the standard.

  You forgot to include the living 21 week old fetus here. Why are you bringing morals into this argument? There is a law in Texas, and possibly others of the 50 states, which states that if a woman is pregnant, deceased, but her fetus is not deceased, the rights of the fetus over ride the rights of the deceased woman and probably in this case, the wishes of the spouse and family. Who is discussing morals? This is the law. I'd like to know how many other states and countries have similar laws.