Current Events > Reminder: Georgia kept a womans corpse on life support to save fetus

(+) Yeah! (+)

This was the hospital, not Georgia itself. Their AG was emphatic that the law did not require this.

With that in mind, hospitals don't want to even chance it. You're seeing similar fights for ectopic pregnancies, which are the exception that everyone is supposed to agree on.

This is so fucked up.

But the real problem is the woke left

why didn't they prevent this!?

Edit: That was sarcasm btw

Starks posted...

This was the hospital, not Georgia itself. Their AG was emphatic that the law did not require this.

I'd still say it's Georgia's fault for implementing a law that could be interpreted in that way. I'm not gonna blame someone who's trying to not break the law.

Make no mistake if they had broken the law those scumbag republicans would gleefully prosecute them to make their base happy and drum up some disgusting support, remember how they tried to go after the doctor who performed the abortion on an 11 year old girl who was raped and had to flee the state of texas because of it? These people are cruel evil bastards who reveal in cruelty for cruelty's sake and their own sadism.

It's one of the most disgusting incidents about that in recent news I've seen

Starks posted...

This was the hospital, not Georgia itself. Their AG was emphatic that the law did not require this.

With that in mind, hospitals don't want to even chance it. You're seeing similar fights for ectopic pregnancies, which are the exception that everyone is supposed to agree on.

yeah the laws are written in such a way that all it takes is a shitheel politician with an axe to grind in an election year...

as for ectopic pregnancies. most of the fuckers dont even know what that is, they hear pregnancy and just run with it. its a major failure that our country empowers dumbasses to pass laws on topics they know fuck all about and have no god damn reason to have an opinion on.

I hate how people fail to realize that aborting a fetus is no different from smashing a rock with a hammer. IIRC, the so-called President overturned Roe vs Wade and I fucking hate him for it (along many other reasons, but I'm trying not to derail this topic).

-Unowninator- posted...

I hate how people fail to realize that aborting a fetus is no different from smashing a rock with a hammer. IIRC, the so-called President overturned Roe vs Wade and I fucking hate him for it (along many other reasons, but I'm trying not to derail this topic).

That's not derailing the topic since that's one of the reasons Georgia did this. Technically it was his appointed judges from his first term but distinction without a difference.

i'm confused, the mother was dead anyway so they saved the child, why is that bad? i must be missing something >_>

Choco posted...

i'm confused, the mother was dead anyway so they saved the child, why is that bad? i must be missing something >_>

Do you really not see anything wrong with keeping a corpse on life support for months?

Sadly, women are essentially brood mares for the state in America.

Choco posted...

i'm confused, the mother was dead anyway so they saved the child, why is that bad? i must be missing something >_>

These people are so needy to project anger that they totally ignore this ratter major side note: actual science and medicine worked. What mother wouldnt want to save her child?

Choco posted...

i'm confused, the mother was dead anyway so they saved the child, why is that bad? i must be missing something >_>

She was 9 weeks pregnant and they turned her into a human incubator for 5 months. The reason they had to preform the C section was because her organs were starting to shut down.

Sonixs posted...

She was 9 weeks pregnant and they turned her into a human incubator for 5 months. The reason they had to preform the C section was because her organs were starting to shut down.

In addition to the hospital ignoring her health concerns until she developed blood clots, which is what killed her. Which already is a problem for black maternal health.

In addition, it's keeping her alive and putting the medical bills on her family to pay, but giving them no say.

And maintaining a pregnancy in a body lacking brain activity is definitely not optimal for fetal development.

So do you care that the child survived and is ok? Just a bottom line question.

CreekCo posted...

So do you care that the child survived and is ok? Just a bottom line question.

Do you care about the mother? It seems like you don't, to die on a hill you really don't need to.

...Did this mother not want the pregnancy or something? Why is this being made into an abortion issue?

The child is alive and well right now yes?

Toonstrack posted...

...Did this mother not want the pregnancy or something? Why is this being made into an abortion issue?

The blood clots could have been removed but the hospital refused to because she was pregnant and removing the blood clots would have harmed the baby.

I am sure she wanted the pregnancy. I am sure she also wanted to be alive. The two were incompatible. The state made that decision for her.

That's why this is an abortion issue.

Toonstrack posted...

...Did this mother not want the pregnancy or something? Why is this being made into an abortion issue?

The child is alive and well right now yes?

Do you not care about the wishes of the family? The family wanted her off care for months, but are now forced to pay medical bills for unwanted procedures due to state law.

Guns_of_Verdun posted...

But the real problem is the woke left

why didn't they prevent this!?

Edit: That was sarcasm btw

And yet a Republican representative in Florida said that very thing, and meant it after she dealt with an ectopic pregnancy.

I assumed this was gonna be about a mother who was around the 22-24 week mark where there are genuine questions about the viability of the fetus, but hearing that they did this from nine weeks pregnant is straight up insanity.
The mother's health always comes first. If they knew any time in that first 10 weeks that she was likely to die (which I'm sure they did) they should have let her die. The pregnancy does not matter at that point imo. That's how it would be handled where I live.

Tyranthraxus posted...

The blood clots could have been removed but the hospital refused to because she was pregnant and removing the blood clots would have harmed the baby.

Did she want them to remove the blood clots and they told her no, or did they tell her the risks and she decided to keep them in the save her baby? That makes all the difference here.

Abortion is not about "maybe this fetus will die if we do this highly risky procedure" abortion is about very deliberately aborting a pregnancy, which there is no evidence this mother wanted. Im still not seeing rhe overlap here. This seems like a tragic, complex occurrence that is being politicized far more than it actually should be.

Some people ITT literally saw Guts being born and sprouted lightbulbs.

*dead body hooked up to life support as her body decayed*

"Yeah, but, who cares as long as the baby is ok? Plus who cares that the family got the bill for it, especially when the hospital is responsible for the woman dying in the first place. I see no problem with a dead woman decaying to serve as an incubator to satisfy our God."

Tmaster148 posted...

Do you not care about the wishes of the family? The family wanted her off care for months, but are now forced to pay medical bills for unwanted procedures due to state law.

I do not think they should have been charged for that at all tho, and that honestly sounds like a lawsuit to charge them for that.

The life of the baby tho? Thats the mothers decision and hers alone.

Toonstrack posted...

The life of the baby tho? Thats the mothers decision and hers alone.

What decision was made by the mother? She died 9 weeks into the pregnancy, because doctors couldn't remove blood clots since it risked the babies life due to the state law.

At no point do we see "mother wanted child born regardless if she dies", we just see "state forces doctor to kill mother for sake of the baby"

CreekCo posted...

These people are so needy to project anger that they totally ignore this ratter major side note: actual science and medicine worked. What mother wouldnt want to save her child?

In fact, why don't we just take the decision away from them entirely!

Surely any real mother would gladly spend six months as a literally decaying broodmare and put their family into inescapable debt for the sake of a fetus they may or may not even know they have!

Yes, that is exactly how stupid your points sound.

I may actually be underselling it.

Toonstrack posted...

The life of the baby tho? Thats the mothers decision and hers alone.

How can a corpse make a decision? You've completely lost the plot here.

Tmaster148 posted...

What decision was made by the mother? She died 9 weeks into the pregnancy, because doctors couldn't remove blood clots since it risked the babies life due to the state law.

Was she aware she was dying and did she want the pregnancy to continue anyways?

She would have been informed of this complication before hand so its highly unlikely she didn't know there was a chance she'd die. Which means her decision would be wether or not to abirt the pregnancy or go through with it to save the baby's life.

Thats the decision.

At no point do we see "mother wanted child born regardless if she dies", we just see "state forces doctor to kill mother for sake of the baby"

What we "see" is a headline. What I'm asking about us the actual facts of the situation. If we don't have those yet, then I'm reserving judgemental until we get them.

A_Good_Boy posted...

How can a corpse make a decision? You've completely lost the plot here.

....im gonna need you to put on your thinking cap for this one my guy.

DrizztLink posted...

Yes, that is exactly how stupid your points sound.

I may actually be underselling it.

Youre not exactly smart enough to where you not answering the simple question went unnoticed. Its not a complicated notion.

Toonstrack posted...

If we don't have those yet, then I'm reserving judgemental until we get them.

It's hilarious that you think that's what you're doing.

Or that you think anybody buys it.

CreekCo posted...

Youre not exactly smart enough to where you not answering the simple question went unnoticed. Its not a complicated notion.

Please don't throw pebbles in your glass hovel, everyone here knows your history.

Toonstrack posted...

....im gonna need you to put on your thinking cap for this one my guy.

I lost it. Explain to me when this lady did that.

Toonstrack posted...

She would have been informed of this complication before hand so its highly unlikely she didn't know there was a chance she'd die. Which means her decision would be wether or not to abirt the pregnancy or go through with it to save the baby's life.

Being informed of complications doesn't mean she had any choice in the matter. Because the whole point is the Doctors couldn't do anything except let the women die due to the state law.

DrizztLink posted...

It's hilarious that you think that's what you're doing.

Or that you think anybody buys it.

You believe me all the time when I'm saying a stance you don't like to hear.

Why switch up now when it's something you find agreeable?

Toonstrack posted...

You believe me all the time when I'm saying a stance you don't like to hear.

Why switch up now when it's something you find agreeable?

I'm gonna need you to borrow that other guy's thinking cap and super glue it on if any post I've made here sounds like I agree with your bullshit.

Toonstrack posted...

You believe me all the time when I'm saying a stance you don't like to hear.

Why switch up now when it's something you find agreeable?

It's really not a mystery why he'd disagree with you on hooking up a corpse and forcing it to give birth. We don't even treat our pets that way.

Tmaster148 posted...

Being informed of complications doesn't mean she had any choice in the matter.

If the hospital denied her that choice, then we are in agreement.

Because the whole point is the Doctors couldn't do anything except let the women die due to the state law.

The doctors "could" do whatever they wanted. A piece of paper isn't stopping them from respecting a mothers wishes. I know if it was my decision, I'd be doing eat she wanted regardless of what the law says or what the consequences may be. You dont actually have to respect corrupt laws.

I've been under major surgery, and had the surgeon tell my parents straight to their face their going to disregard their wishes in order to save my life if it comes to it. Even tho that would put him at legal risk.

If the hospital didn't do that, then yes they are 100% in the wrong.

DrizztLink posted...

I'm gonna need you to borrow that other guy's thinking cap and super glue it on if any post I've made here sounds like I agree with your bullshit.

If you disagree with me and think I'm making a bad point, then why do you not believe its what I'm saying?

A_Good_Boy posted...

It's really not a mystery why he'd disagree with you on hooking up a corpse and forcing it to give birth

I never said I was pro any of that tho. I said I was pro-the mother having a choice to do that to save the baby if that's what she wanted.

Do you find that disagreeable?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Oh see I hadnt read this.

Yeah I'm against all of that. Family should sue.

See? Now that facts are presented i can give a stance and it's one everyone here agrees with.

Was that so hard?

Toonstrack posted...

If you disagree with me and think I'm making a bad point, then why do you not believe its what I'm saying?

Because you're transparent.

Toonstrack posted...

Was that so hard?

Considering how long it took you to notice and abandon the act for a new one?

Apparently.