Law Brain Dead Woman Kept Alive Against Family's Wishes because of Pregnancy

[Only Here for Attachments]

Can someone who is braindead even successfully carry a child to term? Honest question.

 

[Mr Holmes]

Can someone who is braindead even successfully carry a child to term? Honest question.

I guess we're going to find out.

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

I'm pro choice, but in this case I agree with the doctors, as I highly doubt the dying woman would "choose" to take her baby to the grave with her.

100%. I'm pro abortion rights, but for some reason the lefties here think you have to kill absolutely every baby

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

Can someone who is braindead even successfully carry a child to term? Honest question.

Happens every day

 

[GreatSaintGuillotine]

Can someone who is braindead even successfully carry a child to term? Honest question.

With a great amount of risk and difficulty

 

[sickc0d3r]

I love all the virtue signaling posts in here about the "precious life" of the baby, completely ignoring the part of the article that depicts that the baby's health is already compromised to an unknown degree.

"Newkirk said doctors told the family the baby has fluid on the brain and they're not sure how much fluid. They're concerned about his health.

“She’s pregnant with my grandson. But he may be blind, may not be able to walk, may not survive once he’s born,” Newkirk said."

She already has one small Son who still thinks she's just sleeping, and they're gonna deal with that, and all the moral heroes are perfectly fine with saddling this family with a tentatively crippled child, knowing full well they ALSO voted for cuts to social safety nets that would make raising that child easier. This is just a demonstration of power, nothing more. Women are objects, vessels, what happens to them doesn't matter so long as they fulfill their biologically essential role as deemed by this version of the State. It's very clear even in this interpretation of the law, which has an exemption:

"A medical emergency is defined in the law as an event where the abortion was necessary to save a mother's life or 'the substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman."

I'm no Doctor but I'm pretty sure being f*ckin brain dead is a substantial irreversible physical impairment, and yet the Doctors involved cant take the risk of following the Family's wishes, because of the political implications and the constant threat of legal action by those pushing the politics.

Earthen vessels.

F*ckin disgusting.

The state stepping in and forcing a corpse to carry her baby to term is so 2025. Republicans love them some big government these days.

 

[Osculater]

Abortion law forces doctors to keep pregnant brain dead woman alive

"This decision should've been left to us," said the mother of a woman who is pregnant and has been brain dead for over 90 consecutive days.

www.newsweek.com

Georgia's Living Infants Fairness and Equality (LIFE) Act, also known as the "Heartbeat Bill," was passed by state lawmakers mostly on party lines in 2019 and signed by Governor Brian Kemp, in most instances banning abortions after six weeks. It officially went into effect in July 2022 when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, which led to similar laws passed in other states nationwide amid a backlash from pro-abortion advocates.

Adriana Smith, 30, a mother and registered nurse from Atlanta, was almost nine weeks pregnant in early February when it was discovered that she had blood clots in her brain, according to WXIA-TV in Atlanta.

"They gave her some medication, but they didn't do any tests. No CT scan," April Newkirk, Smith's mother, told 11Alive. "If they had done that or kept her overnight, they would have caught it. It could have been prevented."

Adriana Smith, 30, a mother and registered nurse from Atlanta, was almost nine weeks pregnant in early February when it was discovered that she had blood clots in her brain, according to WXIA-TV in Atlanta.

Around that time, Smith reportedly began experiencing intense headaches. After attempting to seek treatment at a local hospital, she was soon released and provided medication. According to her mother, April Newkirk, Smith sought treatment at Northside Hospital but was released after being given medication.

"They gave her some medication, but they didn't do any tests. No CT scan," April Newkirk, Smith's mother, told 11Alive. "If they had done that or kept her overnight, they would have caught it. It could have been prevented."


"They asked me if I would agree to a procedure to relieve the pressure, and I said yes," Newkirk said. "Then they called me back and said they couldn't do it."

Doctors are supposedly waiting until the fetus is at 32 weeks gestation, which is months from now, as Smith is currently 21 weeks pregnant. Doctors have reportedly told her family that under Georgia's heartbeat law, they are legally required to maintain life support until the fetus reaches viability.

Newkirk told WXIA-TV that the decision has caused trauma for their family—both in terms of Smith's condition and the baby's health. Doctors have her that the baby, a male, has an unknown amount of fluid on the brain.

"She's pregnant with my grandson," Newkirk said. "But he may be blind, may not be able to walk, may not survive once he's born."

"This decision should've been left to us. Now we're left wondering what kind of life he'll have—and we're going to be the ones raising him."

"They gave her some medication, but they didn't do any tests. No CT scan," April Newkirk, Smith's mother, told 11Alive. "If they had done that or kept her overnight, they would have caught it. It could have been prevented." It happened to a black woman and I ain't surprised

 

[panamaican]

Then according to the lefties on here, he shouldn't talk about US politics. Or is that only for people they left disagrees with?

He wasn't talking about US politics. He was talking about the availability of adoption families in the US.

 

[jeremyemilio]

The US needs more adoptive families.

There aren't enough.

It's not an answer unless there are enough people coming forward. Let's hope more families start doing so, immediately.

There are plenty of adoptive families for infants. Older children generally come with a lot of trauma, which means they need a loving and stable home in a bad way, but also means that you need to be a very special sort of person or couple to take that on. It seems like this infant will have health issues, though, which makes this a similar situation.

 

[panamaican]

Except for on the shit you care about.

What are you talking about? I'm always pretty clear that less government intervention in personal matters, the better. And whether or not to have a kid is about as personal a matter as there is out there.

 

[panamaican]

Let’s have a poll of people who support late second term abortion. It’s going to be a small number. But also since I haven’t adopted any kids you make a good point. We should abort any kids I don’t like

I don't know what's happened to you in the last 12-18 months but the quality of your sentences and ideas have fallen off a cliff.

We frequently disagreed but you were always more coherent than this recent version of you.

 

[Satanical Eve]

No one cares.

You cared to make this post stating no one cares so you obviously do care

 

[panamaican]

Isn't there all ready a system for that. One is the court system that can make the baby daddy support the child. Then the taxpayers support all kinds support system. The only thing we need to to better is not making baby mommas a job choice. We do need to make birth control easy and cheap for anyone over the age of consent.

Do you hear the contradiction in your position?

If the child's father cannot afford to support the child...what exactly is the remedy there? "Young lady, the child's father will provide you with $2k/month to raise that child. Wait...he doesn't make $2k a month to support the child? Oh, well that's too fucking bad isn't it."

What kind of solution is that? Hence my prior point -- are we willing to step in and pay for the difference if the parents don't make enough money.

So, here's the moral contradiction here -- We don't want to make baby momma a job choice so we will not give baby momma's enough money to provide a good quality of life for those children. But we will make women into baby momma's without giving a fuck if they can actually provide that quality of life on their own.

It is absurd. We don't want to economically reward women for having kids they can't afford. But we will still force women to have kids that they can't afford. And then we will negatively judge those women when they raise their kids in poverty.

My point is always about the callousness of it. If we genuinely care about the kids, we'd do whatever we can to ensure they have life at a certain quality. But that's if we genuinely care, I don't think these people genuinely care. What they care about is punishing women for getting pregnant and that's really about punishing their sex lives.

I always ask this question to test people's seriousness on the "well-being of the child" argument: Should we force men to marry the women they get pregnant and cohabitate until the child is 18? If not, why not?

 

[LeonardoBjj]

Can someone who is braindead even successfully carry a child to term? Honest question.

@Brampton_Boy

 

[panamaican]

You don't have to be willing to personally solve a problem to believe killing someone isn't a viable solution to it. Murder would solve the homeless problem too but most people rightly believe we shouldn't just eradicate them for obvious reasons.

But you have to be willing to be part of the solution that you propose for others. Let me illustrate my point here. Adoption as a solution for parents who want to have an abortion but society says no abortion. Would you oppose simply assigning the newborn to a random family?

Why or why not?

I'll be upfront, I would oppose it. But because I wouldn't want to be randomly assigned a newborn to raise and I don't want to pay to raise someone else's newborn, I'm fine with them having an abortion if they don't think they can raise or pay for that newborn either. That's why I mock the "just put them up for adoption" arguments.

So, given my hypo above - where do you fall on forced assignment of adoptions.

 

[LeonardoBjj]

- This thread really makes me sad. How can you do that to a person? It's like something from my comi-books

 

[panamaican]

Can someone who is braindead even successfully carry a child to term? Honest question.

Without medical intervention? No.

With medical intervention: To a certain point and then they remove the child from the incubator...sorry, mother...and finish the development process in something like a neonatal intensive care unit.

Then the braindead mother is allowed to finally die and the grieving father is gifted another mouth to feed, just this time without his spouse to assist him.

 

[oldshadow]

Do you hear the contradiction in your position?

If the child's father cannot afford to support the child...what exactly is the remedy there? "Young lady, the child's father will provide you with $2k/month to raise that child. Wait...he doesn't make $2k a month to support the child? Oh, well that's too fucking bad isn't it."

What kind of solution is that? Hence my prior point -- are we willing to step in and pay for the difference if the parents don't make enough money.

So, here's the moral contradiction here -- We don't want to make baby momma a job choice so we will not give baby momma's enough money to provide a good quality of life for those children. But we will make women into baby momma's without giving a fuck if they can actually provide that quality of life on their own.

It is absurd. We don't want to economically reward women for having kids they can't afford. But we will still force women to have kids that they can't afford. And then we will negatively judge those women when they raise their kids in poverty.

My point is always about the callousness of it. If we genuinely care about the kids, we'd do whatever we can to ensure they have life at a certain quality. But that's if we genuinely care, I don't think these people genuinely care. What they care about is punishing women for getting pregnant and that's really about punishing their sex lives.

I always ask this question to test people's seriousness on the "well-being of the child" argument: Should we force men to marry the women they get pregnant and cohabitate until the child is 18? If not, why not?

I personally know a single mother that works and gets help including food stamps, medical and daycare that I know of. She gets little or no child support. There is help out there and it needs to be. There also needs to be requirements to receive these and one should be to work .

We can talk about improvements as long as we can also talk about getting rid of fraud.

 

[panamaican]

I personally know a single mother that works and gets help including food stamps, medical and daycare that I know of. She gets little or no child support. There is help out there and it needs to be. There also needs to be requirements to receive these and one should be to work .

Nothing against your anecdotal story because I could tell you a story about a single woman that lives in her car because she doesn't make enough money to pay rent and day care and she still gets help with food stamps, medical and daycare. I doubt you find my anecdote more persuasive than yours.

So, let me return to my thought experiment question: Would you support forcing men to marry and cohabitate with the women that they get pregnant?

 

[Ruke Doufus]

But you have to be willing to be part of the solution that you propose for others. Let me illustrate my point here. Adoption as a solution for parents who want to have an abortion but society says no abortion. Would you oppose simply assigning the newborn to a random family?

Why or why not?

I'll be upfront, I would oppose it. But because I wouldn't want to be randomly assigned a newborn to raise and I don't want to pay to raise someone else's newborn, I'm fine with them having an abortion if they don't think they can raise or pay for that newborn either. That's why I mock the "just put them up for adoption" arguments.

So, given my hypo above - where do you fall on forced assignment of adoptions.

I am willing to be part of the solution I propose though. The solution being that people be held responsible for the lives they create ie) I don't believe I should be able to kill an unwanted baby either. To answer your question directly: no I would not be in favour of being forced to raise someone else's child, but I am in favour of being held responsible for my own children.

So suppose someone has a 6 month old and they decide parenthood just isn't for them. Should they be permitted to kill the child? Why not? Are you allowed to have an opinion on infanticide if you don't want to raise the baby yourself? More importantly, what's the difference between this and abortion aside from the level of development of the baby?

I guess to me when I read arguments like yours it really feels like the assumption is that killing the baby is the best solution and if you can't propose something better then you need to stfu, but really it's crazy to apply that logic to any other "problematic" or unwanted human.