Bobby Jindal to women: you're incubators

[GenuineRisk]

http://jezebel.com/awful-law-would-f...ncu-1590466766

And of course, the family will be financially liable for the cost of keeping "the incubator" hooked up to machines.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

http://jezebel.com/awful-law-would-f...ncu-1590466766

And of course, the family will be financially liable for the cost of keeping "the incubator" hooked up to machines.

geez. what a mess. and this from the guy who said they don't need to be the 'party of stupid'. or did he forget he said that? some of his actions in the last year or so would indicate he completely forgot all that.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

geez. what a mess. and this from the guy who said they don't need to be the 'party of stupid'. or did he forget he said that? some of his actions in the last year or so would indicate he completely forgot all that.

So it's that simple huh? I mean - does any addressing of the fact that another human being will die when the life support is removed have any bearing here, or is it "tough sh*t" for the baby?

"Viability" cuts both ways. So if the baby is old enough to have a shot, a decision has to be made.

I don't necessarily support the law. I don't like government overreach. But Jindal is not automatically wrong for trying to save the baby.

Predictably NARAL sticks their nose in even when it's not an elective abortion - because any eroding of the ridiculous concept (that the baby's worth is solely based on how much the parents want the baby) must be avoided.

Again - not fond of the law. What should be done? Do nothing and the baby dies in an age where we could save him/her. Mandating keeping the mother on life support also sucks. Is there an in between course of action, i.e. advising the family of the chances of the baby making it, not disconnecting life support until the family is briefed so they can decide one way or the other, etc..?

[Antitrust32]

When you think republicans and gov't officials can not get any crazier... they go and pass these type of laws.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by joeydb

So it's that simple huh? I mean - does any addressing of the fact that another human being will die when the life support is removed have any bearing here, or is it "tough sh*t" for the baby?

"Viability" cuts both ways. So if the baby is old enough to have a shot, a decision has to be made.

I don't necessarily support the law. I don't like government overreach. But Jindal is not automatically wrong for trying to save the baby.

Predictably NARAL sticks their nose in even when it's not an elective abortion - because any eroding of the ridiculous concept (that the baby's worth is solely based on how much the parents want the baby) must be avoided.

Again - not fond of the law. What should be done? Do nothing and the baby dies in an age where we could save him/her. Mandating keeping the mother on life support also sucks. Is there an in between course of action, i.e. advising the family of the chances of the baby making it, not disconnecting life support until the family is briefed so they can decide one way or the other, etc..?

The government should never be involved or even have the tiniest say in a decision like this. It is strictly up to the family of the brain dead woman.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

So it's that simple huh? I mean - does any addressing of the fact that another human being will die when the life support is removed have any bearing here, or is it "tough sh*t" for the baby?

"Viability" cuts both ways. So if the baby is old enough to have a shot, a decision has to be made.

I don't necessarily support the law. I don't like government overreach. But Jindal is not automatically wrong for trying to save the baby.

Predictably NARAL sticks their nose in even when it's not an elective abortion - because any eroding of the ridiculous concept (that the baby's worth is solely based on how much the parents want the baby) must be avoided.

Again - not fond of the law. What should be done? Do nothing and the baby dies in an age where we could save him/her. Mandating keeping the mother on life support also sucks. Is there an in between course of action, i.e. advising the family of the chances of the baby making it, not disconnecting life support until the family is briefed so they can decide one way or the other, etc..?

brain dead people deteriorate, regardless of the machines they're connected to.
if the woman left orders, they should be followed. barring that, her next of kin has say so.
the texas case was an abomination-trying to legislate having more cases like that is disgusting. the woman in that case suffered oxygen deprivation for a long enough time that she died from it-yet they just KNEW that baby was going to be a-ok. except the fetus wasn't, it was deprived of oxygen as well. it was a frankenstein experiment. there shouldn't be more of them.
the law says 'unless less than 20 weeks pregnant'. viability is 24 weeks, not 20 weeks. and the family of the woman is the one who will be dealing with all the after affects from the states forcing this, regardless of their wishes or the dead womans wishes. that's wrong.
i thought republicans wanted people to be accountable and be able to decide for themselves?

and it's not a 'dead baby'. babies are born. it's a potential human, especially at 20 weeks. and by the way, it's at 20 weeks when most testing is done that detects abnormalities. so, i guess that's too bad on the family as well, if whatever happened to the mother severely affected the baby.
women-don't get pregnant if you think it's at all possible you won't survive the pregnancy. your mom, dad or hubby don't get any say-just big brother!