Marlise Munoz Case Shines Light on Dehumanizing ‘Pregnancy Exclusion’ Laws


Read more of our coverage on Marlise Munoz’s case here.

Although “pregnancy exclusion” laws have been on the books for more than two decades, the case of the now 19-week pregnant Marlise Munoz in Texas is bringing attention to the laws in more than 30 states that explicitly establish a separate and unequal status for women. These laws exclude pregnant women from the right given to other people to direct in a living will that life support be stopped, or to authorize a family member to make that decision if they have no living will.

Rather than archaic sexist laws left on the books from earlier times, the pregnancy exclusions are of a recent vintage. They establish that while men are free to determine what will happen to them if they become sick and unable to communicate their health-care wishes, women who may become pregnant are not free to plan the course of their health care, lives, and deaths.

What these pregnancy exclusion laws can do is frighteningly demonstrated by what is happening to Marlise Munoz. According to some news reports, Munoz is dead based on neurological criteria, or “brain dead.” This is not the same as being in a coma or in a persistent vegetative state; she is reportedly legally dead, and has been for weeks. But she was also 14 weeks’ pregnant when she suffered the pulmonary embolism that ended her life. So, against the wishes of her husband Erick and her family, Munoz’s body has been maintained by mechanical support for about five weeks now. The family is very clear that Munoz would not have wanted her body to be used in this way. Marlise and Erick were both paramedics and well aware of what that entails. She leaves behind a one-year-old son.

By relying on a Texas law that states “a person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient,” the hospital has refused to allow Munoz’s husband and her family to make what should be a private decision to remove her body from mechanical support. Apparently this law that clearly applies to life-sustaining treatment of a pregnant woman who is alive is being interpreted to permit actions solely to sustain the life of the fetus. As a result, Munoz’s body will remain a fetal gestator for as long as hospital staff, acting on behalf of the state, chooses. In her case, the physicians say they will decide at 24 weeks (over two months after her death) whether to continue the use of her body to gestate the pregnancy or to cut her body open and perform cesarean surgery. All of this is medically complex and none of it ensures a healthy birth outcome.

It is hard to imagine a more absolute denial of a woman’s personhood than depriving her of the right to decide her own future, and then literally using her body without permission—possibly for weeks or months—as an object for a fetus to grow in. Yet this is exactly what the pregnancy exclusions envision in the 31 states that have passed them. A majority of these laws prohibit life support from being withdrawn from a woman even if she retains some consciousness and is suffering extreme pain. In Texas and many other states, the laws would prohibit doctors from following a woman’s wishes to remove life support even in the earliest stages of pregnancy.

Other state pregnancy exclusions deprive women of decision making if the fetus is “viable.” But these laws are no less offensive to women’s personhood. They all establish a second-class status for women, depriving them of the security and peace of mind given to individuals and families by the ability to plan what will happen to them if they become critically ill, and what will happen to their bodies after they die. And clearly, these laws interfere with the practice of medicine, substituting legislators’ values for what should be decisions made by pregnant patients and their families in consultation with physicians.

In fact, many states with such laws think so little of women that they don’t inform them of pregnancy exclusions in living will materials such as in handbooks and sample forms. Nor, with the exception of Pennsylvania, do these laws explain who will pay the exorbitant medical cost of using women’s bodies. That state has decided it will pay for its unconsented use of women’s bodies. Apparently, in some circles, objections to government-supported health care disappears if the money serves the dual purpose of sustaining fetal life and denying women their rights.

From a policy perspective, the pregnancy exclusions are part of a disturbing strategy to place into law an old idea under a new guise. The old idea is that women—because they have the capacity for pregnancy—may be treated separately and unequally under the law; this is being done under the guise of seeking separate rights for fertilized, eggs, embryos, and fetuses. As a recent study makes clear, laws that establish such separate rights are being used to justify the arrests, prosecutions, and forced medical intervention on pregnant women whether or not they seek to end their pregnancies.

Five states explicitly allow women to express their wishes in their living wills regarding what they would want if they were pregnant. Constitutional law and human rights principles demand that all states ensure that pregnancy is not the basis for depriving women of their fundamental right to make decisions about their lives and deaths.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

  • fiona64

    It’s just like Amanda Marcotte says; pregnancy isn’t something women choose to do, it’s our sole purpose … in the eyes of lawmakers. We’re just EasyBake Ovens.

    • HeilMary1

      Of altar boy cupcakes!

  • Wendy

    Whether you think it’s heroic or not, you can’t force heroism on someone – as an analogy you may think it’s heroic to lose your life saying others from a fire, but you can’t force anyone to undertake this “heroic act”. Just as we don’t know that she would not have changed her mind, we don’t know that she would have either. In the absence of this knowledge, it’s only ethical to go with her last known wishes.

    What you think “most mothers” would do is irrelevant – a person must have control over his/her own body; it’s not for the state to tell him/her what “most others” would do.

  • HeilMary1

    If that fetus was viable, nearly full term, and not severely disabled, your argument would have some validity, but I’ll bet you oppose keeping NON-PREGNANT, NON-WHITE women alive, even if their families are begging to keep them on life-support.

    • lady_black

      I agree, HeilMary. I would feel much differently about this if the incident that ended her life had taken place at 30 weeks gestation instead of 14 weeks. I’ll bet her husband would feel differently if that were the case. But that isn’t the case.

    • Freddy Neat Shee

      Ah! A racial argument! From someone who supports terminating 4x as many blacks as are proportionate to the population! That’s the pot calling the kettle….

      • HeilMary1

        You’re the despicable racist mother- and already born child-killer here! Black women, because of SMALLER pelvic structures, disproportionately suffer deadly obstetric bladder and bowel incontinence from obstructed labor. And motherless infants and children in Africa are far more likely to die because ONLY their mothers would look after them.

  • VeggieTart

    So who is going to pay the cost of this woman’s medical bills? And given that she was without oxygen long enough to cause brain death, her fetus was also without oxygen and will likely be brain-damaged as well.

    Ms. Munoz was 14 weeks pregnant when she died. Is it right to keep a woman tethered to technology against her wishes and the wishes of her family because she’s pregnant? Why should the fetus supersede the woman? And are the same people who care so much about this pregnancy going to care about the motherless child once it is born?

    • HeilMary1

      On Raw Story, Texas Teatard Rep. Louie Gohmert is claiming he entered politics to kick single mothers off government dole.

      • VeggieTart

        I’m not surprised. He manages to spout the meanest, dumbest remarks.

    • Renee Goodwin

      From what has been reported, the hospital is going to follow their normal billing procedures, as in try to get the insurance to pay, and then go after the husband for the rest

  • RonPaul2012

    A 14 week fetus isn’t a baby.

  • Ineedacoffee

    For YOU its heroic
    Not me, Its dehumanizing, disrespectful of the living familys wishes and the womans right to die with dignity
    I do find it akin to making someone like an easy bake oven as essentially they just got a charger plugged in to the batteries

  • Jennifer Starr

    She’s be pregnant? Really? Atrocious grammar aside, true heroism is voluntary, not forced on people–and it’s not ‘heroic’ to treat a dead woman as an incubator for the all-holy fetus. And what on earth gives you, a complete stranger, the utter nerve to think you know this woman’s wishes better than her friends and family? Where the hell do you get off thinking that you know better than the people who knew and loved her? How insulting and pathetic, Courtney–but then again, that’s you all around, isn’t it?

    • Freddy Neat Shee

      And you do? Seriousy? I mean, do you people get a commission for each baby killed?

      • RonPaul2012

        They get a dollar bill in their g-string for each baby killed!

      • Jennifer Starr

        Do you have to make an effort to be a completely clueless moron and all-around wanker or does it just come naturally to you?

        • Freddy Neat Shee

          Thanks for asking: I’ve had The Gift for a few years now, but have ivy recently decided to share it with others. I’ve decided that some people make better decisions when they have all the facts, and i like to add a fresh perspective on things.

          A lot of people aren’t aware of the eugenics origins of abortion research, and i find it fun to expose people the realities their positions things. Which is why I talk about Invisible Sky Gods in religious forums and the Black Holocaust in pro-genocide forums (ooPS, I did it again).

          An added bonus is that most of what I say is true. The rest is just pain silliness.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Actually you haven’t said much that’s particularly original or provocative. You’ve just been spouting half-truths about Sanger and the same old tired old bumper-sticker slogans that we’ve all heard before. Not to mention that pretty much everything you wrote about was wildly off-topic–this article has nothing to do with genocide,. But I don’t think you read the article. I doubt you even know what this case is about. You just decided to come in here and be one big obnoxious boor. And in that you succeeded. I like seeing obnoxious ‘pro-lifers’ like yourself, though–they remind me of why I am no longer part of that group.

          • HeilMary1

            I like to educate looksist mother killers like you about the deadly COMMONPLACE disfigurements of childbirth that prompt you punks into committing adultery, pedophilia, incest, polygamy, divorce, deadbeat daddydom, and WIFE-KILLING. My best friend’s ENTIRE FACE rotted off from daughter-triggered lethal skin cancer. She lost her NOSE, LIPS, PALATES, TONGUE, AN EYE, AN EAR AND FINALLY HER LIFE giving birth to HER OWN OTHER WOMAN!

            You Nazi fetal idolaters commit eugenics after disabled fetuses are born by cutting off all life-supporting aid to them. You Nazi monsters want them born so they will: 1) shred their mothers’ “sinful” lady parts to bits as punishment for MARITAL sex; and 2) so you can savor the disabled children’s suffering as YOU SLOWLY MURDER THEM!

            :”The rest is just pain silliness.”

            Was that a pun or Freudian slip? — because you sure are into inflicting pain on non-white women and children!

      • HeilMary1

        Do you MOTHER KILLERS get a bounty for every unwanted has been brood mare MURDERED by childbirth? Adulterous WIFE KILLER Eric Prince must be your idol: he conspired with their nanny/his mistress to legally kill her off with additional breast cancer-causing pregnancies so they could marry in your pedophile priest cult!

  • Jennifer Starr

    Oh, and Courtney–while we’re at it–would you mind it if we sent Marlise Munoz’s medical bills to you? After all, since you think you know better than her family, you’d be more than willing to pay the bill, wouldn’t you? Just remember, it’s for the baybee….

  • RonPaul2012

    4,000USD a day Courtney.

    And if the baby survives, you are looking at millions in NICU costs, and if it is disabled, tens of millions over the course of it’s life for treatment

    You will cut the Munoz’s a check, won’t you?

    • HeilMary1

      Courtney agrees with Rethugs that the plug should be pulled but cutting off all government aid only to the already born disabled and poor.

    • Freddy Neat Shee

      This is what death panels look like.

      • RonPaul2012

        You left out FEMA camps.

        • Freddy Neat Shee

          Are you an OWS supporter too?

          • RonPaul2012

            Rand Paul 2016 motherfucker.

          • Jennifer Starr

            The curly thing on top of Rand’s head can be VP :)

          • RonPaul2012

            Or a merkin!

          • Freddy Neat Shee

            For once, I actually did not mean offense. I know someone who supports both Ron Paul and OWS. Honestly, I couldn’t understand it. I can think of only one thing that both entities have common.

      • HeilMary1

        The REAL death panels force mother-killing pregnancies on all women so pedophile priests will have unlimited children to molest. The REAL death panels deny life-saving health care to already born low-income NON-RETHUGS like us.

  • tabaqui

    The most absolutely revolting thing i have read lately regarding the war on women. Completely disgusting.

  • colleen2

    There is nothing remotely heroic about this case. The woman is dead, the fetus is doomed and you are a fanatic. Please stop trying to make human reproduction as dangerous for women as warfare and please stop obsessing on human sacrifice. You are free to die in childbirth, you are free to leave instructions that would allow Catholic hospitals to kill you with impunity. Don’t you DARE presume to make those decisions for other women. I believe your faith has made you sick and that, rather than proselytize human sacrifice as a common good you would do well to seek out a good secular therapist.

    • ljean8080

      You’re an atheist.That explains a lot,Colleen.

      • Jennifer Starr

        What explains you, Laura Jean? Inbreeding?

      • RonPaul2012

        Where do you get your morality from? The Bible?

        If so, and if the bible is the last and final word on objective morality, then please explain why genocide, rape, sexual slavery, and slavery are all condoned in your book of objective morals…

        • Freddy Neat Shee

          Ooh! A Bible question! This is *fabulous!*. Ok, so would you please explain where in the New Testament you see any of that? Except to say “do not do this” or “look at these bastards here who do this — time to judge them” ? I mean… I may know nothing about the bible, but I still know more than *that*!

          It does talk about Moloch, though – the idol that people sacrificed their children in a fire to get to be more wealthy. Kinda like what saline solution does to babies that can feel pain. But at least they’re not spotted owls! *That*’s when we’ll get pissed, right, ladies?

          But seriously: +5 for bringing up crap about the bible that even atheists don’t say anymore. Hitchens would be proud. I hope that reincarnation is true, and hitchens comes back as a “mass of cells” in a PP clinic somewhere — multiple times. That’s not dogma — that’s karma!

          • RonPaul2012

            I am glad to have been exposed to this point of view, and appreciate the time you took to express it

          • Freddy Neat Shee

            Ok.. This will be the first and only time I will be serious: Never take someone in a Groucho Marx mask seriously.

          • Jennifer Starr

            You should apologize to Groucho for that mask. I won’t even mention your face.

          • Freddy Neat Shee

            Well, I was considering a Guy Fawkes mask, but nobody seems to know what the Fawkes says.

            And my face! Is a work of art. Maybe one day, when all this is behind us, I’ll show my true face. and don’t worry: I’m not black :-)

          • RonPaul2012

            You should visit live action news and talk about the black genocide there. They will luv u.

          • RonPaul2012

            Oh, and Fawkes is cliche. Marx is a good choice.

          • Jennifer Starr

            You’re also not very witty. But please, do feel free to dress up in a full Fawkes getup and head over to the UK on November the fifth.

          • Freddy Neat Shee

            Well, if I write “Ken Livingston” on it in marker, it could be a political statement, and people will be ok with it. Remember, lefty Looney governments are almost comical in their desire to be suicidal with regards to, well, their very existence. Check out Andy Choudary sometime – they just *love* him in London, and his whole shtick is abut the Islamist Revolution in London, or some similar tripe.

          • HeilMary1

            You pretend atheist “pro-lifers” sure love murdering all non-white, non-Christian, poor and disabled!

          • RonPaul2012

            I am glad to have been exposed to this point of view, and appreciate the time you took to express it

            Seriously. I am saving this quote. It’s awesome-sauce.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Rude alert! Rude alert! An electrical fire has knocked out my voice-recognition unicycle! Many Wurlitzers are missing from my database! Abandon shop! This is not a daffodil! Repeat, this is not a daffodil!

          • Freddy Neat Shee

            I think at this point, aren’t they all being depicted as being made of yarn? I’ve often wondered: why yarn? Then I realize that the story *is* a yarn, and they’re talking about yarn.

          • HeilMary1

            Did you know God/Goddess gave women HUNDREDS of abortifacients, including the miracle wine that Jesus served the Cana bride and her female guests?

            If abortion offended Jesus, why did he whip the money changers instead of the midwife-ABORTIONISTS??

      • cjvg

        Unlike you and your fellow religious faithful, atheist do NOT need the threat of brimstone, eternal hell and suffering to behave like a moral person.

        Yes you are right, this explains a lot about your complete disrespect for those who loved this woman and her whishes

        • ljean8080

          I am pro-life but this,I don’t know.If she was at 7 months that would be 1 thing,but this early.

          • cjvg

            At 7 months a C-section would have been done the moment the woman was declared dead.
            This type of disgusting abuse of a corpse can only occur when the fetus is to young to be viable outside the womb!

          • L-dan

            A friend of mine who works as a postnatal nurse finds this particularly disturbing since it is considered futile and even unethical to attempt to save a fetus that has miscarried so far before viability. Had this woman miscarried, there would be no heroic measures to ‘rescue’ the fetus.

            Because she instead died, the state has decided that they may try the unusual ‘heroic’ measure of using her corpse as a life-saving measure for a very non-viable fetus. This is all sorts of messed up.

            Apparently a miscarriage is a ‘natural’ death that the forced-birthers need not fret about (according to many, many threads regarding the similarity between first term miscarriage and abortion), but the death of the person gestating is not a ‘natural’ death for the fetus and this sort of extreme measure is warranted?

            Makes as little sense as most of their nonsense.

          • RonPaul2012

            Calvin Fuckburger from LAN has weighed in as well, saying that the authors of this piece are ‘hypocritical’ because they justify abortion by claiming that a fetus is essentially braindead, yet they are all up in arms over a braindead woman being used as a mere object! If you’re gonna kill fetuses, and justify it by comparing them to a corpse, then you better not complain when dead women’s bodies are defiled!!

          • L-dan

            Given that no, we don’t justify abortion simply due to fetuses being the equivalent of brain dead, that’s a bit of a strawman. Nor does anyone here compare fetuses to corpses or deny that they are alive. We state that simply being alive is not sufficient condition for any of the rights the forced birthers want to grant the tiniest zygote. There’s a difference.

            We have laws about what you can do with corpses because they were once people and we have this general consensus that people have a right to expect their body to be treated as they wished, provided they expressed those wishes before dying. We don’t allow others to use random corpses to fulfill their necrophiliac desires, not because of some harm to the corpse, but because of that general idea that we have absolute ownership of our own bodies…to the extent that we get to declare what is done with them even when we are dead and can no longer be affected by breaches of our bodily autonomy. We will not take organs that were not specified as being donated prior to death. We will not simply take corpses for other medical and educational use without that being specified before death (leading to a dearth of such materials and a somewhat shady trade in them from other countries with laxer laws or laxer enforcement of such laws).

            Like it or not, we actually do have some pretty stringent cultural ideas and actual laws around the concept of bodily autonomy. Ideas and laws that they want to conveniently make exceptions to only in the case of pregnant people.

          • RonPaul2012

            I used the wrong words but basically he was saying that since we claim that sentience = personhood, and since this woman is no longer sentient, we are hypocrites for whining about what happens to her body after death.

          • L-dan

            And…dead people are no longer persons for many intents and purposes. But they were inarguably persons before demise; a status that a 14 wk old fetus has never achieved. So the analogy has issues right off the bat.

            No reproductive justice advocate anywhere has ever argued that, because the dead are no longer people, we can do whatever we want with them. Turn them into fertilizer! It’s more useful to do that than bury them filled with preservatives. That’s an argument for a totally different area of activism.

            Nor have they argued that we can do whatever we want to fetuses simply because they are not people. Personhood is a part of the equation, sure. The fact that actual people don’t get the same rights they want to give fertilized eggs is another part. The way women’s equality rests upon their ability to chose when and how they want to use their bodies for reproduction is another. The vast complexities of pregnancy and the rights of pregnant people…not the state…to make the decisions required is another.

            It’s false and simplistic to argue that the pro-choice argument is solely that abortion is ok because fetuses aren’t sentient.

            Given that a huge portion of our arguments rest upon the right of bodily autonomy, there is no hypocrisy in declaring that those rights be honored here.

            I mean, if the forced-birther angle is that corpses have no rights, I expect them to advocate that all women who wind up in a vegetative state be maintained as incubators in order to provide gestational hosts without all the pesky contracts and such required for living gestational surrogates. Also mandatory organ donation.

            Bah.

          • RonPaul2012

            Edited for clarity with his actual words. I viewed LAN on my mobile and was loathe to take the step to actually open up the site on my main computer

          • L-dan

            That’s a lot like saying ‘gay people have the same right to get married to someone of the opposite sex that straight people do,’ factually correct and completely missing the point.

            One’s rights to refuse treatment do not end simply because one houses a fetus. One’s rights to travel, to engage in risky sports, to drink coffee, etc. are not dependent upon pregnancy (or at least shouldn’t be). The fact that only women even have that considered as a question isn’t solved by saying “men and women have equal rights…unless there’s a fetus hooked up to one of them– see men have the same rights.”

            Anyone who considers a 14 week fetus the moral equivalent of an adult conjoined twin is delusional about what that fetus actually is.

            But, running with the analogy, I don’t know that the law has ever needed to weigh in on anything like one twin wanting to drink alcohol while the other doesn’t, or wanting to be vegetarian and saying the other to avoid sullying their joined body by eating meat. But there’s a difference between two entities sharing a single body, and two separate entities joined via the placenta. They actually share a body…so keeping the body functioning when one
            twin is dead is *not* the equivalent of keeping a dead body functioning
            simply to support a not-dead body that depends upon it for life support. And, due to the whole shared body thing, should one twin suffer brain death, they would most likely need to be separated from the other right quick to avoid killing them too…sort of the opposite of what we’re seeing here. If the dead twin’s brain/nervous system is the one connected to the digestive tract, for example, they’re likely both going to be dead soon since a functioning heart and lungs won’t solve the problem of a decomposing gut.

            As for the arguments that the corpse is now fair game for use by other entities; again, we actually have laws stating the opposite. If we consider her to be dead, her wishes, and those of her family are the ones to be followed. Not the nonexistent wishes of a non-viable fetus. This has little to do with sanctity of life as a human being, vs. agreements we make as a society regarding who ‘owns’ our bodies in life and death.

            Using his arguments; can we make corpses available for necrophiles to use? After all, shouldn’t the desires of the living outweigh those of the dead? Shouldn’t we mandate organ donation of all usable organs from the dead? After whatever wake the family prefers, shall we mandate that bodies be used for research and educational purposes before final disposal as the family wishes? Think of the benefits to our future doctors in having a wider variety of cadavers to learn from.

          • Freddy Neat Shee

            I applied to be a wet-nurse at a hospital just the other day, and said “hey! Equal rights and stuff!”. They still wouldn’t hire me. Maybe I should get my union involved.

          • RonPaul2012

            Men can lactate too, you know.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_lactation

            Play with your nipples. Preferably, while typing on the internet.

          • Jennifer Starr

            From reading his drivel I would say that he’s probably playing with something and typing one-handed.

          • RonPaul2012

            Yeah. He’s just messing around. Trying to be as offensive as possible.

            Pure uncut troll.

          • Freddy Neat Shee

            FYI: That’s still referred to “milking”. Don’t ask. That which has been seen cannot be unseen.

          • cjvg

            If anatomy is destiny, why do we treat deformities with surgery?
            It is their destiny to die from internal deformities like heart valve defects, irregular placement of internal organs, or live with cleft palate or cranial deformity etc

          • RonPaul2012

            They will just say that neither of those result in the death of an *innocent human being*.

            And that if you have a condition that is 100% fatal, you could not commit infanticide to cure that condition, and since a zygote is a human being/infant, then obviously you cannot take steps to murder it for your own health and wellbeing.

            This is the most current form of the argument that I heard last night:

            “”Suppose you drive a car and cause an accident that injures someone so that they need a kidney immediately to survive. You’re also injured. In a hospital mix up, your kidney is given to the accident victim. They’re put into a medically induced coma for the time being to better allow the body to heal itself. Although it may take a year. the victim is now expected to make a complete recovery.

            Meanwhile, you contracted an infection while hospitalized that
            severely reduces renal function. You’ll need dialysis until your
            remaining kidney can heal. Rather than endure that for the next year, you claim the right to have the other healthy kidney returned – even though the person whom you hit with your car would not survive the operation to remove the organ.

            That’s a reasonable analogy, but it doesn’t favor the pro-choice view.”"

            ———————

            So if you cause a human being to be in need…and they take your body or body parts from you…tough luck, you can’t get it back if the innocent human being will die as a result.

            Or, even if you don’t cause someone to be in need…cuz why punish a baby for the sins of it’s father?

            They just keep coming up with new ways to justify anatomy = destiny. And by comparing a woman who has sex to a dangerous driver.

          • L-dan

            In that scenario, you would be suing the pants off of the hospital for grabbing your kidney without consent because nobody has the right to take your organs for their own use without your consent. Should you die due to this, the hospital would be liable for fucking up so severely. (and I notice that in their little scenario there, you’ll heal up just fine in a year. As opposed to pregnancy with the risk of death and strong risk of significant lifelong health impacts)

            Pregnancy is not this scenario. You are not accidentally donating an organ and asking for it back. The uterus is yours alone and is being used while still attached. It never leaves. The placenta is made of both fetal and maternal tissue and is brand new.

            Pregnancy would be more analogous to them actually hooking the accident victim up to you so that your kidneys can act as dialysis for the other victim while theirs heal (because, for some reason, they can’t use regular dialysis, let’s say). It’s also not as efficient as regular dialysis, so they’re continually connected rather than just hooked up for a few hours every few days as in regular dialysis. This would not be a scenario that would be allowed to continue.

            Your renal function is now negatively impacted. You might lose your job due to the reduced mobility of having someone attached to you, not to mention the health effects of that reduced renal function. You might even die since this scenario allows for a vastly increased chance of infection, not to mention the lowered immunity in general due to the anti-rejection drugs allowing you to remain attached so intimately. Etc.

            You absolutely have the right to refuse that scenario. Nobody in their right mind would think it should be required.

            The fact the fetus in internal and invisible allows people to minimize all of that in a way that having someone plugged into your kidneys would not. Many of the health effects are likewise invisible unless you are close to someone experiencing them.

          • RonPaul2012

            Yes, and they also pretend that the person will have a *guaranteed* recovery with the use of your kidney!!!

            I am reading all of this on secular pro-life and it’s making my head spin. There is a stupid poster there named ChaoticBlu who has just said that 1) only ectopic pregnancies are dangerous 2) if a woman or girl doesn’t want to get pregnant she should abstain from sex, get sterilized or not get raped!!

            yes, not get raped!!

            I told her that since 8 year olds can get pregnant that perhaps they should get a pre-emptive hysterectomy just in case they get raped and end up pregnant! And she responded that the girl would need a psych evaluation…yeah, because to take drastic measures not to suffer a rape pregnancy that people believe you should be FORCED to go through because you are female = really weird and fucked up, but to happily suffer in service of the rapist’s offspring = totally normal.

            Basically, again and again, it would seem that the advice offered by pro-lifers is: don’t be born with a uterus.

          • L-dan

            pretty much.

            I mean, a child in that circumstance should have mental health support for the trauma. But ick.

            It’s much like the whole “teenagers are totes mature enough to carry a pregnancy to term, but not mature enough to decide that they *don’t* want to do so.” Makes no sense.

          • RonPaul2012

            And now she is arguing that women should be forced to carry dead or dying babies to term because they deserve to be treated with ‘dignity’

            I am wasting my time with this ignorant twit.

          • L-dan

            Yep. They’re in full on ‘women are incubators’ mode. I don’t think the dignity of a fetus warrants risking sepsis, or even going through the discomfort and risks of pregnancy and childbirth.

          • RonPaul2012

            Oh, and I forgot to mention, one of the problems with this scenario is HOW it’s framed.

            IF it’s ‘you are hooked up to them’ – the analogy falls apart, because you are just ‘letting them die’….but, to remove the kidney = a *direct* action, which looks more like…MURDER

            And the reason that abortion is framed as MURDER is because removing the embryo requires a DIRECT action, which is often gory, vs. simply unplugging it from your organs. When in reality, it dies because it doesn’t get to continue to use your organs – not because you dismembered it! But, due to the nature of pregnancy, the ONLY way to remove it is often gory etc..so, it looks like ‘murder’ vs. simply ‘unplugging’.

          • L-dan

            So medical abortions are quite alright then? Taking something that simply detaches it from the uterus and ejects it (misoprostol, iirc) for example?

            Now the actual procedure usually used (because it’s more effective and safer) combines this with a cancer treatment drug (methotrexate) that kills the embryo first as it targets fast dividing cells, and then it’s expelled. But you can do it without the methotrexate as well.

            So abortion is fine if you’re just causing contractions of the uterus to detach the embryo?

            I mean seriously…that’s like the Catholic church drawing their stupid lines for ectopic pregnancies where you can’t simply abort the fetus, but must remove the ‘diseased’ Fallopian tube so you can maintain the fiction that you’re not performing an abortion.

            How about if that infection were actually destroying your remaining kidney and killing you? Would it be ok to take your kidney back then, given that it was taken from you without your consent in the first place? Is there *any* realization that taking that kidney in the first place was profoundly wrong to begin with?

          • RonPaul2012

            No, because *only* the woman can ‘nurture’ the growing unborn innocent child – therefore, it’s murder.

            But if you unplug the guy you injured in the car accident it’s ok because he can get help from someone else + he’s a stranger.

            See, what the woman has done, is to put an innocent being in need, an innocent being that ONLY has her to rely on for it’s life…therefore to eject it is murder!

            Two of the analogies that I have heard recently are:

            1) abortion is like dragging a person onto your lawn and then killing them because you don’t want them there

            2) abortion is like forcing a person who can’t swim onto your boat and then throwing them off the boat…

            Of course, they leave out the ‘what if those people start assaulting you’ – aha, but, you ASKED for the assault when you had sex, ok? You KNEW the risks of pregnancy…so stop whining.

            Hey..isn’t it funny how pro-lifers use the same reasoning as rapists once you distil their arguments?

          • L-dan

            If one were purposely trying to get pregnant, those dragging someone onto the lawn arguments might make sense. This is more like you’re having a block party and someone unexpected shows up.

            Now, if you want the whole ‘their life hangs upon your whim’ analogy…they went and ate the shrimp dip that you hadn’t labelled since none of your guests was allergic. But the unexpected guest is. He’s choking and flailing, but the ambulance arrives in time to stave off death…but his kidneys are so damaged that he needs to be hooked up to someone right away (since there’s no dialysis on board). You–passed out because you exhausted yourself running around to find some damn Benadryl–happen to be a perfect match! So they hook you up. And now you’re back in that scenario.

            And no, given the way matching works, you can’t just plug anyone into anyone.

            Most people are trying, via various methods, not to get pregnant. Some methods are less effective, but the pull out method still counts as actively trying not to invite that stranger to walk onto your lawn.

            Seriously. They tie themselves into knots to basically say that not being celibate means that people (almost entirely women) lose their rights to bodily autonomy.

            Given that it’s still an uphill battle to get people to agree that bodily autonomy means that consent is all important with regards to sex…and therefore lack of it equals rape regardless of all those extenuating circumstances they like to throw in, I’m not really surprised.

          • HeilMary1

            Try burglars only invading women’s homes and women shooting them in self defense. The RCC would argue it’s sinful for women to buy and install locks (contraceptives). The RCC would claim women could avoid burglars if they simply lived homeless (abstinence only), thereby not tempting burglars to invade.

          • Ella Warnock

            Why would you be dragging someone onto your lawn or onto your boat? They’ve already lost me right there because it makes zero sense. These silly “analogies” have nothing to do with having non-procreative, consensual sex. I don’t know why I’d be dragging anybody anywhere they didn’t want to go for the purpose of harming them, but I DO know why I enjoy having non-babymaking sex with my husband.

            So, you know . . . uh, WUT?

          • RonPaul2012

            That’s how they frame non-procreative sex, no? It’s something *bad* that has been done…

          • RonPaul2012

            OH, and the zygote is NOT an invader and pregnancy is not at all analogous to assault because the woman’s body READIES itself for the embryo. See, the woman’s body WELCOMES it, and WANTS it there, even.

            Justification #1
            “At worst we could be accused of something like a draft- compulsory service. That’s an illegitimate accusation because in truth we’re just denying the right to kill someone else to ‘cure’ oneself of a medical condition that results from voluntary behavior.

            Slavery is evil not because it compelled labor like a military draft.
            It’s evil because it treated human beings as mere property- which is what prochoice people do who consider prenates to be disposable.”

            Justfication #2

            “”Receptivity changes occur long before that. The womb begins readying itself for a guest as soon as the initial hormone surge following release of an ovum. Once fertilization occurs there are changes- preceding development of the placenta (which I assume is your thinking just about immune response suppression) to create a hospitable uterine environment and cooperate in the implantation process.

            It’s an invited and the bed is made for it in the guestroom.”"

          • L-dan

            Recent research indicates that the cushy tissue being ‘prepared’ for the embryo is pre-emptive self defense against the agressive intrusiveness of the human fetus. So that argument is pretty stupid.

            Hell, it’s pretty stupid anyway since it’s once again saying that because your body *can* reproduce it *must*.

          • L-dan

            With extra creepy sauce for that bed analogy. I mean…for those who don’t want to be pregnant, the takeover of your body is kind of rapey to begin with. To toss in imagery of the made bed…*shudder*

          • RonPaul2012

            Aw, you lose again!

            Potential *must* be fulfilled! In fact, it is wrong to take actions to *prevent* potential from being fulfilled.

            For example…if a boulder is sitting at the top of the hill you are not under any obligation to push it down the hill. HOWEVER, if the boulder is already rolling down the hill, it would be *unethical* to stop it! Especially since you PUSHED it in the first place by having teh sex!

            Oh, and if an embryo is *healthy* you especially cannot stop it from fulfilling it’s potential. I asked how exactly we would know whether or not an embryo is ‘healthy’ but didn’t get an answer yet. Apparently, there exists something called ‘presumptive embryology’ whereby the embryologist can magically tell that the embryo is healthy and will in 100% of cases be born!!!

            BTW, thanks for talking to me about this stuff. These people are pseudo-intellectuals who know just enough about philosophy and biology to confuse the issue. Often they like to pepper their speech with talk of ‘modalities’ and ‘fallacies’ and logical conundrums, then they throw in some advanced sounding biological terms to sound smarter and more knowledgeable than they are.

            I tell my boyfriend, and he’s like ITS BULLSHIT, but I have one big flaw – which is why it took me years to start debating – and it’s that I am easily intimidated by people who put on a big show of how brilliant they are.

          • L-dan

            I know. I swear I’m tempted to take a logic class just to tear apart the bullshit more efficiently. As it is, my single philosophy class was enough to make me aware that all these philosophical constructs, while useful in various ways, cannot survive in their pure forms upon encountering the complexity of the real world. (Philosophy of science…it was pretty nifty).

            You do fine. And you’re more tenacious than I. Depending on my stress level, some days I can dig into the arguments and some days I need to hang out away from them.

            I refuse to even bother on LAN. It’s spitting into the wind and usually even reading the bile there amps my stress levels. It’s really distressing to spend much time looking into the faces of people who think you’re less than fully human in such profound ways.

          • RonPaul2012

            The last time that I studied philosophy and applied ethics was in 1993. I don’t remember a whole lot, but once you become accustomed to that kind of thinking it’s easy to appear to ‘win’ even when you are wrong because you know how to frame your arguments.

            I don’t visit LAN anymore, but I have been visiting Secular Pro-Life which is where most of the shitty arguments are coming from. They have to find reasons to prove that every embryo has a soul without actually saying so. They use words like ‘inherent capacity for rational thought due to being a member of the human species’ and so on. The curious thing is that many of the so called ‘secular’ arguments are in fact written by religious people who have promised to only make logical, non-religious arguments! But the problem is, there biases still creep in! So it’s one big semantics game to find a way to inject a soul and make it sound sciencey!

            It’s really distressing to spend much time looking into the faces of people who think you’re less than fully human in such profound ways.

            Exactly. It raises my blood pressure too. Which is why I come here and complain to you guys about it:P All of the stuff that I have shown you today was extremely distressing, because in the end, it’s the equivalent of rape apologetics. It really is.

            And with the cherry on top ‘we do this because we care about women, moreso than any other group’

          • HeilMary1

            I stopped speaking to my abusive anti-choice family because they treated me as sub-human.

          • Ella Warnock

            I know how you feel, but you don’t come across as easily intimidated!

          • RonPaul2012

            I am intimidated by people who are smugly superior and aggressive in their presentations – even if I *know* that they are wrong.

            The problem is that many people really don’t want to have an honest debate. About *anything*. They just want to talk down to others and appear like the smartest guy in the room.

            The only time that I am really confident is when I am in a bad mood, and that’s when I come here and pepper every post with ‘dumbass’ :P

          • Ella Warnock

            If the woman’s body welcomes and wants it so much, what’s all that morning (and sometimes evening or even all the time) sickness about? Or what is hyperemesis gravidarum doing if not signaling that a woman’s body is doing anything BUT “welcoming” in invader?

            At any rate, the only possible way my uterus would be “welcoming” to a fetus is if I wanted it there in the first place. Otherwise, my attitude is pretty much the same that I’d have about a tapeworm. I don’t care what it’s doing; it’s foreign and unwanted, so just get it out.

          • HeilMary1

            I can never get fetal idolaters to answer why they have no problem with abortifacient coffee, tea and holy wine.

          • L-dan

            yep. They don’t want to face that the end result of saying “women have to gestate and cannot do anything that would endanger that fetus” means that you must severely restrict the lives of women to remove all possible abortifacient substances. And, since you don’t even know you’re pregnant right away, that means that anyone sexually active between menarche and menopause is subject to those restrictions.

            That’s what viewing fetuses as people with greater rights than pregnant people distills down to.

          • RonPaul2012

            Yeah. And they will go to great lengths to deny it.

            I read this today, from the person who compared FGM to abortion – as in, evil men force FGM and abortion on women cuz misogyny!!! (don’t you love how they grasp at any human rights issue and try to apply it to abortion. slavery/disability/check your born privilege)

            “”Far too often, people assume that we want to control sex lives and marginalize women. While I’m sure that’s a motivation for some people, it’s not for most.”"

            ———–

            Ok so, they go to GREAT lengths to prove that every zygote is a person. That to prevent a zygote from reaching it’s potential is the equivalent of giving a lobotomy to a 1 year old.

            That this life is SO precious, that women must risk life and limb to fulfill this potential.

            However…they then promise us that 1) IVF will not be outlawed 2) miscarriages will not be investigated 3) pregnant persons’ privacy will not be infringed upon 4) rape/incest exceptions

            1) IVF: Surely you would agree that innocent human beings are being created and then put in harm’s way if they are never implanted, yes? So why offer an IVF exception? Shouldn’t EVERY embryo that is created be used? And even IF scientists can wittle the number of embryos down, they will ALWAYS have spares that simply cannot be implanted, I would suspect. So if every embryo is precious, and if we are all ultimately responsible to birth every life we create, then clearly IVF is immoral.

            2)3) MIscarriages. If you have sex and put a human being in harm’s way and then kill it, you are guilty of homicide. But uh…you have also put a human being in harm’s way simply by virtue of being pregnant, no? And if we REALLY believe, in our hearts, that every single embryo is an infant, then what possible reason could we have for NOT investigating every miscarriage and working to restrict a woman’s movements to prevent needless deaths? Surely if a woman has teh sex, and then exercises a bit too roughly, and the unborn baby dies, isn’t she guilty of negligence or something along those lines? Pro-lifers like to make excuses and say that ‘well, a miscarriage is just an accident, so punishment need not be meted out’ – BUT, if the woman KNOWS that she is pregnant, and STILL chooses to exercise/smoke/drink then isn’t she guilty of some sort of manslaughter? And no, ignorance is not a defence either. Besides, if we REALLY value human life, we should absolutely monitor pregnant women just as we monitor kids through child services.EDIT: they say that this kind of monitoring would cause more harm than good to society BUT, we are talking about precious HUMAN LIFE here. Who cares??? Shouldn’t we do whatever it takes to save lives????

            4) Rape/incest exceptions. They like to claim that we think we have a ‘gotcha’ on this, but they explain that we don’t because a) a majority of people support rape exceptions, and since they really just want to save more babies, a rape exception is the best way to go about it.It’s progress. b) it would be cruel to force a rape victim to give birth, and hey,the nice pro-lifer just wants the best moral outcome for all. He still thinks that rape embryos are equal in value to non-rape embryos, it’s just that he feels a rape exception can be made because in this case the woman’s right not to suffer outweighs that of the embryo.

            I don’t know about you but, if you really value human life as much as you say you do, and if that life is so important that you would force women to go through dangerous pregnancies, then why offer ANY of the above exceptions?

            That’s because once the egg has been fertilized, the woman is now beholden to that egg and she cannot do anything to stop it from implanting. All that matters is that it is 1) inside her and she can’t do anything about it and 2) that it is born

            Sure sounds like controlling female sexuality to me!!!

          • Ella Warnock

            “Pro-lifers like to make excuses and say that ‘well, a miscarriage is just an accident”

            Or it was gawd’s will, i.e. gawd can kill whoever he wants because he owns us anyway. Like that’s some sort of comfort or a superior, sensible viewpoint.

          • Renee Goodwin

            Quite a few of them argue against the rape/incest exceptions, as in ” the innocent baby shouldn’t die because it’s father was a rapist”
            Grrr

          • colkoch

            As to the last two paragraphs, we have no idea how much the constant interaction between the consciousness and life of the mother with the fetus impacts fetal development. This would be especially true in fetal brain development. Epigenetics indicates it has a lot of impact. In the end we may find out that life begets life and death does not.

          • fiona64

            God, I hate that asshat …

          • Ella Warnock

            Everything he writes is heavy-handed and clumsy. Not a scintilla of grace or wit or self-awareness to be found.

          • cjvg

            Dishonest and non-analogy. the fetus is not alive and has never been alive so no life is “murdered” . The woman was at some point a living breathing human with very clear wishes about what she wants done with her body after death.
            This idiot is denying her all dignity and humanity by claiming she does not even have the right to have her last wishes honored because of a fetus that might possibly at some point achieve the same status as this woman had when she made her whishes clear.
            If he really believes that all human rights and their final whishes stop after death then that is certainly going to throw a big monkey wrench in the field of inheritance law and estate law.
            A last will and testament are the (written) wishes of a dead person. So going along with this nitwits reasoning these wishes can be dismissed as irrelevant if a living person does not agree with them, or is this privilege only reserved for potential lives like a fetus?!

          • Freddy Neat Shee

            To be fair, Calvin does change the rules of Calvinball rather frequently, so it’s kind hard to keep up.

            I find your assertion that a fætus isn’t life rather interesting, though. At what point does a fætus become alive? And what external process is responsible for that phenomenon?

          • HeilMary1

            When fetuses are OUTSIDE of their hosts’ bodies, idiot DEATH PANELIST / MOTHER KILLER / WOMB TRAFFICKER.

          • RonPaul2012

            Some asshats on Alternet are claiming that the ‘baby is just fine’ because ‘a 14 week fetus doesn’t need much oxygen to thrive, therefore, being without oxygen for an hour won’t affect it at all’ and…’it’s heart is still beating, it’s a healthy thriving baby’

            FFS, what world do these people live in.

          • L-dan

            Honestly? It’s hard to say. They don’t use all that much oxygen at that point, and the brain isn’t as complex, etc. We really don’t have much data on what level of oxygen deprivation is too much at 14 weeks, on account of not usually seeing them come to term.

            (from that standpoint, I’m going to be fascinated by what shape this fetus is in whenever they remove it…while still objecting to the fact that they’re getting this data due to such a gross misreading of the relevant law.)

            The fact that the heart is beating means little. Heart cells beat. It’s what they do best. And the hospital isn’t (and really can’t) release information as to whether the fetus is growing normally, if that heartbeat is normal for its age, etc. So those who claim it’s a ‘healthy thriving baby’ are talking out of their ass with no actual data to claim that.

          • Freddy Neat Shee

            They’re like liberals! completely dependent on someone else for their very existence.

          • HeilMary1

            Nazi liar, we libs WORK for a living. You Nazis simply believe we deserve NO WAGES because we should all be short-lived slaves for the billionaire Koch brothers!

          • RonPaul2012

            Thanks for the info. I was wondering about that. Since at that early a stage, it’s not like it has a developed cortex that can be affected…basically just the brainstem and the early beginnings of the cortex…

          • Renee Goodwin

            But I would imagine the template and the cells that eventually would become the rest of the brain would need oxygen and nourishment to survive, human tissues aren’t like a virus that can encapsulate itself and wait for ideal conditions then start growing again

          • Defamate

            Lady Black knows a lot about the subject:P She was talking about how the pregnancy was also doomed to fail because a dead woman’s body can’t shower the fetus with hormones – which are *essential* to it’s development.

          • cjvg

            well then, if that is the case why is every preemie ever born put on oxygen regardless of how early it is born?

          • L-dan

            preemies have really poorly developed lungs. They’re one of the last things to fully develop and are a major reason why viability sits where it does. We don’t have good ways to oxygenate the blood when the lungs are barely more than a bit of tissue paper. The oxygen is to help them get enough now that they’re outside of the womb and no longer operating in a theorized semi-anaesthetized state.

            One of the reasons that it is unclear how much pain a fetus might feel (after the nerves and so forth are in place for that to be a meaningful question), is that the fetus is operating under a diminished amount of oxygen compared to what it’s going to need once out of the womb. Pregnant lungs would need to work much harder to provide full oxygenation to both entities. Given the squishing of skull plates during birth, I really hope that they’re not feeling much until they get a few proper breaths of air. But the research is inconclusive there.

            Additionally, at 14 weeks, it’s still rather tiny and undeveloped, thus not needing much. I doubt there was enough oxygen even for that if she was dead for an hour. The fact that it hasn’t died outright means that there’s likely at least a functioning proto-brain stem. I doubt it’s developing normally. But we don’t get to have the data to actually make a reasonable determination of that.

          • cjvg

            I’m aware that a 14 week fetus does not need much oxygen, however as I pointed out that does not mean it can exist without oxygen.

            I was responding to the assertions that ronpaul2012 had thrown at her on alternet that a 14 week fetus does not need oxygen and will do fine without it.

            My very much simplified (since people who make those arguments are very obviously not in possession of any medical or biological knowledge to speak of) argument to this assertion was that regardless of how early a preemie is, it will be supplied with oxygen so it will not suffocate.

            I could also point out that the woman’s body supplies the placenta with oxygen rich blood and removes the non oxygenated blood out of the placenta. However that might be to advanced and most likely these nitwits would argue that that does not prove the fetus requires oxygen

          • Renee Goodwin

            I have also seen idiots claiming that fetuses will survive because they get their oxygen from the placenta, apparently it didn’t do any good trying to explain to them that when the mother is not breathing and her heart has stopped, there is no oxygen flowing through the placenta. Other crackpot theories, the “baby” breathes the fluid in the womb, and fetal blood is so much better at absorbing oxygen that even if the mom had been dead for an hour, the fetus would be just fine

          • fiona64

            At 7 months’ gestation, an emergency c-section would have been performed and there’d be a neonate in NICU with a very low chance of survival. At 14 weeks’ gestation, there is ZERO chance of survival. None, zip, nada. This whole thing is a goddamned travesty. The woman is a *cadaver,* being kept alive artificially to gestate a pregnancy in order to satisfy some anti-choice legislators.

          • ljean8080

            i was born at 7and a half months in 53 and made it.Nowdays anyone over 7 months have a good chance.

          • fiona64

            Congratulations. We know an awful lot about fetal viability, you know …

            And I stand corrected; at 7 months (28 weeks) the survival rate is about 90%. At 14 weeks’ gestation, the survival rate is ZERO.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability

            In any event, this entire thing is disgusting; it’s using a woman’s corpse as a field from which to harvest a fetus that is unlikely to be viable at best, and severely damaged due to cerebral hypoxia at worst. And no, I did not get those possibilities mixed up.

            This man is being forced to pay medical bills for his *dead wife* … how much money do you plan to send them, since you seem to be a-okay with this horror show?

          • Freddy Neat Shee

            Absolutely! It’s a good thing we’re establishing an upper limit on the value of a human life. You know, for later.

          • HeilMary1

            Spoken like the REAL Death Panelist we knew you were!

          • Ella Warnock

            And everything in the world isn’t always all about you, is it?

          • Freddy Neat Shee

            I will say this is a reasoned response. And look: 12 down-votes and two upvotes. Kinda tells you that reasoned response is now what these animals are about on this board. They have the bloodlust.

          • RonPaul2012

            http://www.genesispark.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Thorny-Devil.jpg

            How do you think the Thorny Devil survives? By feeding on human embryos, duh!

          • HeilMary1

            YOU lust the deadly shredding of all women’s lady parts, you animal satanist!

        • Freddy Neat Shee

          Yesiree bob, we can slaughter blacks with no moral compunction at all, as long as they haven’t been born yet! Hell, we can even get a black doctor to convince black women that their black kids are better off dead than with them! That’s where Hitler screwed up — he insisted on making it look like extermination was being done to a race due to an outside force. Sanger’s brilliance was convincing a race to do it to themselves!

          If we believed in some Invisible Sky God, some of this may grate on our conscience just a smidge. Thank Hitchens for that!

          • Jennifer Starr

            The story so far: Rosamund’s father has become ensnared by Mr Shabby’s extraordinary personal magnetism. Bob and Janet have eaten Mr Farquar’s goldfish during an Oxfam lunch, and Mrs Elsmore’s marriage is threatened by Doug’s insistence that he is on a different level of consciousness. Louise’s hernia has been confirmed, and Jim, Bob’s brother, has run over the editor of the ‘Lancet’ on his way to see Jenny, a freelance Pagoda designer. On the other side of the continent Napoleon still broods over the smouldering remains of a city he had crossed half the earth to conquer…

          • Freddy Neat Shee

            That seems highly improbable. And I love Douglas Adams too :-)

          • Jennifer Starr

            So do I, but that’s not Douglas Adams.

          • Freddy Neat Shee

            Monty Python, then – sorry, I have my British comedy mixed up. It’s still pretty funny, tho :-)

            My sort of humour. Maybe you’re not so bad after all :-)

          • cjvg

            I’m sorry I do not speak word salad.

            Unfortunately I will not be able to respond in kind to your incoherent, inane as well as patently false ramblings, I just have not been able to master that debate “technique”

          • Freddy Neat Shee

            Ah, the problem is one of communication, then. Ok, Google someone named “Gosnell” for a reference the doctor I was talking about. check out Margaret Sanger’s “Negro Project” for the genocide reference. Tell me, how does it feel to support genocide? Are you proud? Hey! You should deny these facts outright without even checking these references! Wouldn’t want to warp your fragile little mind :-)

          • RonPaul2012

            It feels great. Almost as good as a new pair of shoes.

          • cjvg

            Margaret sanger was the first (and for a long time the only) white person actively raising funds and opening clinics in black neighborhoods.

            She was the first (and for a long time only) white woman working closely with black doctors and nurses to improve the (maternal) health of black women and their children. She made sure black women could finally afford doctors care and actually offered pre-natal care and childbirth services so less black women would die in child birth.

            And yes she did also offer birth control services and abortion when needed, ’cause back then plenty of (black) women died from to many pregnancies. Racists do not work closely and intimately with black people and most certainly not in a way that exposes them to bodily fluids from said black people!

            You posting some nonsense written by anti- choice fanatics does not change reality.
            Gosnell was a criminal who went to jail, incidentally after multiple complaints about his actions by PRO-CHOICE doctors, people and organizations. People like Gosnell thrive when abortion is hard to get and hard to afford, the way YOU want it to be!

            You are a sad, somewhat irritating but ultimately irrelevant little creature, it is beyond time you learn to understand what you read and start proof reading your own ramblings.

          • Freddy Neat Shee

            Let’s see if what you said passed the logic test:

            1) were there German doctors that “worked closely” with the Jews, even being exposed their bodily fluids, in the 1940′s? Yes!
            2) Did they care about the Jewish people? Hmmm…
            3) Did Sanger follow the same eugenics “science” as above? Yes!

            I know it’s hard when the true weight what you support comes crashing down on your head. Keep telling yourself “it’s ok, they’re less than human”. It worked for slavery. Maybe you can convince yourself that they feel no pain. Maybe their pain is worth it to you.

            Or, just tell yourself that I’m a clown! It’s easier to ignore this way :-P (honk!)

          • cjvg

            German doctors opened the first hospitals in neighborhoods where predominantly Jewish people lived?

            Jewish people voluntary sought treatment from concentration camp doctors ?

            German concentration camp doctors improved the maternal and neonatal health of Jewish people?

            Hm, seems you are the one who does not understand logic !
            I don’t have to tell myself you are a big clown, you keep telling me that over and over. Really it is getting old, I’m convinced stop trying

          • Freddy Neat Shee

            You’re just speaking of an evolution in tactics. Like Sanger said in “The Negro Project” – she didn’t want them to catch on what the goal was. That’s why she wanted to get black preachers involved, but never let them very close to the main operation.

            Why force people against their will when you can change their minds? Get them to clamor for their own genocide, and tell them that anyone who tries slow it down trying to take away their rights!

            Teach little girls that their convenience is more important than their children’s life, and they may start wondering just how important *Their* life is.

          • HeilMary1

            Mother killer, Sanger simply explained to DIAPER-WEARING mothers that they could save their marriages AND LIVES by avoiding more deadly pregnancies with contraception! Would you stay married to a brood mare who continually leaked urine and feces because bearing your abandoned kids lacerated their bladders and bowels?!

          • HeilMary1

            He’s a stupid home-skooled basement-dwelling teen doing a “religion assignment”.

          • HeilMary1

            Your pedophile RCC actively supported ANTI-ABORTION, ANTI-CONTRACEPTION CATHOLIC Hitler’s death camp experiments and future Poop Paul VI deliberately funded Nazi Croatian Ustasha death camps that bragged about gutting pregnant Serb Christian Orthodox “heretics” and their “heretic” fetuses.

            Sanger denounced Hitler’s genocide and always only advocated PLANNED motherhood for HEALTHY VOLUNTEERS. Your RCC then went on to elect MORE NAZI poops and helped the Nazi CIA smuggle 100,000 Nazis to the UK and the Americas. I’ll bet your parents and grandparents are Nazis, JUST LIKE YOU!

          • HeilMary1

            Google Dr. Marion Sims and his grisly obstetric bladder and bowel fistula repair EXPERIMENTS ON SLAVE WOMEN! But “anti-racist” you prefers black women die in droves or live as incontinent lepers instead!

          • HeilMary1

            You support poisoning, starving, shooting, and knifing already-born blacks to death, which is why you oppose maternal life-saving abortions for unhealthy black women. Sanger’s OWN MOTHER was murdered by SEVENTEEN pregnancies. Sanger’s colleague, Mary Ware Dennett, was so gruesomely injured by her three obstructed labors that her husband took on a mistress, then divorced her. Sanger and Dennett were both jailed for simply warning women about childbirth’s dangers in pamphlets. Sanger supported family planning because as a public nurse she was fed-up and disgusted by the gruesome injuries human puppy mills OF ALL RACES suffered.

      • Ella Warnock

        It actually, practically, and materially explains nothing at all.

      • colleen2

        The fact that I don’t share your religious beliefs or proselytize or try to impose my beliefs on you does not mean I I have no beliefs. You’re just a sad spiteful, person with a heart full of envy who wants to use her religion to shame other women. It’s nasty and ugly and you need to give it a rest.

    • Freddy Neat Shee

      You tell her! If she wants to stop the slaughter of a half million blacks every year, she should stay in the back of the bus and STFU! I mean, we’re all womyn here, right, so we can say it: as long as blacks keep killing themselves at the rate of a half a
      million a year, we can keep throwing them bones (no pun intended). Affirmative Action, making sure that their crimes aren’t reported in major media as much as they would be if they were committed by whites, completely hiding crimes. Hell, once they got up to 20,000,000 blacks murdered by their own mothers, we even let them have a (half) black president! And we managed to get them to knock off *their own children*, and to convince them that they’ll be better off for doing so! Margaret Sanger would be so *proud*. Doesn’t it make your eyes tear up?

      Someone who was religious may look at the old idol “Moloch”, where people would sacrifice their children in a fire and Moloch would make them rich. I’m *sure* nobody is stupid enough to believe that superstition today. It’s not like people believe that having a kid makes them more likely to be impoverished, or anything. But we need to make sure that blacks keep killing their own offspring. Anything, and I mean *ANYTHING* that may cause them to figure out what why we put 70% of Planned Parenthood “clinics” in “low-income” housing areas, as opposed to other places where whites may hang out, needs to be censored immediately!

      Fortunately, their poverty will keep them from seeing this message. Otherwise they may get a little upset.

      • Jennifer Starr

        Sorry, but could you repost this with just a touch more hysteria and racism this time around? You’re almost unhinged enough to be entertaining, but you just need a little bit more….

        • Freddy Neat Shee

          Sorry, I really tried. I have a cold, though (with a nose like this…), so I’m not on my “A” game.

          I promise to do better next time.

          By the way, I’m not the one that wrote “The Negro Project”, about how to exterminate the black population with the help of black preachers. But I’m also not going to tell you who it is :-)

          • Jennifer Starr

            I suppose it would be asking too much for you to read and comment upon the actual article, which has absolutely nothing to do with the incoherent rubbish that you’re blathering about.

          • HeilMary1

            Again for Freddy the troll whose comment was deleted:

            Crybaby Freddy, quit whining over your stuffed-up nose: you fetus worshipers AMPUTATED my best friend’s NOSE by bullying her into another skin cancer-causing pregnancy that rotted off her nose! Imagine having NO NOSE EVER AGAIN ON YOUR FACE! Imagine breathing through your cancer-ridden mouth the rest of your miserable shortened life! Did you know pregnancy triggers all kinds of cancers in mothers? Do you give a hoot about mothers’ health?

      • L-dan

        As trolling goes, that’s offensive *and* stupid. Which I guess equals ‘troll’ to a T.

        The idea that some ‘we’ is out there convincing black women to have abortions, steps right past that whole idea that women make their own decisions regarding their reproductive lives and health. While reproductive coercion in abusive relationships does exist, it hardly covers the majority of abortions in any demographic.

        I mean, from a group that wants to require ultrasounds because they believe women are too stupid to know what a fetus looks like, I suppose it’s not surprising that you’d go the extra mile and insinuate that black women are even more stupid and somehow perpetrating genocide against themselves.

        Oddly, calling women stupid doesn’t tend to convince us that you have our best interests at heart.

        • Freddy Neat Shee

          I was going for “rabid fundamentalist” too. That would have been the troll trifecta. Looking back, it appears I didn’t mention any Bible verses at all. I am grievously sorry for that oversight and promise to flog myself vigorously in penance (don’t tell anyone, but I kinda like it :-P )

          That said, maybe a little research on “The Negro Project” is in order. Extermination of certain low-income races was exactly the goal. Getting black preachers to talk about how large family sizes causes more poverty allows them to convince certain people that maybe they would be better off if there were less of them. And it *worked*.

          My goal here is to *stop* the black holocaust. over 50% of abortions are for black children, while blacks only make up 13% of the population. In New York, a black baby is as likely to be born as aborted. Why is it that you hate blacks so much?

        • Freddy Neat Shee

          BTW: I’ll cop to going full-on asshat, but I never intended to say that you were stupid. If you were, I wouldn’t have bothered engaging any sort of debate… Maybe you’re being a little over sensitive?

          • RonPaul2012

            Yet you believe that black women are too stupid to make their own reproductive choices.

        • HeilMary1

          For the Freddy Krueger troll, since his comment was removed:

          Freddy Bigot, if you’d quit parroting pedophile priest propaganda, you’d learn that Sanger SAVED MILLIONS of black women worldwide by promoting planned SAFE motherhood. You greedy racist mother killers are always the first to complain when un-aborted black kids then need government aid TO SURVIVE.

      • RonPaul2012

        Dog goes woof, cat goes meow.

        Bird goes tweet, and mouse goes squeak.

        Cow goes moo. Frog goes croak, and the elephant goes toot.

        Ducks say quack and fish go blub, and the seal goes OW OW OW.

        But there’s one sound that no one knows…

        WHAT DOES THE FOX SAY?

        Ring-ding-ding-ding-dingeringeding!

        Gering-ding-ding-ding-dingeringeding!

        Gering-ding-ding-ding-dingeringeding!

        WHAT THE FOX SAY?

        Wa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pow!

        Wa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pow!

        Wa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pow!

        WHAT THE FOX SAY?

        Hatee-hatee-hatee-ho!

        Hatee-hatee-hatee-ho!

        Hatee-hatee-hatee-ho!

        WHAT THE FOX SAY?

        Joff-tchoff-tchoff-tchoffo-tchoffo-tchoff!

        Joff-tchoff-tchoff-tchoffo-tchoffo-tchoff!

        Joff-tchoff-tchoff-tchoffo-tchoffo-tchoff!

        WHAT THE FOX SAY?

        Big blue eyes, pointy nose, chasing mice, and digging holes.

        Tiny paws, up the hill, suddenly you’re standing still.

        Your fur is red, so beautiful, like an angel in disguise.

        But if you meet a friendly horse, will you communicate by mo-o-o-o-orse, mo-o-o-o-orse, mo-o-o-o-orse?

        How will you speak to that h-o-o-orse, h-o-o-orse, h-o-o-orse?

        WHAT DOES THE FOX SAY?!

        Jacha-chacha-chacha-chow!

        Jacha-chacha-chacha-chow!

        Jacha-chacha-chacha-chow!

        WHAT THE FOX SAY?

        Fraka-kaka-kaka-kaka-kow!

        Fraka-kaka-kaka-kaka-kow!

        Fraka-kaka-kaka-kaka-kow!

        WHAT THE FOX SAY?

        A-hee-ahee ha-hee!

        A-hee-ahee ha-hee!

        A-hee-ahee ha-hee!

        WHAT THE FOX SAY?

        A-oo-oo-oo-ooo!

        Woo-oo-oo-ooo!

        WHAT DOES THE FOX SAY?!

        The secret of the fox, ancient mystery.

        Somewhere deep in the woods, I know you’re hiding.

        What is your sound? Will we ever know?

        Will always be a mystery what do you say?

        You’re my guardian angel hiding in the woods.

        What is your sound? (A-bubu-duh-bubu-dwee-dum a-bubu-duh-bubu-dwee-dum)

        Will we ever know? (A-bubu-duh-bubu-dwee-dum)

        I want to, I want to, I want to know! (A-bubu-duh-bubu-dwee-dum)

        (Bay-buh-day bum-bum bay-dum)

        • Freddy Neat Shee

          I am in a state of awe.

          /wipes tear from eye.

          *dammit*

          /takes off glasses, *then* wipes tear from eye.

          *slow clap*

        • L-dan

          I’m upvoting this, but I want you to know that I blame you for the sticking that tune in my head again. Bed in an hour…I don’t want to know what this is going to do to my dreams.

          • RonPaul2012

            Some trolls must be met with surrealism and slapstick humour.

      • HeilMary1

        Pompous racist mother killer, if you really cared about blacks, you’d be handing out condoms to couples in refugee camps so they don’t die of AIDS and pregnancy complications! And you’d be changing bed pans and mopping floors in African fistula hospitals! Obstetric fistulas are the ugly reason why the Vatican banned priests’ marriages to the “piles of dung” MOTHERS OF THEIR CHILDREN and why GOP playboys cheat on and divorce their brood mares. Black women suffer this complication far more than other racial groups, but you love seeing them shunned and starved if they survive! You love seeing their orphans trafficked for sex and blood diamond wars. You love causing starving overpopulation tribal genocides because you anti-Christ Nazi fetus worshipers love the bloody human sacrifice of the already born.

  • lady_black

    Oh MY, where to start? She isn’t “physically alive.” She’s DEAD. If there were “a living baby” involved, they could remove it right now and put an end to this horror show. What is inside this woman is an unviable mass of human tissue that looks like a human being, but isn’t and may never be viable. And heroic?? Since when can any person be forced into heroism? The use of one’s body and organs requires consent. Since this poor unfortunate woman is obviously WAY past being capable of consent, she is being raped. Medically raped.

  • cjvg

    That “baby” is not alive, the death of another person never kills those who are alive.
    The fact that this “baby” dies if the body of this woman is not kept oxygenated by machines is a very clear sign that there is no living “baby” in there.

    If that “baby” was alive a C-section would have been performed the minute the woman was declared dead. An actual living baby does much better being premature and in ICU then remaining in a cadaver for a substantial length of time!

  • Ella Warnock

    Except for the fact she actually is being used as a baby oven. You can’t get around that fact no matter how much you twist and torture the truth.

    “How do you know if she would mind so much being kept physically alive for 6 months to give her child a chance at life?”

    Let me be the one to point out the obvious for you: It doesn’t MATTER what *I* know or think I know about the situation, now does it? What matters here is what HER family knows about her wishes. At any rate, the fact that the STATE has made this decision should be very troubling to anyone. What other things about your health care do you think the state should decide?

    I’ll tell you what, you anti-choicers better be very damn careful about what you wish for. Just keep in mind that a government that can ban abortion may eventually have the power to force it. And you and your fellow travelers will have been the ones to usher in that grand new age.

    Think about it.

    • Freddy Neat Shee

      Congratulations, you just argued against ObamaCare. There is a reason some people that people are more free the less powerful government is.

    • HeilMary1

      Death panelists like Freddy the troll hate it when government aid keeps the poor and disabled living another day.

  • fiona64

    That is a living baby

    A fetus at 14 weeks’ gestation is not a “living baby.” it is completely non-viable. This poor woman’s cadaver is being kept going by artificial means in order to gestate a non-viable pregnancy.

    And yes, that means that she is no more than an EasyBake Oven.

    • Freddy Neat Shee

      And someone with Down’s Syndrome? How are they in your almighty viability scale? What about Steven Hawking? Is he viable? You know, I don’t think “Americans with Disabilities Act” means what you think it means.

    • HeilMary1

      Koch brothers / death panelists oppose keeping DS folks and Steven Hawking alive with government aid, and they are clueless about ADA also.

      (Freddy the Troll’s comment was deleted.)

  • Ella Warnock

    Here’s an example of how long this insanity has been in play.

    http://articles.philly.com/1989-06-09/news/26106159_1_comatose-wife-anti-abortion-activists-nancy-klein

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1990-01-12/news/9001030868_1_martin-klein-nancy-klein-abortion

    This woman was 18 weeks pregnant at the time of the accident that left her comatose. This was back in 1989, so the viability of the fetus was just as precarious, if not more, than it would be today. Her husband had to get a court order appointing him his wife’s guardian, AND to shield her from the actions of rabid anti-choicers — complete strangers — who had filed a lawsuit to prevent him from taking guardianship and authorizing an abortion. He later filed a $10 million dollar lawsuit against the hospital and the right-to-life loonies who attempted to strong-arm their way into a family’s private medical decision, not to mention their tragedy. These “good, pro-life christians” would, of course, compound the tragedy a thousand-fold to save a fetus while completely destroying an existing family.

    This is the level of arrogance women are facing. This is the value of an injured woman’s life; that is to say, no value at all compared to that of an 18-week fetus. This is the value of her husband’s life, and this is the value of her 4-year-old daughter’s life. “Every life is precious,” eh? The truth of their actions tells a different story, doesn’t it?

    • RonPaul2012

      Good work Ella. Scary stuff. I remember reading about a case from South America where a girl was pregnant and tried to commit suicide by jumping off a bridge. She ended up becoming permanently paralyzed because the doctors put the fetus first, and therefore could not perform any kind of surgery to fix her spine because it might injure the precious fetus..

      • Ella Warnock

        Thanks, RP. This is scary stuff, and I’m beginning to think that we’ll never really be free from the threat of loss of bodily autonomy. Yeah, we’ve got birth control and abortion – for now – but many young women don’t have any idea what life was like before you could tread your own reproductive path. Those who aren’t even AWARE of history are the ones who are doomed to make the rest of us repeat it.

      • Freddy Neat Shee

        Well, she *was* trying to kill herself. I mean, if she didn’t want to live, who are we to judge? but the baby had no choice in the matter. But will probably grow up to be a BASE jumper.

        • RonPaul2012

          Or a frostitute!

          That was quite clever, btw.

          *clap*

        • Jennifer Starr

          And for only £2 more, I got some multi-vitamin-and-truth-drug capsules, and a lemon-and-lime reusable gusset freshener.

  • cjvg

    If it was gods will for the “baby” to live then he could have made sure that the mother died after she gave birth! Obviously god decided that he did not want this “baby” to live since he made sure the mother died way before viability and not even a C-section could be performed!

  • Ella Warnock

    This view presupposes that this family believes in a god or in a god’s will. For many, such an idea would never be included in this sort of decision-making situation. So, no, I won’t be praying because I don’t think magic incantations – whatever form they may take – have any effect on the real world. For those who do believe in prayer, I certainly encourage them to do what they think is best.

  • http://www.friv2friv3friv4.com/ friv 2 friv 3 friv 4

    I agree, HeilMary. I would feel much differently about this if the
    incident that ended her life had taken place at 30 weeks gestation
    instead of 14 weeks. I’ll bet her husband would feel differently if that
    were the case.

    • Renee Goodwin

      At 30 weeks they could have done an emergency c-section, but if the pregnancy is not far enough along, there really isn’t anything they can do, that is why this whole case has been just a nightmare

  • CT14

    No, YOU don’t know how she would feel.

    Her family DOES. Her family is not crazy. They loved her and respected her and valued her humanity.

    No one know how long Marlise and the fetus were without oxygen. There is no way to determine how Mapuche damage the fetus has undergone. If Marlise was alive, she could still choose to abort legally.

    Instead, the hospital is using her as a zombie incubator, against her wishes, against her family’s wishes, and against th advice of 2 of the 3 who wrote the law in the first place.

    You know the hospital is going to turn around and try to charge the family for providing life support to a legally dead person.

    It’s horrific. The absolute opposite of heroic.

  • fiona64

    However……what if, just what if the baby is fully intended to live and has something major to offer society?

    Why is this always the anti-choice argument? Why is it never “What if the baby is fully intended to live and will be the next Hitler?” or ” … will be a gas station attendant”? It’s always going to be the next Albert Schweitzer .. .when the reality is two-fold: one, a fetus is not an infant and, two, any given infant is most likely to grow up to be Joe Blow.