Posted on 01/08/2014 1:04:39 PM PST by markomalley
In bioethical matters of life and death, the liberal media can generally be counted on to come down on the side of death. But once in a while, exceptions arise.
CBS’s Norah O’Donnell joined a panel with her “This Morning” co-anchor Charlie Rose and legal analyst Jack Ford on January 6 to discuss the heated controversy of brain dead Marlise Munoz, a Texas woman who remains on life support because of her unborn baby. Predictably, many liberals believe Munoz should be taken off life support and allowed to die – along with her now 18-week-old unborn infant.
But O’Donnell argued for the baby, noting, “But in this case, it involves another life. It involves a baby. She’s pregnant, and now that baby is 18 weeks old and, you know, eight weeks maybe, less before viability.” Story continues after video.
(video at link)
Yet O’Donnell was alone. Online media bewailed the continued life support for the 33-year-old Munoz, whose husband found her lying on the floor. The outlets disregarded her (then 14-week-old) unborn baby – except as an obstacle to Munoz’s “peaceful” death. Due to her pregnancy, Texas law prevented family from taking Munoz off life support.
Begging sympathy only for the woman “forced” to live, the front page of The New York Times blasted, “Pregnant, and Forced to Stay on Life Support” on Jan. 8. The message went viral via lefty sites as Slate’s Amanda Marcotte announced, “Brain-Dead Woman Forced to Stay on Life Support Because She’s Pregnant” while Feministing’s Lori Adelman agreed, “All She is is a Host for a Fetus”: Brain-Dead Pregnant Woman Forced to Stay on Life Support in Texas. Salon’s Katie McDonough chimed in, “Texas Family Describes “Pure Hell” of Being Forced to Keep their Loved One on Life Support.”
Other sites compared Munoz to a robot (what’s that, feminism?). Jezebel’s Doug Barry lamented, “Texas Will Keep a Dead Woman on Life Support Just to Incubate Her Fetus” while The Huffington Post (UK) complained, “Marlise Munoz, Brain-Dead Texan Woman, Kept Alive To Incubate Unborn Baby” Think Progress’ Tara Culp-Ressler summarized, “Texas Family Outlawed From Removing Brain Dead Woman From Life Support Because She’s Pregnant.”
Even the big name media outlets focused solely on the mother. The Guardian’s Tom Dart wrote “Texas Hospital to Keep Pregnant, Brain-Dead Woman On Life Support” as his title, while ABC’s Susan Donaldson James’ report read, “Husband Wants Pregnant Wife Off Life Support.” CBS’ Ryan Jaslow similarly focused on how “Texas Life Support Battle Pits State Law Against Pregnant Woman’s Earlier Wishes.”
Excepting the pleasant surprise from O’Donnell, the networks danced with censorship in the past when it came to life, from covering last year’s March for Life in a mere 17 seconds to popularizing the word “fetus” versus “baby.”
The secular left howled back in 1995 when Pope John Paul II described a “culture of death” that had grown in Western society. The fact that O’Donnell is the sole media voice urging mercy for Marlise Munoz’s baby proves the pontiff’s case, and shows how far we’ve gone down the road he described: “Choices once unanimously considered criminal and rejected by the common moral sense are gradually becoming socially acceptable."
P.S. Medically, there is no real or reliable definition of "brain dead." It was invented by a panel of transplant surgeons. They needed the concept, because organs can't be transplanted unless the donor is alive.
I remember this story from a couple of weeks ago. I’m the pregnancy is progressing, and I hope we’ll learn of a successful delivery in four months or so.
After all, if the mother isn’t suffering, and the baby is growing, why not give the baby the best chance of a healthy birth and infancy?
What does she mean by “viability”?
the baby could be delivered and have a chance to live at 28 weeks, but some have lived when delivered even earlier. I think the bottom edge of viability is 24 weeks, which has a high rate of mortality or developmental disorder, but some survive, especially if doctors start treating the pre-born child’s lungs to increase their chances of surviving premature birth
ping
“After all, if the mother isn’t suffering, and the baby is growing, why not give the baby the best chance of a healthy birth and infancy?”
Liberals want their tax dollars going towards more dead babies, not more living ones.
Yeah, I know.
Lone voice ... that says it all! Good to know there are still some sane individuals in the media.
How would that be done?; treating an infant’s lungs before an early termed birth. I doubt if the doctor opens the abdomen, as with a cesarean birth, because that would damage the placenta, if I’m not mistaken. So there must be entry via oral, vaginal or navel locations. Is that correct?
Very advanced medicine, these days.
I think they administer steroids and surfactant to the baby while still in womb, to stimulate development of their lungs’ ability to help them breathe after birth
not sure how they do it, trach? Many procedures and surgeries can now be performed on babies before they are born
If this lady makes it another 8 weeks her baby could have a decent chance, as I am sure any women would want, if asked. and would say “Let the baby be born, then let me go”
Apparently the family wants to pull the plug. Amazing.
Thanks for the info. Now I know a little bit more.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.