[Morgana]

These people make me sick. Abortion no matter what. If Marlise had wanted an abortion she would have got one, but no she wanted her baby. So much so that it looks as if she would have died having it.

God help her and her baby.

[MHGinTN]

These people are the demographic of the majority of the democrips party.

As noted on another thread, if this mother is fed, oxygenated, and kept warm, her child will continue to build its own body for life in the air world. 'These people' want that child dead, to prevent the revelation that the child is building its own body for life. Evil saunters openly in America.

[albie]

Like Reagan said...“I’ve noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.”

[Slyfox]

However, Texas law prevents the removal of a pregnant woman from life support and Erick Munoz is publicly voicing his opposition.

Sounds like he would make a lousy father.

[Cicero]

Prayers for her and her baby. It sounds as if the people at the hospital are trying to do the right thing.

[snowstorm12]

Why was she hooked up to life support in the first place? don’t you need permission?

If Erik pulls the plug himself, what would happen? I doubt they would prosecute him because it would be too hard to get a jury to convict.

[I want the USA back]

They are absolutely in love with abortion.

It’s really self-loathing self hatred. No wonder. Feminazis are angry, self-despising misfits who blame men for all their self-inflicted problems.

[sten]

ok... i read the headline and immediately thought:

‘born of the undead’

yea, that’s creepy. need to stop watching those shows ;)

[Wuli]

The husband is as faithful as a saint, he is trying to manage respect for the moral dilemnas of TWO lives, not one.

He knows what his wifes expectations anticipated a different set if circumstances NOT the present one.

He also knows something from their relationship that she might have been in favor of in the present circumstance.

EVERYONE should leave it to him to restle with the choices his wife delegated to him NOT because she is “unequal” or subordinate, but because it her life not his that is at stake, but his authority BY her choice.

[informavoracious]

Saving it is not dehumanizing for the baby!!! Quite the opposite. Terri Schiavo’s husband claimed to know she didn’t want to live. Even though she had to be starved and dehydrated to kill her. Yes, I understand that this is a different situation where artificial means are keeping the mother alive. Hard to understand, though, why the father would not treasure this child as his wife’s last gift.

[MrB]

Though it may appear that their position is “abortion no matter what”,

their mindset is more of “don’t humanize the fetus no matter what”.

Because if that “fetus” is HUMAN, then aborting it IS murder, and most of these vehement “pro” aborts are actually “had” aborts, who have devoted the rest of their lives to justifying what they did.

[caver]

Do these same people want to pull the plug on their elderly parents?

[loveliberty2]

Dr. Russell Kirk years ago, in his treatise on the "Conservative Mind," warned of what T. S. Eliot earlier had labeled a "new provincialism--the provinciality of time, imprisoning people in their own little present moments."

America's Founders had no such short-term view of life, of civilization's struggles for individual liberty, or of the great questions of life and its meaning.

They had studied the writings of the world's greatest thinkers and the history of nations. Their great passion was for liberty and of how to achieve and preserve it in this new land on behalf of future generations.

The LifeNews discussion of Katherine Taylor and Lynn Paltrow's RH Reality Check pretzel-twisting of logic in order to justify their Pro Choice views regarding the case in question is a good example of such "provinciality."

A longer view of history, of future benefits of the technology which can sustain the life of a child in the early weeks of a pregnancy even if the mother's life ends, and of what the future might hold for all of humanity were such technological advances utilized in this case--all such discussions are ruled out by the single-issue standard being employed by Taylor and Paltrow.

So consumed by what might be considered a false argument favoring the current right-to-choose vs. right-to-life political forces that they are "imprisoned by their own little present moments," these two never even consider what is surely the unknown potential future benefit of logical consideration of the pros and cons associated with allowing the hospital's position to play itself out.

Were they able to project their thinking into an "ideas-have-consequences" mode, allowing for all possible outcomes, perhaps they could envision a positive future for the family and for that which they choose to call the "fetus."

For instance, could those who choose to argue the woman's "choice" side see into the future 40 years, how would their argument change if, perchance, they could project themselves into the future and view a documentary featuring a story about an outstanding researcher who just announced a revolutionary cure for cancer, along with an accompanying story detailing the researcher's past, which included an extraordinary birth circumstance where his mother had died several weeks before he was delivered successfully?

[Hetty_Fauxvert]

There’s a line in the story about the husband being afraid the baby will have defects and its life not be worth living. (I don’t know what that would be from. Perhaps from a lack of oxygen during his wife’s medical emergency.)

It sounds to me as though he doesn’t want to risk being saddled with a “defective” baby. Even though there are many people who would step up to the plate and adopt it no matter what, especially since this story has gotten so much press. But if he abandons a sick baby, he’ll catch a lot of sh!t for that, whereas killing it by insisting on carrying out his wife’s theoretical wishes will get him sympathy instead.

And btw . . . a possible C-section at 24 weeks???? That’s pretty damned early. I would think the hospital would want to let it go as long as possible.

[kcvl]

Lynn M. Paltrow, JD, Executive Director, founded National Advocates for Pregnant Women in 2001. Ms. Paltrow is a graduate of Cornell University and New York University School of Law. She has worked on numerous cases challenging restrictions on the right to choose abortion as well cases opposing the prosecution and punishment of pregnant women seeking to continue their pregnancies to term. Ms. Paltrow has served as a senior staff attorney at the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project, as Director of Special Litigation at the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, and as Vice President for Public Affairs for Planned Parenthood of New York City. Ms. Paltrow conceived of and filed the first affirmative federal civil rights challenge to a hospital policy of searching pregnant women for evidence of drug use and turning that information over to the police. In the case of Ferguson et. al., v. City of Charleston et. al., the United States Supreme Court agreed that such a policy violates the 4th amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

[kcvl]

Katherine Taylor is the author of the novel Rules For Saying Goodbye