I haven't assumed anything. I said:

Barring any knowledge about what her wishes were, there would be no ethical conflict: the baby is a person and needs their life saved.

If we know that the baby was unwanted and/or that she would not have wanted to be kept alive for the baby to be kept alive, we would have an ethical…

It however definitely does not suggest that you would be happy for your baby to die.

Everyone calling her body a decomposing incubator is displaying that they think that a pregnant woman who is healthy is a non-decomposing incubator, which is internalized misogyny. In the scientific sense, yes, pregnancy is most…

Where's the evidence?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article… <—-THIS PERSON BECAME BRAINDEAD AT 15 WEEKS. They kept the mother alive tip 27 weeks.

Experimental, would be the first of the three that this was tried on. Even in that case, if no one did "experimental" lifesaving measures, we would all be sitting around…

Luckily, no one is having sex with a dead body here.

Her body isn't dead, a. B, She wanted the baby when she was living. She considered the baby her baby. When you have a baby there is generally not a point at which you stop being invested in the baby's welfare and want them to die. In fact, when you want a baby the…

She wanted the baby. I didn't say she has no rights. I said absent any other indicator or her wants, the baby's life trumps that of a braindead person's, not that the "life" of a braindead person's is harmed in any way by sustaining it biologically because SHE CANNOT FEEL.

Since she expressed the wantedness of the baby…

Hmm. Where are you getting this info that the mother wouldn't have wanted it? Did you and her have a private conversation about this at some point in the past? Or is that just an assumption?

If the father does not want to continue the pregnancy of a non-braindead person, do we defer to the father? Why is he deferred to…

A number of the doctors saying that based on what though? The odds? They never say what they base this on, what features of the fetus's condition led to that belief. There are some really basic indicators that they could have mentioned but none were mentioned so we have zero actual evidence that they weren't going…

Of course they don't exist just to support fetuses. I exist to eat, walk, talk, and do things that make me happy and that I believe will make the world a better place.

However - SHE IS BRAINDEAD. She can do none of the above, EXCEPT support a fetus. That's all she can do at this point. She expressed that she very much…

No specific mention was made of what the fetus's condition was though. Just going based on odds is not a fair and logical way to make decisions about this, because that would mean also denying life support to other living humans in cases that didn't have that great odds of survival despite having some chance.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article… <— this fetus isn't dead! Neither are two others in similar cases!

Who is to decide what constitutes terrible damage? Is everyone with a disability not worthy of life?

You're talking legally. Legally, homeless people can be arrested for asking for money on the subway. Fair? NO. The law has nothing to do with fairness.

You're funnily enough advocating letting other people decide what is done with someone else's body.

A 14-week fetus is an unborn baby.

The owner of the uterus is…

A living will would not trump the right of the unborn baby to have lifesaving measures taken on them same as any other living human. It's very relevant. I certainly wouldn't, as someone with no living will, if I died suddenly want my family taking me off life support if there was a chance of saving an unborn baby. I…

A fetus is an "everyone" and a person who is braindead no longer possesses consciousness. Her last recorded conscious thoughts on the matter showed she considered the fetus her baby, so we cannot assume that her idea of dignity would be allowing her baby to die. There is zero logical follow-through there.

Actual science. If there's a chance to save the unborn baby that should take precedence the same way if there's a kid or adult who can be saved every effort should be made to do so.

It did have a chance at living, several cases very similar to hers have been recorded, infections and all:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health…

This isn't like that though, this lady was already gone for all intents and purposes. Her life and health isn't being sacrificed for her baby's but her baby's is for... what.

I'm saying that shouldn't be, that family's wishes should take precedence, because a) people IN LIFE often have totally opposite opinions to their families, and b) in this case it could have produced a measurably successful outcome if 7 more weeks were waited. Of course someone watching a loved one who doesn't look…

"Grotesque" is an emotional word though, not a scientific word. It seems that the medical team wasn't evaluating this as scientifically as they should have. Technically face transplants would be called "grotesque" but they make people's lives better. Lots of things in medicine are grotesque but useful. And if there…

Read what I could find, not finding it. I think the court let the emotions of the family take precedence here without actually looking at the science and logic of this. Logically, she said nothing on the matter. Logically, she did express natural excitement about the baby. Clearly her body itself was not in good…

It's putting words into her mouth to assume she would want the plug pulled, I still haven't found any direct mention in an article that she actually said these would be HER wishes.

I know someone who was illegally prescribed Depakote for 7 months from the start of her pregnancy and she had a healthy daughter whose only issue was that she was born low-birthweight. In normal cases Depakote taken that early in the pregnancy carries a high risk of neural tube defect and brain damage but it was okay…