No, I'm not anti-choice or a troll. Neither of those statements are correct. Do you regularly crowdsource your logicking by accepting the statements other people make despite blatant proof to the contrary?

Many pregnant women (AHEM) are given drugs never approved for pregnant women. It shouldn't happen, but it does, and many of the babies come out viably healthy.

So had other successful cases of mothers who had "already been dead for" weeks. Four different cases:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2…

http://www.dailyma…

I'm not anti-choice, people can make their own choices about their own bodies, but there is an ethical conflict in killing a live human being whether people want to recognize it or not. That's the unvarnished reality that people don't want to talk about. Most people think very robotically black-and-whitely on this…

Yes, there's an unborn baby. By legal definition. Do you think that that thing that comes out of a human adult woman crying after the typical nine months just manifested out of thin air? Where were they before they came out? If a cat comes out of a box, was the cat not in the box before? Was it just air in the box?

No…

Having a different opinion from you is not extremely offensive. There are two sides to this issue, which is why this is a news case in the first place, it is a controversy. The mother does not have a living will.

And yes, "unborn baby" quite literally refers to a fetus in the mother's womb. That's what it is…

She didn't make it clear, cause she didn't expect to die suddenly.

Ehhh, no, I won't be fucked, thanks.

"Person" and "person who biologically incubates a child" aren't mutually exclusive my logical friend. I didn't say women "were incubators." I said their body biologically incubates a child. I am not a human coat but I…

No one is forcing anything here. This woman was pregnant by choice. No one is taking anything from her. They were keeping her alive to keep her baby alive. It's literally about as simple as it gets.

<— We both know very well what I'm talking about. An unborn baby. A "child in the mother's womb."

Doctors have to deal with better chances why? There was literally nothing to lose in this case. The woman was already brain-dead. They had everything to gain. We of course were not told the exact state of the fetus so it could have been a lost cause already, but given the information listed, which is what's being…

I haven't assumed either way, which means, by default, do the lifesaving measures that any other human being gets. The unborn baby is a human being, so should get those measures barring any explicit instructions to the contrary on the WOMAN HERSELF'S part, in which case it would still be a moral challenge because…

If what you had for dinner's an animal - guess what, it was conscious before someone offed it. You can't trick yourself out of facts and empathy just because it's inconvenient.

Legally, they shouldn't have the right to pull the plug, if it impinges on the right of their other family member in the picture - the unborn…

Most babies born at 24, 28, even 34 weeks aren't capable of developing on their own without intensive help. Are they not babies either?

No I trust the judgment of a trained radiologist, and you're a bitch. I have never called a human being that before in my life because I have always seen it as a sexist word but I think this level of stereotypically irrational stupidity warrants it. Your ignorant buy-in to a patently misogynistic medical system isn't…

Her body isn't dead. A) no one wishes to die while pregnant. Since it happened though, she had expressed no wish to be taken off life support, and all there was to go on were her excited posts on record about the baby. The baby couldn't live at that point without gestating further so they planned to have the baby…

Yeah I do, as the lawyers assigned to the unborn baby noted she had very recently posted ultrasounds of her baby on Facebook and was talking excitedly about the baby.

Fetuses are pointless why?

She already "consented" to be biological mother to a fetus and her body is not being used, this was her own active decision to…

It's not "treating them as an incubator." Pregnancy is already biological incubation. That is not an offensive fact to anybody who knows that there is a difference between men and women. I could call abortion "treating a woman's body as a gas chamber" or sex "treating a woman's body as a penisholder" but I don't,…

Who are you to say what is a "dignified death"? You are imposing external views on a person you know nothing about, except that she wanted this child. Saving the life of the child and immediate death are not compatible.

She will go through death no matter what, this is a temporary lifesaving measure for the fetus. Or…

Her organism is alive enough to maintain the life of a fetus. A fetus that, LIKE MANY FETUSES, need medical interventions to save their lives.

I'm not ignoring anyone's rights. She is not conscious to have any negative experience from this, and her fetus is. Her family's distress at what no matter what cannot be made…

Same goes for the body of the mother in the article I posted! She had multiple infections! The brain was decomposing, not her body, which is logical seeing as she isn't actually using it, it's largely atrophying.

Those people = / = not the woman

There being plenty of other children - not a factor in whether any given…

Hm, not enough for me. I've had people say all kinds of things on my behalf that weren't true. People very often say the dead "would have wanted this" or "would have wanted that", what they are actually saying is that they want that about a family member who never expected to be dead and therefore never gave it any…