Woman in coma for 10 years gives birth....

rantingredneck said:
Interesting.
Click to expand...
yeah it doesn't change anything, but I was under the assumption she was there after an accident of some sort. This development leads me to believe it could have definitely been a resident. I figured long term care as in old people.

**It also makes me wonder why she has not been taken off of life support. My guess is that the facility is already doing somethings for free from the liability of the coma(drowning you mention.)
 
Last edited:
Cowboy said:
yeah it doesn't change anything, but I was under the assumption she was there after an accident of some sort. This development leads me to believe it could have definitely been a resident. I figured long term care as in old people.

**It also makes me wonder why she has not been taken off of life support. My guess is that the facility is already doing somethings for free from the liability of the coma(drowning you mention.)
Click to expand...

If she's in a skilled nursing facility I doubt it was another resident. The unit she is in is likely filled with people requiring similar care to what she was receiving. In other words they probably wouldn't be able to accomplish this type of assault. The ICF and SNF levels of care do not mix. Same organization, perhaps the same facility grounds and separate buildings, but definitely not under the same roof. Unless Arizona is working under different federal regs than we are :).
 
Cowboy said:
**It also makes me wonder why she has not been taken off of life support.
Click to expand...

The article above did not seem to imply that the patient was on "life support," but, rather, was having nutrition maintained: that is, a "tube to assist breathing" doesn't seem necessarily to suggest mechanically maintained breathing, but maybe that language is commonly used that way - I defer to our medically trained contingent.
 
GreatGazoo said:
The article above did not seem to imply that the patient was on "life support," but, rather, was having nutrition maintained: that is, a "tube to assist breathing" doesn't seem necessarily to suggest mechanically maintained breathing, but maybe that language is commonly used that way - I defer to our medically trained contingent.
Click to expand...

I'm not a medical professional. Just seems like help breathing would be a form of life support. I guess my question would be if taken out would she die?
 
Last edited:
Tim said:
On a related note, if I'm ever in a coma for 10 years...hell 10 months...one of y'all needs to come unplug me.

I have a living will and advanced directive that spell that out, but I'm not sure the 'ol lady will go through with it,
Click to expand...
Dang, I set my unplug limit at 1 month. And I'm quite sure my brother will go thru with it! Lol.
 
noway2 said:
Nope. That's still accusing someone and demanding they submit to invasion in order to prove their innocence. Assurances that the data won't be saved doesn't change this. It runs afoul of the whole premise of the legal system of burden of proof being on the state, probable cause, and search and seizure, as well as the doctrine that it be better that the guilty get away than the innocent be violated.

The only thing that has changed is the technology that makes this sort of investigative process feasible. Saying that the protections don't apply is akin to saying the 2nd-A applies to muskets and not modern arms.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reply.

This argument in response is one that is common to a lot of Libertarians like myself and it's best stated by rothbard.

The idea is that I own my own body and am morally Justified to use Force including lethal Force to expel someone from my property if I so wish. He extends that argument to say that a woman who has a child that she does not want in her body is able to use Force to expel this intruder or parasite from her property.

That is the argument. I believe this argument fails for the following reason: while I have a sovereign right to dispose of my property as I wish, when I make choices which bring another person into dependency upon me and my property I have both a moral and legal obligation to provide for their safety until they can fend for themselves.

For example if I pick you up hitchhiking in the middle of a blizzard in South Dakota and drive you out into the middle of the country and drop you off forcing you out of my vehicle in the middle of that Blizzard at night and you die of exposure then I am guilty of murder. If I pull over to the side of the road and say get out of my car and you refuse to do so because you will freeze to death There is almost no court in the country which would not rightfully prosecute me for murdering you even though you refused to allow me to have the Sovereign right over my property.

What I mean is when you take a step which creates the situation where a person is dependent upon you for safety and then remove that safety from them, then you have an obligation to protect them. This is the reason why when a parent brings a child into the world and then neglect the child we have laws Against Child Abuse. It is exactly the same argument the child is now in the home and the parents may not want them there but the parents may not simply say You must leave. This is child abuse and we have statutes prohibiting it in every state. So the right to private property is not an absolute one which supersedes Our obligation to provide care and protection to those dependent upon us which we have voluntarily assumed. To claim that we participated in a sexual act that we did not know it's going to create a child is in fact fatuous. Everybody knows where babies come from.

One may argue that this situation is different because the woman gave no willing consent. While this is true, it is also true that is not the woman making the decision to terminate the life of the child either. To claim that we are justified in performing an abortion here when the woman actually makes no choice at all in the matter is in one sense even more ludicrous because it is claiming that it is a compassionate thing to terminate the life of the child living inside her because she had no choice at all and how that child was conceived. The fact is no one knows at all what the woman's Choice might be because she is completely comatose. This is a difficult situation to be sure but the way to resolve a difficult situation is always to try to provide for the rights of everyone involved rather than assuming that the place to start would be to kill someone
 
Last edited:
Cowboy said:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/nurse-ar...etative-state-who-gave-birth-at-care-facility
Click to expand...
"The 29-year-old victim has been incapacitated since the age of 3 and gave birth to a boy at the facility on Dec. 29. "

This quote directly from @Cowboy 's link is a direct contradiction/lie/misinformation from the original story.

Everything I read from different sources stated that the victim was 19 when she had a swimming accident that left her in a coma.

Something doesn't add up.....

Just saying.....


DS

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk
 
tanstaafl72555 said:
Thanks for the reply.

This argument in response is one that is common to a lot of Libertarians like myself and it's best stated by rothbard.(snip)
Click to expand...
Um, maybe it was the delay in response, but my comment to which I believe you were replying had to do with forcibly demanding DNA samples from every male in the facility. That is what I'm saying is a no go as it goes against search and seizure doctrine forcing people to prove their innocence. Then there is the whole question about how conclusive is DNA testing versus just probability ranges.
 
noway2 said:
Um, maybe it was the delay in response, but my comment to which I believe you were replying had to do with forcibly demanding DNA samples from every male in the facility. That is what I'm saying is a no go as it goes against search and seizure doctrine forcing people to prove their innocence. Then there is the whole question about how conclusive is DNA testing versus just probability ranges.
Click to expand...
I was replying to the wrong person. Sorry.
 
Interesting contradiction to headlines thus far in this snippet

“The woman's parents on Tuesday through their attorney disputed characterizations that their daughter is comatose, according to the Associated Press. They described her as being intellectually disabled because of seizures in early childhood. While she doesn't speak, she has some mobility in her limbs, head and neck. She also responds to sound and can make facial gestures.”
 
Jerzsubbie said:
Interesting contradiction to headlines thus far in this snippet

“The woman's parents on Tuesday through their attorney disputed characterizations that their daughter is comatose, according to the Associated Press. They described her as being intellectually disabled because of seizures in early childhood. While she doesn't speak, she has some mobility in her limbs, head and neck. She also responds to sound and can make facial gestures.”
Click to expand...

This is right odd. I guess it's the rush to get the scoop.

I knew a family that took care of a severely mentally and physically handicapped late teen for several years. The type that could have been like this exact situation unable to move more than limbs and unable to understand. It would take a seriously F'ed up individual to do this. That said I've seen people that are screwed up as kids grow up and mount just about anything that moves.
 
Last edited:
Yeah the basic story here has undergone more revisions than I can track.

My wife said she read something earlier that said the doctor overseeing her care has also been fired. I haven't seen that article yet. If so it seems warranted given what we know thus far.
 
Last edited:
rantingredneck said:
Yeah the basic story here has undergone more revisions than I can track.

My wife said she read something earlier that said the doctor overseeing her care has also been fired. I haven't seen that article yet. If so it seems warranted given what we know this far.
Click to expand...
Not surprised to hear that the Dr has been fired. I can only imagine that facility, or at least that Dr, is knocking out physicals for all patients in a few hours without leaving his desk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom