Baby Joseph Tortured to Death by Fundamentalist Parents and "Pro-Life" Movement

Baby Joseph Tortured to Death by Fundamentalist Parents and “Pro-Life” Movement

Pro-life = pro-suffering

ReligionSeptember 2011 • Views: 35,254

A 20-month old infant with a terminal disease died this week, after his parents sued the Canadian government to allow them to perform a tracheotomy to keep him alive: ‘Baby Joseph’ Dies at Home After Long Treatment Battle.

The “pro-life” movement seized on this case, because they believe God wanted this poor baby to suffer as long as possible, even though there was absolutely no hope. The child had Leigh Syndrome, a genetic disorder that causes increasing degradation of the nervous system; there is no cure, and the only prognosis is a very short life of misery and suffering.

Which they made even worse by forcing the child to undergo a tracheotomy.

What kind of heartlessly selfish fanatic could possibly inflict such torture on a helpless child?

This kind:

Bobby Schindler, the brother of Terri Schiavo and co-director of the Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network that helps disabled people like Terri and Joseph receive appropriate medical care, also commented to LifeNews on Baby Jospeh’s passing. Like Pavone, the Schindler family was instrumental in helping Joseph’s parents obtain the tracheotomy to allow him to breathe easier. Schindler traveled to London, Ontario on two occasions to join the family of Baby Joseph.

“It was a privilege and an inspiration for me to meet the Maraachli family and see their dedication to care for and love their precious boy, regardless of his disability,” said Schindler. “All the parents wanted was to bring their baby home. By their example, they showed the world what it means to love unconditionally. May we all learn from their example.”

Brother Paul O’Donnell was active in helping Joseph and his family and he told LifeNews.com previously about his experience.

“I was privileged to be one of the first American supporters of Baby Joseph and the Maraachli family. We assembled a team of pro-life and anti-euthanasia leaders and mounted a grass roots campaign to have Baby Joseph transferred to a hospital in the U.S,” O’Donnell recalled. “Baby Joseph remains a sick little boy and his time on earth may indeed be short. However, when he eventually dies, it will be God who decides when and not the courts and doctors. Now this little one will have precious time with his family, surrounded by love.”

Jump to bottom

114 comments

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Fri, Sep 30, 2011 2:38:21pm

Because God wants all humans to suffer by default for their state of original sinfulness and no one may interfere with that suffering except God because life is sacred misery, of course except in war and with the death penalty and other godly ways of killing.

Kragar Fri, Sep 30, 2011 2:40:36pm

Next time I see one of those assholes ask for help with anything, I'll enjoy telling them to fuck off and deal with God's plan for them.

SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Sep 30, 2011 2:40:56pm

I don't know what O'Donnell's background is, but the teachings of the Catholic Church do not ask this of people.

Atlas Fails Fri, Sep 30, 2011 2:44:28pm

I'm pro-choice, but I'd like to point out that most pro-lifers are not lunatics like these people. A lot of my friends and family are pro-life, and they're just as horrified by this insanity as anyone.

Obdicut Fri, Sep 30, 2011 2:48:58pm

However, when he eventually dies, it will be God who decides when and not the courts and doctors.

Now perform that tracheotomy, doctor.

Massive cognitive dissonance.

I was really weirded out by how hard the GOP dug in over Schiavo. Still am.

Obdicut Fri, Sep 30, 2011 2:50:50pm

re: #4 Atlas Fails

Well, it depends what you mean. There are a lot of anti-abortion types who are against it in all circumstanced, even that of fetal health or the mother's health. It's not outside the mainstream of pro-life.

I don't know of any significant polling on issues like this.

SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Sep 30, 2011 2:57:59pm

re: #5 Obdicut

Now perform that tracheotomy, doctor.

Massive cognitive dissonance.

I was really weirded out by how hard the GOP dug in over Schiavo. Still am.

It's a strange combination. You run into a group of people who want to make use of very significant medical advances without considering medical ethics, or, for that matter, the human body, very well.

"Life good. Death bad. Make the machine work."

Maybe this is how we start the zombie apocalypse after all.

This is one area where NOMA becomes terribly tangled.

dragonfire1981 Fri, Sep 30, 2011 3:02:24pm

"“I was privileged to be one of the first American supporters of Baby Joseph and the Maraachli family. We assembled a team of pro-life and anti-euthanasia leaders and mounted a grass roots campaign to have Baby Joseph transferred to a hospital in the U.S."

I don't think euthanasia really applies in this case. It's not that they wanted to kill the child prematurely, they just saw no point in a surgery that would only extend his life a short while.

As a Christian, I have encountered other believers who feel that God is the ultimate giver of life and death and no human should ever interfere with His plans. On the other hand, there were doctors and healers even in Jesus' time and I can't imagine God would want someone to suffer needlessly.

Atlas Fails Fri, Sep 30, 2011 3:02:54pm

re: #6 Obdicut

Well, it depends what you mean. There are a lot of anti-abortion types who are against it in all circumstanced, even that of fetal health or the mother's health. It's not outside the mainstream of pro-life.

I don't know of any significant polling on issues like this.

Let me share my view: there are two kinds of pro-lifers. There's the kind who opposes abortion mainly because they feel it's best to err on the side of life. I was once in this group. I never claimed to know exactly when life began, but I was horrified at the prospect of potentially taking so many innocent young lives. As I got older, I began to realize that it just wasn't a pragmatic position; there are always going to be abortions, and making them illegal will only result in the unnecessary deaths of women. The idea that miscarriages would be investigated was also repulsive to me. Basically, this group is naive and idealistic, but not evil.

The other pro-life sect is smaller, but more vocal. These are the fundie nuts who think sluts should just keep their legs closed if they don't want to be pregnant, and zygotes are people too! The loons in the above story fall squarely into the latter category, and they have, unfortunately, taken over a large portion of the Republican party.

Digital Display Fri, Sep 30, 2011 3:04:20pm

Good Afternoon Lizards
A friend is someone who's there when he needs you

SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Sep 30, 2011 3:04:28pm

re: #8 dragonfire1981

"“I was privileged to be one of the first American supporters of Baby Joseph and the Maraachli family. We assembled a team of pro-life and anti-euthanasia leaders and mounted a grass roots campaign to have Baby Joseph transferred to a hospital in the U.S."

I don't think euthanasia really applies in this case. It's not that they wanted to kill the child prematurely, they just saw no point in a surgery that would only extend his life a short while.

As a Christian, I have encountered other believers who feel that God is the ultimate giver of life and death and no human should ever interfere with His plans. On the other hand, there were doctors and healers even in Jesus' time and I can't imagine God would want someone to suffer needlessly.

There are two extremes. There's the 'do absolutely anything' crowd and the 'do absolutely nothing' crowd.

Unfortunately, both of those extremes cause more suffering than following a middle path carved out by MEDICAL ETHICS.

dragonfire1981 Fri, Sep 30, 2011 3:08:48pm

re: #11 SanFranciscoZionist

I regret that I have but only one upding to give your comment.

laZardo Fri, Sep 30, 2011 3:14:28pm

Which kind?

THE RELIGIOUS KIND.

OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin Fri, Sep 30, 2011 3:23:30pm

re: #3 SanFranciscoZionist

I don't know what O'Donnell's background is, but the teachings of the Catholic Church do not ask this of people.

They are Catholic. To be fair, though a lot of N. American Catholics don't follow church dogma on a lot of things.

Flounder Fri, Sep 30, 2011 3:26:09pm

This deeply saddens me. I surely woudn't want to judge someone wanting to keep their baby alive longer, to cherish the little time they have left. Selfishness, probably, but it is up to the parents. Making decisions and raising your kids to your bet ability isn't like doing math, or programming a computer.

OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin Fri, Sep 30, 2011 3:26:59pm

Prolife, compulsory procreation, forced-childbirth, pointless surgery that contributes absolutely nothing to "life".

Socon misery demands company, via court order.

OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin Fri, Sep 30, 2011 3:28:25pm

re: #15 Shropshire_Slasher

This deeply saddens me. I surely woudn't want to judge someone wanting to keep their baby alive longer, to cherish the little time they have left. Selfishness, probably, but it is up to the parents. Making decisions and raising your kids to your bet ability isn't like doing math, or programming a computer.

I just feel bad for Baby Joseph, who had to be cut on and disfigured for nothing.

Atlas Fails Fri, Sep 30, 2011 3:29:19pm

re: #15 Shropshire_Slasher

This deeply saddens me. I surely woudn't want to judge someone wanting to keep their baby alive longer, to cherish the little time they have left. Selfishness, probably, but it is up to the parents. Making decisions and raising your kids to your bet ability isn't like doing math, or programming a computer.

I have some sympathy for the parents. You always want to believe that your child has a chance, that there's something you can do.

I have no sympathy for the exploitive scum who saw a political opportunity and cashed in on this family's misery. It really is Terri Schiavo II.

wrenchwench Fri, Sep 30, 2011 3:29:36pm

This is the second of their children to live and die this way. I'm sure genetic counseling and screening would be out of the question for these parents.

wrenchwench Fri, Sep 30, 2011 3:32:29pm

The tracheotomy was a few months before he died. Since he was in a persistent vegetative state, I think that makes it worse than if it were a few days.

JRCMYP Fri, Sep 30, 2011 3:33:18pm

“Baby Joseph remains a sick little boy and his time on earth may indeed be short. However, when he eventually dies, it will be God who decides when and not the courts and doctors. Now this little one will have precious time with his family, surrounded by love.”

No, dude. It will be you--or the people who are going to extreme measures to prolong his agonized life. Do they even hear what they're saying??

Flounder Fri, Sep 30, 2011 3:34:08pm

re: #17 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

So his parents could bring him home. I wish I didn't read that article.

JRCMYP Fri, Sep 30, 2011 3:34:38pm

re: #5 Obdicut

Now perform that tracheotomy, doctor.

Massive cognitive dissonance.

I was really weirded out by how hard the GOP dug in over Schiavo. Still am.

Heh. Should have read the comments first.

Charles Johnson Fri, Sep 30, 2011 3:34:52pm

re: #19 wrenchwench

This is the second of their children to live and die this way. I'm sure genetic counseling and screening would be out of the question for these parents.

Good lord, I missed that part of it. You're right -- they've done this now twice. They know they have a genetic disorder that they're passing on to their children, but just keep having children.

Horrifying. Just plain evil.

Killgore Trout Fri, Sep 30, 2011 3:35:35pm

Breaitbart's friends in the military make good on their promise to defend the Tea Party from Obama's fascist stooges.
Calling all

Military Veterans... We took an oath to protect the people and the constitution of the United States of America. Meet me at the Tea Party.

I'm heading up there tonight in my dress blues. So far, 15 of my fellow marine buddies are meeting me there, also in Uniform.
....
My true hope, though, is that we Veterans canact as first line of defense between the police and the protester......they will have to get through the Fucking Marine Corps first. Let's see a cop mace abunch of decorated war vets.

I apologize now for typos and errors. We can organize once we're there. That's what we do best. If you see someone in uniform, gather together.

A formation will be held tonight at 10PM.

We all took an oath to uphold, protect anddefend the constitution of this country. That's what we will be doing.

Hope to see you there

I'm sure this won;t escalate the anti-government violence.
/

OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin Fri, Sep 30, 2011 3:37:07pm

re: #18 Atlas Fails

I have some sympathy for the parents.

I do but it's very limited. Losing a baby must be one of the worst experiences in the world. But they already knew the surgery they were subjecting Baby Joseph to was never going to help him. I usually don't have violent responses to anything, but this makes me want to punch the parents in the jaw.

Otoh, I cannot speak for the Maraachlis, but a lot of these unhinged "prolifers" heroizing the lawsuit are the same people who will let a woman die on a gurney without any so-called "intervention" to help her, because it's "God's will", all for their stupid "culture of life".

These have to be some of the worst misanthropes on earth.

Flounder Fri, Sep 30, 2011 3:37:12pm

I'm gonna give my kids a hug, goodnight.

Digital Display Fri, Sep 30, 2011 3:40:00pm

re: #24 Charles

Good lord, I missed that part of it. You're right -- they've done this now twice. They know they have a genetic disorder that they're passing on to their children, but just keep having children.

Horrifying. Just plain evil.

It is amazing isn't it? Normal parents that have a genetic flawed child that passed away young and in agony would consult with Doctors before trying again to have another child.. Irresponsible and selfish

ThomasLite Fri, Sep 30, 2011 3:40:18pm

re: #24 Charles

uhm, there's a bunch of cain campaign ads on LGF; can't imagine you're happy with that? just saying.

JRCMYP Fri, Sep 30, 2011 3:40:57pm

re: #28 HoosierHoops

It is amazing isn't it? Normal parents that have a genetic flawed child that passed away young and in agony would consult with Doctors before trying again to have another child.. Irresponsible and selfish

But the chance to be a martyr for the cause...priceless.

Mostly sane, most of the time. Fri, Sep 30, 2011 3:42:58pm

re: #24 Charles

Good lord, I missed that part of it. You're right -- they've done this now twice. They know they have a genetic disorder that they're passing on to their children, but just keep having children.

Horrifying. Just plain evil.

There are a large number of children in foster care, right now, waiting to be adopted.

OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin Fri, Sep 30, 2011 3:45:08pm

re: #31 EmmmieG

There are a large number of children in foster care, right now, waiting to be adopted.

But breeding scores you a couple more social points. So it's betterer.

laZardo Fri, Sep 30, 2011 3:45:21pm

re: #31 EmmmieG

There are a large number of children in foster care, right now, waiting to be adopted.

They're tainted by the sin of their parents giving them away.

Mostly sane, most of the time. Fri, Sep 30, 2011 3:46:23pm

re: #33 laZardo

Most of those kids weren't given away. Their parents lacked the will to do whatever it took to keep them.

theheat Fri, Sep 30, 2011 3:48:34pm

I don't believe God had any more to do with the life or death of this baby than deciding it would be born with birth defects, like the last one they had. But it makes a nice bedtime story about faith and suffering and intervention.

Kind of like Hostel or Saw.

wrenchwench Fri, Sep 30, 2011 3:48:50pm

re: #27 Shropshire_Slasher

I'm gonna give my kids a hug, goodnight.

Good thing you logged out, or you might have to read about what they called evidence that he was not in a vegetative state. Worse than what Terry Schiavo went through. It's at Wikipedia.

OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin Fri, Sep 30, 2011 3:50:06pm

re: #34 EmmmieG

Most of those kids weren't given away. Their parents lacked the will to do whatever it took to keep them.

It's not always a matter of morals and will; some foster children's parents are dead. Adoption isn't exactly a panacea, either. Some adoptive parents can be every bit as whacked out as the Maraachlis.

Kragar Fri, Sep 30, 2011 3:51:17pm

re: #25 Killgore Trout

Breaitbart's friends in the military make good on their promise to defend the Tea Party from Obama's fascist stooges.
Calling all

Military Veterans... We took an oath to protect the people and the constitution of the United States of America. Meet me at the Tea Party.

I'm sure this won;t escalate the anti-government violence.
/

Whats another word for a veteran not serving in the active duty military?

A civilian.

I'm fairly sure the cops he's so gung ho to stand up against have a fair number of decorated veterans in their ranks too.

Fucking morons.

OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin Fri, Sep 30, 2011 3:53:18pm

re: #33 laZardo

They're tainted by the sin of their parents giving them away.

Sins of the fathers, blah blah blah.

That's just the mentality that justifies abuse of adopted and fostered kids, too.

allegro Fri, Sep 30, 2011 3:53:32pm

re: #38 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Whats another word for a veteran not serving in the active duty military?

A civilian.

I was wondering about that. Isn't there a rule about wearing the uniform only under specific circumstances?

Mostly sane, most of the time. Fri, Sep 30, 2011 3:53:53pm

re: #37 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

It's not always a matter of morals and will; some foster children's parents are dead. Adoption isn't exactly a panacea, either. Some adoptive parents can be every bit as whacked out as the Maraachlis.

Yes, but few people in America just decide they don't want the kids and give them away into foster care.

A number of birth mothers will decide at birth that their baby is better off with a married couple.

I suppose there are some where the parents died.

Usually, the older children in foster care were removed by CPS. One of my childhood friends has adopted five children--all siblings. Their birth mother doesn't do what it takes to stop having children, and by now CPS will just go to the hospital and take the baby. When the fifth was born, the state decided to give my friend and her husband the baby since they already had the oldest four.

Cute kids.

laZardo Fri, Sep 30, 2011 3:55:29pm

re: #39 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

It's cases like these that remind me why I have no respect for religion - while the argument could be made that "not all religious families are like this," it is just as valid to argue that there aren't really any non-religious instances of such atrocities either.

Kragar Fri, Sep 30, 2011 3:56:04pm

re: #40 allegro

I was wondering about that. Isn't there a rule about wearing the uniform only under specific circumstances?

For active duty only.

Generally,

When acting in their official capacity, service members may not engage in activities that associate the Navy with any partisan political campaign or election, candidate, cause, or issue.

Personnel, including reserve forces, are prohibited from wearing military uniforms at political campaign or election events. Attendance at rallies, meetings and conventions as a spectator and not in uniform is allowed.

Active Duty personnel shall not organize or manage political campaigns, events or conventions even in their personal capacity.

Does not apply to jackasses who have been discharged engaging in cosplay.

allegro Fri, Sep 30, 2011 3:57:14pm

re: #43 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

For active duty only.

Does not apply to jackasses who have been discharged engaging in cosplay.

Ah, thanks. I didn't think I was entirely making that up.

William Barnett-Lewis Fri, Sep 30, 2011 3:57:58pm

Fucking Oathbreakers. NYPD needs to give them some of that pepper spray.

Kragar Fri, Sep 30, 2011 3:58:49pm

As a veteran, if they're is one thing I can't stand its a veteran who uses that as justification for bad behavior.

Kragar Fri, Sep 30, 2011 3:59:24pm

re: #45 wlewisiii

Fucking Oathbreakers. NYPD needs to give them some of that pepper spray.

I prefer the term Oaf Creepers.

Killgore Trout Fri, Sep 30, 2011 4:01:07pm

re: #45 wlewisiii

Fucking Oathbreakers. NYPD needs to give them some of that pepper spray.

Or worse. Accidents can happen and escalating the level of physical altercations and interfering with police can get people seriously injured or killed. I hope these guys are just full of shit and bravado.

Genshed Fri, Sep 30, 2011 4:04:30pm

This reminds me of the last couple years of John Paul II's life. He suffered from Parkinson's disease, and the Church bruited it about that his patient suffering in the face of a progressive, terminal illness was a sign of his faith in God. Apparently, abdicating and living out his last few years in peace and comfort would have been against God's will.

OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin Fri, Sep 30, 2011 4:04:58pm

re: #41 EmmmieG

A number of birth mothers will decide at birth that their baby is better off with a married couple.

It's not always about single girls with morals just wanting a "better", rosier home for their kids; that's an adoption industry PR myth. There are women now, "birth mothers" who are telling quite different stories about their path to relinquishment.

See also: Baby Scoop Era.

Kragar Fri, Sep 30, 2011 4:06:25pm

"Um, Guys? Couldn't God's plan be for us to use our minds and develop medicines and procedures to alleviate human suffering and in some cases, bring rest to a person in a lot of pain by humanely letting them pass on?"

"HERETIC!"

JRCMYP Fri, Sep 30, 2011 4:06:26pm

re: #31 EmmmieG

There are a large number of children in foster care, right now, waiting to be adopted.

That's not really fair for anyone. Adoption is not a simple solution and I wish people wouldn't claim it as a replacement for having a biological child.

Phage Fri, Sep 30, 2011 4:07:52pm

re: #25 Killgore Trout

I'm not commenting on the right or wrongness of it - but what does the Tea Party have to do with the Wall Street Protests? The Tea Party isn't even mentioned on that Reddit page.

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Fri, Sep 30, 2011 4:08:31pm

re: #9 Atlas Fails

These are the fundie nuts who think sluts should just keep their legs closed if they don't want to be pregnant,

I am pretty sure that they do not really want to give women that option.

Killgore Trout Fri, Sep 30, 2011 4:09:09pm

Ah, I've been looking for this all day. I heard an interview with Nick Mason (the drummer from pink floyd) this morning. They are releasing a lot of remastered music and outtakes. I love hearing the demos of how songs were originally conceived. Although not my favorite floyd song I thought this was especially beautiful.
Pink Floyd - Us and Them (Richard Wright Demo)

Youtube Video

Killgore Trout Fri, Sep 30, 2011 4:10:46pm

re: #53 Phage

I'm not commenting on the right or wrongness of it - but what does the Tea Party have to do with the Wall Street Protests? The Tea Party isn't even mentioned on that Reddit page.

I was just trying to trick people into reading the link and thinking about it differently. The Lefties have no problem seeing radicalism and threats of anti-government violence in the Tea Party but they can't seem to see it in the Wall Street protests.

OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin Fri, Sep 30, 2011 4:12:19pm

re: #42 laZardo

It's cases like these that remind me why I have no respect for religion - while the argument could be made that "not all religious families are like this," it is just as valid to argue that there aren't really any non-religious instances of such atrocities either.

Well no, that's not a valid argument at all. I was just talking about the non-panacea of adoption and was going to link Nobody is Forgotten, again.

These are American adoptive parents -- specifically of Russian babies -- who ended up killing the kids. Very few of them have done any time for it. Fact is, we don't know which ones are religious, did it out of religious motive, or were just jackwad f'ed up parents.

What we do know is, after the utterly horrid Artem Saveliev/Justin Hansen case, Russia (and a couple other countries) have said "forget it" to American adoption.

But yeah, I'll agree with you to a point; I can name two denominations in particular that maintain the main market for this kind of abuse. And it ain't the Universalist Unitarians or Black Liberation Theologians, either :D

Phage Fri, Sep 30, 2011 4:15:00pm

re: #56 Killgore Trout

Ah, I get you now. Well it certainly worked to get me to read the article. A couple of times in fact, LOL.

Killgore Trout Fri, Sep 30, 2011 4:15:19pm

Here's how Money sounded originally...
Pink Floyd - Money Demo

Youtube Video

Killgore Trout Fri, Sep 30, 2011 4:15:34pm

re: #58 Phage

Ah, I get you now. Well it certainly worked to get me to read the article. A couple of times in fact, LOL.

;)

OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin Fri, Sep 30, 2011 4:17:57pm

re: #52 JRCMYP

That's not really fair for anyone. Adoption is not a simple solution and I wish people wouldn't claim it as a replacement for having a biological child.

Of late, it's been a tactic of the rwnj "prolife" set to claim adoption is a part of "choice', as if it's some kind of form of birth control.

Somebody in the thread downstairs was claiming she was glad her mother "chose" to carry her to term. Well, nobody really knows that, especially if that person is a certain age, and that supposed "choice" was in fact coerced.

You better choose to bear that precious gift of life God gave you!

OR ELSE!!

watching you tiny alien kittens are Fri, Sep 30, 2011 4:19:28pm

I almost liked the fundies better (or perhaps was less disgusted) when they used to proclaim that you were somehow "circumventing" God's will (Yes, The omnipotent, AND omnipresent GOD) by using extreme medical procedures to keep people alive.

Now they seem to have changed their tune, seems strange for members of a sub-cult of Christianity who literally pray for early death/"The Second Coming" of Jesus to object to someone going to meet him a little early.

Then again they would not be spending their days praying for the "Rapture" (The cheat code to instant Heaven) to come if they were secure in their faith and actually believed that they were going to meet Jesus once they died.

I can sorta understand Evangelical think, I just can't see how anyone can have faith in the twisting of the scripture and the Gospel that is necessary to anchor their belief. I'm sorry but that simply isn't what the Gospel says, if you have been led to believe that it does then you need to find another church (and do some biblical study on your own).

chunkymonkey Fri, Sep 30, 2011 4:19:56pm

What kind of heartlessly selfish fanatic could possibly inflict such torture on a helpless child?

Well...

when Canadian doctors told his parents, Moe and Nader Maraachli, that no treatment could bring their baby out of a persistent vegetative state.

I don't think a person can suffer when in a persistent vegetative state. Seems they just wanted to take the boy off the respirator and take him home. Where's the problem?

OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin Fri, Sep 30, 2011 4:24:44pm

re: #41 EmmmieG

Usually, the older children in foster care were removed by CPS.

Then you get heinous cases of older children removed, then sent to f'ed up adoptive situations.

One of this year's most egregious: 10-year old twins Victor and Nubia Barahona of Florida (Department of Children and Families)

Even worse than these Maraachli "prolife" whackjobs...these people kill other people's children they've been cleared by all manner of agencies to take care of.

Obdicut Fri, Sep 30, 2011 4:24:51pm

re: #63 chunkymonkey

Is someone in a persistent vegetative state that they'll never come out of a person, to you? Since you're so fond of splitting hairs?

OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin Fri, Sep 30, 2011 4:28:14pm

re: #63 chunkymonkey

You can start with getting a court order to force invasive medical procedure that everyone involved already knew would never help the baby.

I mean, you know, an already-born baby, who was already suffering greatly and was certainly not going to thrive, with or without the invasive medical procedure.

/emotional

JRCMYP Fri, Sep 30, 2011 4:46:33pm

re: #61 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

Of late, it's been a tactic of the rwnj "prolife" set to claim adoption is a part of "choice', as if it's some kind of form of birth control.

Somebody in the thread downstairs was claiming she was glad her mother "chose" to carry her to term. Well, nobody really knows that, especially if that person is a certain age, and that supposed "choice" was in fact coerced.

Well, I don't know about this either--from the other perspective. And that's sort of the point. It's a personal decision. And it should always be a private decision. Coercion? That's always been the case to some degree. Has it increased? I don't know. But regardless of the claim that one doesn't "need" to abort one can "simply" give the baby up for adoption...the other issue of whether or not a family wants to adopt is another part of the equation. And ignored. So, if you have a genetic defect, should you "just adopt?" Well, no. Not if you don't want to. Maybe you want to use fertility treatments to increase your odds of a healthy baby through ICSI? Or maybe you have only a 25% chance of inherited risk and you choose to abort instead of having the baby. But these are all personal decisions. And, although I feel cynical about the parents who birthed a second child with the same genetic problems, that was still their choice. No matter how much I abhore it. Where do we intervene? Where do we say "its a personal matter?" I'm not sure. I know what I would do and what my judgements are. Would I tell someone that they *can't* do something (give birth) or that they *should* do something (adopt)? I don't think so.

chunkymonkey Fri, Sep 30, 2011 5:05:27pm

re: #66 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

You can start with getting a court order to force invasive medical procedure that everyone involved already knew would never help the baby.

I mean, you know, an already-born baby, who was already suffering greatly and was certainly not going to thrive, with or without the invasive medical procedure.

/emotional

Suffering? In a persistent vegetative state?

Obdicut Fri, Sep 30, 2011 5:11:26pm

re: #68 chunkymonkey

Again: So, if there is no suffering, is there a person?

OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin Fri, Sep 30, 2011 5:12:00pm

re: #67 JRCMYP

TBH, my view was that all of it was a personal choice/nobody's business, and I did not see where they had any supposed moral dilemma until they sued to disfigure the baby.

That's the intervention. Medically, they already knew the pointlessness of their actions. Legally, they had the right if they could successfully argue the case, which they evidently did. A court could have stopped the intervention, but didn't.

Now meanwhile, you've got the same crowd arguing against the so-called "intervention" of medically necessary abortions for women even when her life is at stake, on the same "prolife" grounds.

We had one in the thread below, wringing his hands about the invasiveness of both sonograms and abortions. Yet, in this thread, he shrugs off a court-ordered tracheotomy on a little infant, whom everyone already knew was not going to survive, because of a condition he was born with.

So I agree; medical establishment, "choice", social and state coersion, what insurance will pay for....tricky matrix, there.

chunkymonkey Fri, Sep 30, 2011 5:14:16pm

re: #69 Obdicut

Again: So, if there is no suffering, is there a person?

What's the point? The claim here is that the parents are jerks for inflicting suffering on the child. I claim no suffering. Your question is not relevant to the situation.

OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin Fri, Sep 30, 2011 5:14:19pm

re: #68 chunkymonkey

Suffering? In a persistent vegetative state?

I thought you were so concerned about invasive procedures.

If in a PVS, why disfigure the baby when you know it's never going to help him?

OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin Fri, Sep 30, 2011 5:16:47pm

re: #71 chunkymonkey

What's the point? The claim here is that the parents are jerks for inflicting suffering on the child. I claim no suffering. Your question is not relevant to the situation.

No, Obdi's q. is crucial to the situation. Baby Joseph died from his condition. He would have died with or without the operation. Why sue to do it?

Obdicut Fri, Sep 30, 2011 5:20:16pm

re: #71 chunkymonkey

What's the point? The claim here is that the parents are jerks for inflicting suffering on the child. I claim no suffering. Your question is not relevant to the situation.

Your posts mainly consist of nitpicking the language others use, and yet you use whatever the fuck terms you want, at any point. You also complain about people using emotional arguments, and then go ahead and play the "They just wanted to take their boy back home".

Apply some of that nitpicking to your own posts.

Charles Johnson Fri, Sep 30, 2011 5:23:25pm

re: #71 chunkymonkey

What's the point? The claim here is that the parents are jerks for inflicting suffering on the child. I claim no suffering. Your question is not relevant to the situation.

"Jerks?"

No, they're monsters, who are having children without testing for a genetic disorder they KNOW exists, and that has now killed two of their children.

They're monsters who forced an unnecessary, painful procedure on a helpless child, because of their fanatical belief in a God that wanted the child to suffer.

And apparently you didn't notice that the parents and their "pro-life" enablers also DENY that the child was in a persistent vegetative state.

Our Precious Bodily Fluids Fri, Sep 30, 2011 5:37:20pm

Meanwhile, a faith-healing couple have been found guilty of 2nd-degree manslaughter in the death of their infant.

The Hickmans' son, David, was born two months prematurely and lived less than nine hours. An autopsy found he had staph pneumonia and underdeveloped lungs.

A pediatric expert who testified at the 10-day trial said the baby had a 99.9 percent chance of surviving if he had been taken to a hospital -- the standard response for premature babies born at home. Even defense medical experts agreed hospitalization was the right choice.

The Hickmans said they knew the baby was born early but believed he would survive. When he turned blue, gasped for breath and lost consciousness, the Hickmans prayed but did not attempt to get medical help.

[...]

Prosecutors said David Hickman's fate was sealed when he took his first breath. The boy -- a great-great grandson of church founder Walter White -- would never have received medical treatment, regardless of his condition. They said he was born into a family bound to the belief that life-and-death decisions were a test of faith. God, not doctors, would determine who survives and who succumbs -- even when an illness is treatable by medicine or a minor medical procedure.

That point was made clear by Lavona Keith, a church midwife and Shannon Hickman's aunt. "It wasn't God's will for David to live," she told jurors.

Dale and Shannon Hickman made similar statements.

Shannon Hickman said even if she had wanted to call 9-1-1 she was powerless to act because her church calls for wives to submit to their husband's decisions -- to do otherwise is a sin.

Lidane Fri, Sep 30, 2011 5:53:23pm

re: #5 Obdicut

I was really weirded out by how hard the GOP dug in over Schiavo. Still am.

As soon as the Republicans tried to summon Terri Schiavo to appear before Congress, I lost what little respect I might have had for the party. There was so much ghoulish grandstanding by the GOP over that poor woman that it was disgusting.

Charles Johnson Fri, Sep 30, 2011 6:02:30pm

Suddenly the sound of crickets is heard.

OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin Fri, Sep 30, 2011 6:07:54pm

re: #76 negativ

Meanwhile, a faith-healing couple have been found guilty of 2nd-degree manslaughter in the death of their infant.

I was just about to post on this. With the Hickmans, it was "God's will" that their baby, whom they also knew was dying, not be given any medical treatment at all. But hey, the social conservatives will shriek at us,

Gay parents, unmarried birth mothers, and other non-"traditional" families are

BAD FOR THE CHILLLDRENN

Meanwhile, God's Favorite Americans kill theirs outright, and never do any time. If the Hickmans ever have to do anything beyond a couple month's probation, I will eat my raspberry beret.

reine.de.tout Fri, Sep 30, 2011 6:13:31pm

re: #77 Lidane

As soon as the Republicans tried to summon Terri Schiavo to appear before Congress, I lost what little respect I might have had for the party. There was so much ghoulish grandstanding by the GOP over that poor woman that it was disgusting.

I'm just now catching up, and your comment is as good as any other to move into what I would like to say.

I don't know what sort of decision I would have wanted to be made had I been related to Terri Shiavo, or to the family in this story. I do know that based on the advice of my dad's doctors, I did NOT opt to have a feeding tube placed into him when he stopped eating - he suffered heart problems, some sort of dementia - and as the doctor said, loss of appetite is part of the process of dying. My dad was dying. And while the feeding tube may have prolonged his life a few more months, it would have been another aggravation for him to deal with, and in his state, he didn't need that.

However, I had the right to make and the responsibility for making that CHOICE, not some impersonal board somewhere. And as far as I'm concerned, that choice should belong to the person's caretakers.

What creeped me out about the Terri Shiavo case was her husband, but not about his wish to remove her feeding tube. As her nearest kin and caretaker, that was properly his decision to make. What bothered me about HIM was, 1) Terri Shiavo had received some sort of financial award that, 2) her husband had access to as long as he stayed married to her which 3) he did, even though he moved on with his life and had a new partner and family, and 4) which is why, IMO, he did not want to divorce Terri and let her family take over her care taking, which they were willing to do. That bothered me - that he would hang on as her husband, despite the fact that she meant nothing to him anymore, in order to retain access to whatever was left of her financial settlement rather than turning it and Terri over to her family. If that money had not been there, I suspect he would have divorced her and turned her care over to her family early on.

OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin Fri, Sep 30, 2011 6:22:02pm

re: #67 JRCMYP

Coercion? That's always been the case to some degree. Has it increased? I don't know.

Well, I have to commend you for acknowledging that in the open, because most people are in strict denial about it.

To me, it's central to the question of why kids are said to be relinquished to the state. It's less of a moral question on the mother, whose supposed low morals are the scapegoat for all the blame in the situation. The moral onus is on that of the one doing the coercing.

It's a function of the slut/whore who can't keep their legs closed so scapegoat and blame her for her awful fate, mentality.

I don't know if it's increased, either. I would say it's probably decreased, with the decline of conservative/conformist/control freak social norms. But I was talking about women in their 50s-60s who are telling their stories as teens and young women pre Roe, regarding coersion. Some of their stories will make even the most sociopathic of socons cry, let alone normal individuals.

Charles Johnson Fri, Sep 30, 2011 6:28:08pm

re: #80 reine.de.tout

I'm just now catching up, and your comment is as good as any other to move into what I would like to say.

I don't know what sort of decision I would have wanted to be made had I been related to Terri Shiavo, or to the family in this story. I do know that based on the advice of my dad's doctors, I did NOT opt to have a feeding tube placed into him when he stopped eating - he suffered heart problems, some sort of dementia - and as the doctor said, loss of appetite is part of the process of dying. My dad was dying. And while the feeding tube may have prolonged his life a few more months, it would have been another aggravation for him to deal with, and in his state, he didn't need that.

However, I had the right to make and the responsibility for making that CHOICE, not some impersonal board somewhere. And as far as I'm concerned, that choice should belong to the person's caretakers.

What creeped me out about the Terri Shiavo case was her husband, but not about his wish to remove her feeding tube. As her nearest kin and caretaker, that was properly his decision to make. What bothered me about HIM was, 1) Terri Shiavo had received some sort of financial award that, 2) her husband had access to as long as he stayed married to her which 3) he did, even though he moved on with his life and had a new partner and family, and 4) which is why, IMO, he did not want to divorce Terri and let her family take over her care taking, which they were willing to do. That bothered me - that he would hang on as her husband, despite the fact that she meant nothing to him anymore, in order to retain access to whatever was left of her financial settlement rather than turning it and Terri over to her family. If that money had not been there, I suspect he would have divorced her and turned her care over to her family early on.

This is what Terri Schiavo's brain looked like when she died:

Image: Schiavo_catscan.jpg

She had no brain. The religious right lied to you about this story.

I cannot judge her husband. He spent many years trying to help her, and finally faced reality -- and for that, the fanatics who exploited this woman smeared him relentlessly.

Lidane Fri, Sep 30, 2011 6:31:55pm

re: #80 reine.de.tout

I was sympathetic to her husband, only because he stayed married to her in spite of being offered six and seven figures to divorce her at the height of all that macabre drama. If all he'd cared about was money, he could have easily taken any or all of the money being offered to him and gone to the Bahamas or something.

I think he stayed with her through the end because that was the only way that she'd ever get any peace. If her family had gotten their way, she'd still be hooked up to whatever machines they wanted, half-liquefied brain and all.

Charles Johnson Fri, Sep 30, 2011 6:46:18pm

Terri Schiavo case:

In November, Michael took her to the University of California, San Francisco for experimental nerve stimulation – the Thalamic stimulator. The treatment took several months but was unsuccessful. Michael returned to Florida with her in January 1991 and admitted her as an inpatient to the Mediplex Rehabilitation Center in Bradenton, Florida. While there, he later said that he often took "her to parks and public places in hopes of sparking some recovery". On July 19, 1991, Terri was transferred to the Sabal Palms Skilled Care Facility, where she received neurological testing and regular speech and occupational therapy until 1994.[12][13] In mid 1993, Michael requested a do not resuscitate order for Terri after she contracted a urinary tract infection. The court appointed guardian ad litem, Jay Wolfson,[14] later wrote a report stating that Michael's decision was "predicated on his reasoned belief that there was no longer any hope for Terri's recovery."

And then the religious right got involved.

reine.de.tout Fri, Sep 30, 2011 6:49:14pm

re: #82 Charles

This is what Terri Schiavo's brain looked like when she died:

Image: Schiavo_catscan.jpg

She had no brain. The religious right lied to you about this story.

I cannot judge her husband. He spent many years trying to help her, and finally faced reality -- and for that, the fanatics who exploited this woman smeared him relentlessly.

Charles - I don't know why her family wanted to keep her on life support. All I know is that when I had to make the same decision, I opted NOT to take the step. Like Terri Shiavo (and the child in the story you linked), my father's mental condition was such that he could no longer participate in a relationship with the people around him, or with God. When that is the case, my "right to life" Catholic faith does NOT require that exceptional means be taken to prolong life. And so I made the decision to let my dad go.

The story you linked to leaves out some pieces of information that I would like to have before I could say what I would have wanted done in this situation. But given just the information in the story, my personal leaning would have been to let this child go without extraordinary measures being taken; and I think the decision of these parents was a mistake and unnecessary.

What bothers me about the story is that the decision was not in the hands of those whose responsibility it was to see to the care of this baby - the parents.

And Terri Shiavo's husband's behavior seriously creeped me out. Not his decision; his behavior.

JRCMYP Fri, Sep 30, 2011 6:49:56pm

re: #81 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

Well, I have to commend you for acknowledging that in the open, because most people are in strict denial about it.

To me, it's central to the question of why kids are said to be relinquished to the state. It's less of a moral question on the mother, whose supposed low morals are the scapegoat for all the blame in the situation. The moral onus is on that of the one doing the coercing.

It's a function of the slut/whore who can't keep their legs closed so scapegoat and blame her for her awful fate, mentality.

I don't know if it's increased, either. I would say it's probably decreased, with the decline of conservative/conformist/control freak social norms. But I was talking about women in their 50s-60s who are telling their stories as teens and young women pre Roe, regarding coersion. Some of their stories will make even the most sociopathic of socons cry, let alone normal individuals.

Why do you commend me for this? It seems like a well know fact--both explicitly and implicitly.

I'm someone who chose to terminate for medical reasons. Believe me, these are not theoretical questions for me. Still, I'm grossed out by this family. I wouldn't have made their choices. But I would also not stand in the way of their choice to procreate--or terminate.

And that's where it gets complicated. What are they doing now? For whom are they prolonging this child's life?

Obdicut Fri, Sep 30, 2011 7:08:46pm

re: #85 reine.de.tout

What bugs me is that I feel these decisions are often not made by the parents for the sake of their child, but for their own sake. In this case especially. I understand the pain of a parent being told that their child is not going to recover, but I cannot understand simple, blank refusal to accept that.

This was the second child to die in this fashion. They are part of a pro-life movement, but deliberately having children even though they know that their children will die. I cannot see how willingly having a child that you know has a very good chance of being doomed to suffer and die is consistent with that worldview.

The disease is a degenerative one. Rarely do the children live past five, and they suffer their whole lives. And having one child with this disease, they chose to have another, or to forgo birth control. Even if they honestly hoped for a miracle, to me it seems utterly selfish.

In the end, the government simply refused to pay for the procedure. The parents got it done, the baby had a few more tortured months-- or, if you think a persistent vegetative state is equivalent to death, was already dead when it had the operation performed-- and then died. I fail to see how that was of any benefit to the child, how anything other than a merciful death could be beneficial to the child.

SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Sep 30, 2011 7:12:45pm

re: #49 Genshed

This reminds me of the last couple years of John Paul II's life. He suffered from Parkinson's disease, and the Church bruited it about that his patient suffering in the face of a progressive, terminal illness was a sign of his faith in God. Apparently, abdicating and living out his last few years in peace and comfort would have been against God's will.

John Paul was, at least a grown man.

reine.de.tout Fri, Sep 30, 2011 7:17:42pm

re: #87 Obdicut

What bugs me is that I feel these decisions are often not made by the parents for the sake of their child, but for their own sake. In this case especially. I understand the pain of a parent being told that their child is not going to recover, but I cannot understand simple, blank refusal to accept that.

This was the second child to die in this fashion. They are part of a pro-life movement, but deliberately having children even though they know that their children will die. I cannot see how willingly having a child that you know has a very good chance of being doomed to suffer and die is consistent with that worldview.

The disease is a degenerative one. Rarely do the children live past five, and they suffer their whole lives. And having one child with this disease, they chose to have another, or to forgo birth control. Even if they honestly hoped for a miracle, to me it seems utterly selfish.

In the end, the government simply refused to pay for the procedure. The parents got it done, the baby had a few more tortured months-- or, if you think a persistent vegetative state is equivalent to death, was already dead when it had the operation performed-- and then died. I fail to see how that was of any benefit to the child, how anything other than a merciful death could be beneficial to the child.

I don't think it was of benefit to the child, and didn't say that.
It was purely for the benefit of the family, to hold on to a child who had no ability or means to respond. I don't think that's a good position for a parent to use when making a decision - ensure their own needs and pain are relieved, or that of the child (or whoever is under their care)? I would choose the needs of the person under my care, and did so when I had to make that decision (the same one, basically, as Terri Shiavo's husband made) for my Dad. But I had THE CHOICE. I was free to choose one way or the other; these parents were NOT free to choose, under the system where they live. And I think that's wrong.

I don't want abortions performed. However, there will be women who seek abortions, whether legal or not. And it would be unconscionable, IMO, if we did not ensure that those who seek that procedure were able to have it done safely. Thus, choice. As far as I'm concerned, this is about choice, for those responsible for this baby (or choice for anybody whose care you are responsible for). And these parents did not have that choice under the system where they live; the choice was made FOR them by some Board. That bothers me.

OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin Fri, Sep 30, 2011 7:18:18pm

re: #86 JRCMYP

Why do you commend me for this? It seems like a well know fact--both explicitly and implicitly.

Only because there is such deep cultural denial about coercion in childbirth and adoption. It's rare to hear it, tbh.

OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin Fri, Sep 30, 2011 7:23:15pm

re: #89 reine.de.tout

And these parents did not have that choice under the system where they live; the choice was made FOR them by some Board. That bothers me.

That goes back to pre-Roe America, where the same supposed choice that you better bear that fetus was imposed on women by hospital boards.

If socons had their way, this is what we would all be forced to return to.

It's not much of a choice when you sue to have a procedure done on an infant, when you know it's not going to help him in any way. That's an exercise in personal vanity.

Lidane Fri, Sep 30, 2011 7:25:35pm

re: #89 reine.de.tout

And these parents did not have that choice under the system where they live; the choice was made FOR them by some Board. That bothers me.

They absolutely had a choice. They could have chosen genetic testing after their first child died from the very same condition. They could have chosen to accept that maybe being parents wasn't in the cards for them if this genetic disorder was being passed on to their kids. They could have chosen to adopt a child.

Instead, they chose to have another kid who ends up with the same exact condition only to die horrifically. Again.

Obdicut Fri, Sep 30, 2011 7:26:50pm

re: #89 reine.de.tout

I'm not sure who gains from giving parents the choice to do unnecessary medical procedures on terminally ill kids, though. There was no hope of the child recovering.

And these parents did not have that choice under the system where they live; the choice was made FOR them by some Board. That bothers me.

Well, the board is, among other things, a medical ethics board. Similarly, in the US, a critically ill child might be denied a transplant because it was going to die anyway. The decision made by the board was that the resources that would be used to give this child a trachaetomy would be wasted. How could they decide otherwise? They couldn't pretend it actually would help, that it actually was a good use of medical resources.

In the end, the parents got their wish. A trachaetomy was performed-- they raised the money for it and got i. The child died. And they may go ahead and have another child. I don't see anything in their behavior or attitude that indicates that they would do otherwise.

reine.de.tout Fri, Sep 30, 2011 7:30:33pm

re: #91 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

That goes back to pre-Roe America, where the same supposed choice that you better bear that fetus was imposed on women by hospital boards.

If socons had their way, this is what we would all be forced to return to.
...

So, you agree the parents should have had the choice? I'm confused . . .

reine.de.tout Fri, Sep 30, 2011 7:31:45pm

re: #92 Lidane

They absolutely had a choice. They could have chosen genetic testing after their first child died from the very same condition. They could have chosen to accept that maybe being parents wasn't in the cards for them if this genetic disorder was being passed on to their kids. They could have chosen to adopt a child.

Instead, they chose to have another kid who ends up with the same exact condition only to die horrifically. Again.

Choice does not mean that people make the exact same decisions you would make.

reine.de.tout Fri, Sep 30, 2011 7:33:38pm

re: #93 Obdicut

I'm not sure who gains from giving parents the choice to do unnecessary medical procedures on terminally ill kids, though. There was no hope of the child recovering.

Well, the board is, among other things, a medical ethics board. Similarly, in the US, a critically ill child might be denied a transplant because it was going to die anyway. The decision made by the board was that the resources that would be used to give this child a trachaetomy would be wasted. How could they decide otherwise? They couldn't pretend it actually would help, that it actually was a good use of medical resources.

In the end, the parents got their wish. A trachaetomy was performed-- they raised the money for it and got i. The child died. And they may go ahead and have another child. I don't see anything in their behavior or attitude that indicates that they would do otherwise.

Well, I very uncomfortable getting into a discussion about who should be making the decisions about this couple having more children. As far as I'm concerned, that's their choice, their decision, they may make stupid ones, but it's not something I want anybody else having any say in. Really, Obdi. Think about where you're going with this.

JRCMYP Fri, Sep 30, 2011 8:02:54pm

re: #96 reine.de.tout

Well, I very uncomfortable getting into a discussion about who should be making the decisions about this couple having more children. As far as I'm concerned, that's their choice, their decision, they may make stupid ones, but it's not something I want anybody else having any say in. Really, Obdi. Think about where you're going with this.

I agree with you on this. The logical conclusion is that all pregnancies and childbirth procedures would theoretically be circumscribed. If I'm going to tell the public that my decision to terminate a pregnancy is a private, medical decision, I'd also better be prepared to defend the right of someone to have a child--to carry a child to term--that has a poor prenatal diagnosis. As horrible as I find that decision it's not mine to make. That's the flip side of preserving my rights. And of course it gives me pause. But, just like in cases of pregnancy, no situation is black and white. For all I know, the family in this situation didn't know that there was a genetic issue, or were told that there wasn't one--that it was a "fluke." I have no idea. But it's still not my decision to make.

chunkymonkey Fri, Sep 30, 2011 8:24:42pm

re: #75 Charles

"Jerks?"

No, they're monsters, who are having children without testing for a genetic disorder they KNOW exists, and that has now killed two of their children.

They're monsters who forced an unnecessary, painful procedure on a helpless child, because of their fanatical belief in a God that wanted the child to suffer.

And apparently you didn't notice that the parents and their "pro-life" enablers also DENY that the child was in a persistent vegetative state.

Now there's something we can agree on. Yes, having had a child with a horrible genetic disorder, having a second is unconscionable. As to the painful procedures, are any procedures painful if performed on a person who is in a vegetative state? I doubt it.

What difference does it make that the parents and their "pro-life" enablers deny that the child was in a vegetative state? Their beliefs, whatever they are, cannot change the facts.

Obdicut Fri, Sep 30, 2011 8:27:42pm

re: #96 reine.de.tout

Think about why the hell you assumed i was going anywhere with deciding who did and didn't get to have children. Nothing I said in any way implied it, at all.

All I said is that their choice is repellent to me. I uttered not a single word that they should be stopped. Nor do I think that they should.

Now, why on earth did you assume I was going there?

100

reine.de.tout Fri, Sep 30, 2011 8:45:07pm

re: #99 Obdicut

Think about why the hell you assumed i was going anywhere with deciding who did and didn't get to have children. Nothing I said in any way implied it, at all.

All I said is that their choice is repellent to me. I uttered not a single word that they should be stopped. Nor do I think that they should.

Now, why on earth did you assume I was going there?

Relax, Obdi. I made no assumptions about what you thought, or that YOU personally were going there.

But this from your #87:
"but deliberately having children even though they know that their children will die." combined with your support for medical ethics boards that reduce choices for caregivers (the dangers of which were pointed out by OhCrap in #91) - it was closer than I was comfortable being in making a leap toward who should be making decisions for couples who want children.

How should people have children? Non-deliberately? What? They don't know that EVERY child they have will have this condition and die. They do not know that. You condemn them as "selfish" because they want a family?

101

Obdicut Fri, Sep 30, 2011 8:53:42pm

re: #100 reine.de.tout

Relax, Obdi. I made no assumptions about what you thought, or that YOU personally were going there.

Yes, you did. You asked me to think about where I was going. I wasn't going anywhere.

- it was closer than I was comfortable being in making a leap toward who should be making decisions for couples who want children.

That's a vast leap, and I was nowhere near it. At all. It's absolutely antithetical to my values.

I fully support a medical ethics board denying unnecessary procedures on dying patients, though. Those decisions have to be made. We can't avoid them. Provide comfort, care, do what we can to alleviate the suffering of the dying. Do not do things that simply prolong that suffering.

How should people have children? Non-deliberately? What? They don't know that EVERY child they have will have this condition and die. They do not know that. You condemn them as "selfish" because they want a family?

If they know there's a good chance that the child will inherit their disease, suffer, and die? Hell yes, I condemn them. Adopt a child, adopt one of the many, many children that need it.

I won't ever support any law that stops them from choosing to have children. I do find them selfish, terrible people.

102

OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin Fri, Sep 30, 2011 9:31:04pm

re: #94 reine.de.tout

So, you agree the parents should have had the choice? I'm confused . . .

Don't be confused. They had plenty of "choices".

Such as, choosing to accept that the baby simply was not going to live, whether or not they chose to sue to impose a f'ed up trach on him, or not.

They also had the choice to keep their legs closed. //

103

lostlakehiker Fri, Sep 30, 2011 10:19:17pm

re: #71 chunkymonkey

What's the point? The claim here is that the parents are jerks for inflicting suffering on the child. I claim no suffering. Your question is not relevant to the situation.

You will get downdinged because you're forcing the issue. The issue is that they think genetic defectives shouldn't have children, and they think that money shouldn't be wasted on the care of those who are already dead for all practical purposes.

And I will get downdinged for pointing this out. Of course, you are right that there is no suffering in a persistent vegetative state. An onion does not suffer.

Oh, and I agree with them. And that, too, will get downdinged, because it puts it squarely.

104

Lidane Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:11:25pm

re: #95 reine.de.tout

Choice does not mean that people make the exact same decisions you would make.

True. But choice also doesn't mean forcing your selfish will to have a child at all costs on an infant with a genetic disorder that's going to kill them in a painful, horrifying way.

If you know you're at serious risk of your children getting that disorder, it's the height of self-centered asshole behavior to still have kids anyway. In that case, adoption of a child would be preferable than bringing in a child that you KNOW is going to suffer terribly for their entire life.

105

Dancing along the light of day Sat, Oct 1, 2011 12:11:54am

re: #101 Obdicut

I won't ever support any law that stops them from choosing to have children. I do find them selfish, terrible people.

They are, monsters for torturing that poor child.
I have no other words for it.

106

OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin Sat, Oct 1, 2011 1:02:10am

re: #103 lostlakehiker

The issue is that they think genetic defectives shouldn't have children, and they think that money shouldn't be wasted on the care of those who are already dead for all practical purposes.

I don't know what "they" you're complaining about.

Pro-lie people are quite adept at telling us irresponsible, selfish, moral defectives we better "choose" to keep our legs closed, or else "choose" to carry a baby to term.

But the fact is, every couple has that same choice. They also have the choice not to run around suing to inflict more suffering on the already-born, but as we know, that concept is completely anathema to so-called prolife cons, many of whom apparently believe parents have the "choice" to do whatever the eff they please to their children.

107

OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin Sat, Oct 1, 2011 1:09:33am

re: #97 JRCMYP

I'm going to tell the public that my decision to terminate a pregnancy is a private, medical decision, I'd also better be prepared to defend the right of someone to have a child--to carry a child to term--that has a poor prenatal diagnosis.

But this issue goes way beyond that, and into whether or not parents have an ethical and moral "right" to impose pointless surgeries on their children, which they already know will do nothing to prolong life. In the case of Baby Joseph, it only imposed more suffering on someone already-born.

Legally, it was obviously ruled their "right". But that doesn't mean the decision or their behavior is beyond reproach, any more than the mythical irresponsible legs-open slut using abortion as birth control.

108

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Sat, Oct 1, 2011 1:23:21am

This case is almost like the typical hypothetical one would consider in thought experiments concerning the nonidentity problem.

109

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Sat, Oct 1, 2011 1:42:45am

re: #103 lostlakehiker

You poor, poor victim, you.

110

boxhead Sat, Oct 1, 2011 1:48:07am

This is a very difficult issue. On one hand, you have the parents of a child who is dying. I don't think I could fault them for trying everything in their power to save their child. I'd expect that feeling to exist in all parents. Of course, many others who are not this child's parents want the parents to accept that their baby is going to die. For the parents, that is a seriously fucked up thing to accept, not to mention incredibly hard, painful, life shattering. It seems obvious from an outside view that this medical procedure was unwarranted and prolonged the baby's pain. But the view from inside is nothing but hell. I would never want to make that decision. But I had to for my wife when she died of cancer. I chose to let her go when I knew nothing could be done. Lord, I did not want to say those words to the doctor. You have no idea what that is like until you have to do it. Based on that, I cannot condemn what these parents did. Emotions are running all over the damn place. But now, the child is no longer suffering. But the parents will for the rest of their lives.

Life can be rather cruel sometimes.....

111

OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin Sat, Oct 1, 2011 2:03:36am

re: #110 boxhead

Life can be rather cruel sometimes...

That, it is. Death is a simple fact, yet it's always f'ed up whether one has to make those decisions for a spouse, child, parent or other loved one. Some are not coming from a pie-in-the-sky, abstracted view on that issue, though.

112

boxhead Sat, Oct 1, 2011 2:08:34am

re: #111 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

That, it is. Death is a simple fact, yet it's always f'ed up whether one has to make those decisions for a spouse, child, parent or other loved one. Some are not coming from a pie-in-the-sky, abstracted view on that issue, though.

I am one of them. And I cannot help but feel for anyone else who has to. I think people should let the family grieve before coming after them for the way they handled their child's illness, if people truly think they must. That is the civilized thing to do.

113

OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin Sat, Oct 1, 2011 2:26:47am

re: #112 boxhead

I am one of them. And I cannot help but feel for anyone else who has to. I think people should let the family grieve before coming after them for the way they handled their child's illness, if people truly think they must. That is the civilized thing to do.

Perhaps, though I seriously doubt the parents care one whit what I or anyone else has to say about it. They or the grandstanding ideologues like that Father Pavone could have kept it out of the news.

114

boxhead Sat, Oct 1, 2011 2:29:30am

re: #113 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

yes.... it is what it is I guess... I hope the family finds solace...

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Baby Joseph Tortured to Death by Fundamentalist Parents and “Pro-Life” Movement

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud