Brain Dead Mom By Law Must Artificially Keep Her Organs Alive To Save Her Child

[Roughsoul1991]

https://www.walb.com/2025/05/15/wom...ntinue-pregnancy-under-state-law-family-says/

It is the role of good government to protect innocent lives. Of course, this is an emotionally charged issue but the facts are, that one life is dead while the other life is still alive.

People are advocating that it would be ethically correct to allow the child to die for the grieving family to bury their daughter.

As tragic of a situation and a position I'd never want to be in, I hope someone would be trying to save my grandchild's life in the womb.

Sure the risks involve potential disabilities but those are not guaranteed and many children have been born healthy from situations where they had recommended abortion.

 

[kqr_anointed]

 

[ResidentAlien]

It's not the government's role to protect the innocent; it's the people's responsibility. The government's role is to reflect the will of the people. If the people of Georgia want this law, then that's their choice; if they decide they don't want it and vote out the ones who made it, then that's the way the system works.

 

[CommodoreTeach]

https://www.walb.com/2025/05/15/wom...ntinue-pregnancy-under-state-law-family-says/

It is the role of good government to protect innocent lives. Of course, this is an emotionally charged issue but the facts are, that one life is dead while the other life is still alive.

People are advocating that it would be ethically correct to allow the child to die for the grieving family to bury their daughter.

As tragic of a situation and a position I'd never want to be in, I hope someone would be trying to save my grandchild's life in the womb.

Sure the risks involve potential disabilities but those are not guaranteed and many children have been born healthy from situations where they had recommended abortion.

Brain dead is not really dead. So from the title, the life of the (apparently helpless) woman is being preserved to maintain the life of her unborn child? Seems like common sense to me.

 

[HeIsHere]

Brain dead is not really dead. So from the title, the life of the (apparently helpless) woman is being preserved to maintain the life of her unborn child? Seems like common sense to me.

When is a person dead then?

 

[Magenta]

The law bans abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, typically around 6 weeks into pregnancy. But allowing the brain dead mother to die (as opposed to being kept alive artificially) if that was the wish of the family is not and should not in any way be classified as an abortion. However, the family says doctors told them they are/were not legally allowed to consider other options.

 

[JohnDB]

Leading causes of death in the U.S:

Abortion: 1,026,690
Heart disease: 680,909
Cancer: 613,331
Accidents: 222,518
Stroke: 165,393
Lung disease: 147,382

No group suffers more death than our children—killed before they're born.

 

[Roughsoul1991]

Brain dead is not really dead. So from the title, the life of the (apparently helpless) woman is being preserved to maintain the life of her unborn child? Seems like common sense to me.

Brain death is death and legally can be classified as death. The brain cells begin to die until total loss of the brain. Brain death can not be healed. The doctors are simply keeping blood abd oxygen flow artificially in order to keep other functions from decaying.

 

[HeIsHere]

Brain death is death and legally can be classified as death. The brain cells begin to die until total loss of the brain. Brain death can not be healed. The doctors are simply keeping blood abd oxygen flow artificially in order to keep other functions from decaying.

Agree, I think sometimes we see these articles about someone "brain dead" regaining consciousness but most likely it is click bait.

A brain dead person will not regain consciousness, the damage is extensive and irreversible.

 

[Roughsoul1991]

The law bans abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, typically around 6 weeks into pregnancy. But allowing the brain dead mother to die (as opposed to being kept alive artificially) if that was the wish of the family is not and should not in any way be classified as an abortion. However, the family says doctors told them they are/were not legally allowed to consider other options.

With advance technology we are now faced with do we truly believe that life begins at conception. If so, then how far should healthcare go to preserve that life. The woman died at 7 weeks. The child is now at 20 weeks. The family from the interview sounds like they would end life support due to the doctor's worries over potential child disabilities. How far should the state protect life? Is a question also being debated as well as consent laws where the family has no say.

I guess for me, emotion aside, to stop life support, a life dies. I believe laws should protect life. Especially when they do not know how the child will turn out, if they knew 100% the child will die then they are only prolonging the natural process of death.

 

[Roughsoul1991]

Agree, I think sometimes we see these articles about someone "brain dead" regaining consciousness but most likely it is click bait.

A brain dead person will not regain consciousness, the damage is extensive and irreversible.

The news source is local for me. They are left leaning and of course would title the article this way. Being kept alive is misleading. They could have titled it as Child being kept alive in the womb after mom's death.

WALB knows that this article will cause debate and many clicks.

 

[Magenta]

With advance technology we are now faced with do we truly believe that life begins at conception. If so, then how far should healthcare go to preserve that life. The woman died at 7 weeks. The child is now at 20 weeks. The family from the interview sounds like they would end life support due to the doctor's worries over potential child disabilities. How far should the state protect life? Is a question also being debated as well as consent laws where the family has no say.

I guess for me, emotion aside, to stop life support, a life dies. I believe laws should protect life. Especially when they do not know how the child will turn out, if they knew 100% the child will die then they are only prolonging the natural process of death.

Life does begin at conception... interesting that I heard something very recently about the vast majority of biologists agreeing to this, don't ask me where or how many there were LOL but gosh, it seems a no-brainer to me, of course this is the sort of thing that gets debated and twisted this way and that due to the abortion debate. And then person-hood gets introduced into the debate, when does life become a person? And what defines a person? Because when parameters start being erected all manner of other considerations come into play... such as a person being self-sustaining, which quadriplegics are not, for instance. I understand your desire to protect the life of the unborn child, but I see the other side of it as well, because the fetus was so very young (9 weeks) when the mom died.

 

[Roughsoul1991]

Life does begin at conception... interesting that I heard something very recently about the vast majority of biologists agreeing to this, don't ask me where or how many there were LOL but gosh, it seems a no-brainer to me, of course this is the sort of thing that gets debated and twisted this way and that due to the abortion debate. And then person-hood gets introduced into the debate, when does life become a person? And what defines a person? Because when parameters start being erected all manner of other considerations come into play... such as a person being self-sustaining, which quadriplegics are not, for instance. I understand your desire to protect the life of the unborn child, but I see the other side of it as well, because the fetus was so very young (9 weeks) when the mom died.

Very true. I often here the viability argument which is strange in itself because even my 7 year old id question viability as in could he feed, clothe, shelter, hydrate, and practice basic survival if on their own lol. All young children need help.

It is a newer concept since science now shows us life begins at conception so personhood is really just people asking when does life gain legal human rights. I'd say if life begins at conception, it should start there. Of course, with protection related to medical emergencies.

 

[SomeDisciple]

There seems to be a lot of articles about this story in the news. Apparently the hospital is actually going above the requirements of the law to keep the child alive (which is fine with me). A lot of people are angry because they think the woman wasn't given adequate care, and that her death was preventable. Others take issue that keeping the child alive will be at the families' expense.

So, the question that leads to; is the hospital going above the requirements of the law because....

1) They are actually pro-life and are interested in saving the child? (1% chance)
2) They are actually scared they might run into legal trouble? (20% chance)
3) They want to milk this family for their cash? (29% chance)
4) This is all a performance by the hospital's staff and legal team in order to set the groundwork for a court case agenda? (50%)


Where/who does this hospitals' non-bill revenues come from? Is it someone with a political agenda? Will someone with an agenda and access to large amounts of funds eventually pay the bill to 'benevolently' provide relief to the family?

Was this scenario set up?; and if so, how far did they go to set it up? Did the hospital intentionally let this woman die, or even cause her death?

What are the chances this story will end with the tragic 'unpreventable' death of the child to generate outrage at pro-life advocates for money "wasted" on life-support, "emotional damage" to the family etc. ?

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

Very true. I often here the viability argument which is strange in itself because even my 7 year old id question viability as in could he feed, clothe, shelter, hydrate, and practice basic survival if on their own lol. All young children need help.

It is a newer concept since science now shows us life begins at conception so personhood is really just people asking when does life gain legal human rights. I'd say if life begins at conception, it should start there. Of course, with protection related to medical emergencies.

People should consider God's view of personhood.

Psalm 139:13 For you formed my inward parts;
you knitted me together in my mother's womb.
14 I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
Wonderful are your works;
my soul knows it very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you,
when I was being made in secret,
intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my unformed substance;
in your book were written, every one of them,
the days that were formed for me,
when as yet there was none of them.


🥑

 

[CommodoreTeach]

When is a person dead then?

In my opinion, when the heart stops, but even then, one can remain alive for some minutes afterward (or more according to several accounts I've heard about). Leviticus 17:14 states the life is in the blood, so I'd consent that someone is truly dead when the blood starts to congeal.

 

[CommodoreTeach]

Brain death is death and legally can be classified as death. The brain cells begin to die until total loss of the brain. Brain death can not be healed. The doctors are simply keeping blood abd oxygen flow artificially in order to keep other functions from decaying.

If this were true, and not actually a ploy to profitably harvest organs from people who can't consent, there would not be any cases where people with "brain death" fully recovered.

Legal definitions don't carry much weight, given the judiciary's incapacity to understand the rights of unborn children or inability to define what a woman is (amongst a great many other simple matters).

 

[Roughsoul1991]

If this were true, and not actually a ploy to profitably harvest organs from people who can't consent, there would not be any cases where people with "brain death" fully recovered.

Legal definitions don't carry much weight, given the judiciary's incapacity to understand the rights of unborn children or inability to define what a woman is (amongst a great many other simple matters).

Miracles do happen rarely, but brain death is still death. There is no natural explanation. As to why legally you are dead once the brain has completely shut down.

 

[Roughsoul1991]

In my opinion, when the heart stops, but even then, one can remain alive for some minutes afterward (or more according to several accounts I've heard about). Leviticus 17:14 states the life is in the blood, so I'd consent that someone is truly dead when the blood starts to congeal.

Upon brain death without a ventilator to keep blood and oxygen moving, the heart would stop very quickly, usually in less than an hour.

As to why, it is miracle in cases where people return after longer periods of time. I'd even say a resurrection.

 

[CommodoreTeach]

Miracles do happen rarely, but brain death is still death. There is no natural explanation. As to why legally you are dead once the brain has completely shut down.

If something happens routinely, it's more science than miracle, irrespective of whether or not its understood. "Brain death" simply isn't death.

If doctors and the bureaucrats who control them put more effort into helping people instead of harvesting them for their organs, the number of these so-called "miracles" would increase dramatically.

Upon brain death without a ventilator to keep blood and oxygen moving, the heart would stop very quickly, usually in less than an hour.

As to why, it is miracle in cases where people return after longer periods of time. I'd even say a resurrection.

People also say birth is a miracle, which I guess it is from a certain point of view. But there's also a science behind it.