Posted January 25, 2014 I was wondering if they meant nonviable as it is only 22 or so weeks, or nonviable because of defects incompatible with life. If its gestational age I could see the hospital pushing for it to be born. No matter that it will be grossly deformed and have a junk quality of life. Oh and I keep reading that the hospital is sending all bills to the husband/father and demanding payment. They mush be looking for a huge chunk of money out of this. Share this post Link to post
Posted January 25, 2014 Honestly I don't think the family should pay for medical bills based on a treatment that they were against. For the original treatment to save the woman (before life-support) it would make sense (and that is probably covered under their insurence) but I'd like the family to get some sort of monetary compensation for the stress/lost work hours/ and the patients families attornies fees. Share this post Link to post
Posted January 25, 2014 I was wondering if they meant nonviable as it is only 22 or so weeks, or nonviable because of defects incompatible with life. If its gestational age I could see the hospital pushing for it to be born. No matter that it will be grossly deformed and have a junk quality of life. Oh and I keep reading that the hospital is sending all bills to the husband/father and demanding payment. They mush be looking for a huge chunk of money out of this. The fetus is at 22 weeks, so it is not viable outside the womb. It could technically be "born" in 2-4 weeks (when the fetus is 24-26 weeks old) but with hydrocephalus and possible heart problems, it's really up for debate whether it will LAST that long. It's also got lower extremity deformities. I think it's incredibly cruel to bring something into the world that is only going to suffer and have a very low quality of life for however long it lives. :/ Why would anyone wish that on anything? I think the hospital should have to eat the cost because the family didn't want this anyway. The hospital KNEW this and went completely against the wishes of the family to keep her alive. The hospital made the choice to keep her alive, and so they should pay for it. Share this post Link to post
Posted January 25, 2014 (edited) The fetus is very deformed and has hydrocephalus. It isn't likely to survive no matter what (thank goodness....) But for the hospital to have the absolute gall to demand money - that's like the supermarket charging me for the food I DIDN'T choose to buy. SICK. Now I have to begin to wonder if profit was their primary motive all along ! (NO - I don't believe that; I think they were trying to make some kind of sick pro-birth point...) I don't think they should get one red cent from the family OR from the insurance. No-one has the right to send bills for things that were not only not asked for but were actually and specifically declined. They choose to act like jerks, they can pay for it themselves. Edited January 25, 2014 by fuzzbucket Share this post Link to post
Posted January 25, 2014 The hospital has no right to ask for money! The family didn't want this to go on in the first place, so they shouldn't have to pay anything. The hospital should be the one to cough up the money. Share this post Link to post
Posted January 25, 2014 Charging them for treatment they didn't ask for? Excuse me?! How dare they try and suck money from them to keep this treatment going when it's already heading south in the first place! Share this post Link to post
Posted January 25, 2014 I agree that the hospital should be forced to eat the bill. The family and the deceased both were against this kind of treatment, IIRC. So the only people involved who even want to keep a corpse "alive" are the damn hospital idiots who are in charge of the decisions. At this point, I'd also argue that the hospital should be forced to pay the husband and her family money as compensation for the suffering they're being forced to go through because of this ridiculousness. Share this post Link to post
Posted January 25, 2014 Okay, I will admit I haven't read all 276 pages of this before posting, but here's my two sense: I fully believe that the government does not exist to legislate morals. Do I agree with abortion? No, but I also don't want a bunch of balding, middle-aged men telling me what I can and can't do with my body. Personally, I think too many women use abortion as an excuse to not have to live with the consequences of their immature choices. If you don't want to be a mother, don't have unprotected sex. Or better yet, don't have sex at all. I don't agree with it. I don't like it, but I live in a country that tries to pass itself off as free. It should be a legal option. Period. Share this post Link to post
Posted January 25, 2014 Personally, I think too many women use abortion as an excuse to not have to live with the consequences of their immature choices. If you don't want to be a mother, don't have unprotected sex. Or better yet, don't have sex at all. I don't agree with it. I don't like it, but I live in a country that tries to pass itself off as free. It should be a legal option. Period. How is it "immature"? And pregnancy is NOT a form of consequence! Is that what you want to tell the child when they wonder why their parents hate them? Sex is natural. Are you saying married couples shouldn't have sex if they don't want to risk pregnancy? Share this post Link to post
Posted January 25, 2014 Okay, I will admit I haven't read all 276 pages of this before posting, but here's my two sense: I fully believe that the government does not exist to legislate morals. Do I agree with abortion? No, but I also don't want a bunch of balding, middle-aged men telling me what I can and can't do with my body. Personally, I think too many women use abortion as an excuse to not have to live with the consequences of their immature choices. If you don't want to be a mother, don't have unprotected sex. Or better yet, don't have sex at all. I don't agree with it. I don't like it, but I live in a country that tries to pass itself off as free. It should be a legal option. Period. Also does this logic also apply to men? if you don't want to be a father don't have sex? if thats the case why didn't you state it? Share this post Link to post
Posted January 25, 2014 Personally, I think too many women use abortion as an excuse to not have to live with the consequences of their immature choices. If you don't want to be a mother, don't have unprotected sex. Or better yet, don't have sex at all. Many people having unprotected sex are doing so because 1) they've received a bad education and think if they do it x way they can't get pregnant, or think they're too old or young to get pregnant, or etc. or 2) they've been pressured into it or perhaps can't afford birth control or contraception or have health issues they're worried about if they take birth control. I also know many young people who can get pregnant who don't feel safe talking to their parents about birth control. Many cismen insist that sex isn't as good if they have to use a condom and then tell their partner they'll just pull out or something. Also, unprotected sex isn't the only way to get pregnant. Birth control and contraception can fail. Abusive partners may tamper with your birth control. Rape happens. Share this post Link to post
Posted January 25, 2014 (edited) I have to ask, because I really don't get it. What do people seem to have against sex? It's a natural biological thing that (most) people want to do or eventually want to do. Abortion isn't about having sex or not having sex, because abstinence has been shown time and again to just not work. The most effective ways to reduce abortions are 1) actually educating our children about sex, contraception, parenting, pregnancy, and related, and 2) easily accessible, affordable birth control. People, especially young people, are likely to experiment with things they don't know a lot about. They're also susceptible to inaccurate and flat out untrue information, which is why it's so necessary to teach people the right information instead of just saying "omg sex is evil don't do it!!!1!" Also pregnancy takes a man and a woman to do. It is wrong to blame only the woman for "immature" choices when a male is half responsible. Too many men are allowed to skip out and people continue to leave out the necessary fact that a man is involved. It's half his "fault" too. If you are going to say don't have sex, tell that to men too. And pregnancy is NOT a form of consequence! Pregnancy IS a consequence. A consequence is simply the result of an action or condition. People assign negative or positive connotations - for example, a job is the consequence of applying for it. So she's not wrong in that it is a consequence. But it doesn't need to be a NEGATIVE consequence. Edited January 25, 2014 by Infinis Share this post Link to post
Posted January 25, 2014 (edited) Okay, I will admit I haven't read all 276 pages of this before posting, but here's my two sense: I fully believe that the government does not exist to legislate morals. Do I agree with abortion? No, but I also don't want a bunch of balding, middle-aged men telling me what I can and can't do with my body. Personally, I think too many women use abortion as an excuse to not have to live with the consequences of their immature choices. If you don't want to be a mother, don't have unprotected sex. Or better yet, don't have sex at all. I don't agree with it. I don't like it, but I live in a country that tries to pass itself off as free. It should be a legal option. Period. Well if you read all 276 pages then you would see that people can get pregnant from being "responsible" still; eg. birth control failure/tamperament, lack of education. People have sex as a form of bonding, yes they should be responsible if they don't want pregnancy but the sex shaming of society also needs to cease. There is such thing as protected sex gone wrong. Immature? You do know adult women get pregnant and have abortions to yes? Not all teens get pregnant and have abortions. I know a LOT of adult women that had sex, got pregnant, realized they couldn't care for the child, had an abortion. They were married btw. Getting an abortion IS being responsible. Would you want it to be spawned and then grow up in a family that didn't want it, abused it, or even threw it into the sucky adoption sys. we have? Do you think it's responsible for a women to have a kid that she can't take care of or that the adoption sys would make miserable? Also if she became mentally, physically traumatized through the pregnancy but she should still spawn it, is that not a cruel thing to make her suffer for? Also if you read all 276 pages than you would understand the ignorance of such statements Yes it should be a legal option because if it were not there would be illegally, and far more dangerous abortions preformed. Or maybe the women would just kill themselves because they don't want to, or can't find an illegal abortionist. Edited January 25, 2014 by BlightWyvern Share this post Link to post
Posted January 25, 2014 Pregnancy IS a consequence. A consequence is simply the result of an action or condition. People assign negative or positive connotations - for example, a job is the consequence of applying for it. So she's not wrong in that it is a consequence. But it doesn't need to be a NEGATIVE consequence. I may have been acting on impulse. I wasn't sure if she was going to mean it as a punishment, which is what it seemed like. My apologies for bad wording but I hear that a lot from people Share this post Link to post
Posted January 26, 2014 Recently my cousin found out that she was pregnant, and she takes birth control so it's not like she was irresponsible. I spoke to my mom about it and said if I was in such a situation I would get an abortion. My mother thinks that an abortion is only acceptable if it's a case of rape or severe medical issues. And she means physical, because she thinks if someone is so scared of having kids or getting pregnant they shouldn't have sex to begin with. She actually thinks that unless it's one of the aforementioned reasons then it's being used as a form of birth control. It's thinking like that, that upsets me so much because it's just enforcing the whole "punish women for having sex" thing. Share this post Link to post
Posted January 26, 2014 Recently my cousin found out that she was pregnant, and she takes birth control so it's not like she was irresponsible. I spoke to my mom about it and said if I was in such a situation I would get an abortion. My mother thinks that an abortion is only acceptable if it's a case of rape or severe medical issues. And she means physical, because she thinks if someone is so scared of having kids or getting pregnant they shouldn't have sex to begin with. She actually thinks that unless it's one of the aforementioned reasons then it's being used as a form of birth control. It's thinking like that, that upsets me so much because it's just enforcing the whole "punish women for having sex" thing. *offers hugs to cecona* Did you ask your mom about the boys/men who have sex with the women? (I think you may have addressed this once in the thread but I can't remember ) Share this post Link to post
Posted January 26, 2014 What do people seem to have against sex? To be honest, it's the only argument against safe, consensual, extra-marital sex. Share this post Link to post
Posted January 26, 2014 To be honest, it's the only argument against safe, consensual, extra-marital sex. Yeees because when you get married, you don't need to worry about std's unwanted pregnancy, unplanned pregnancy ect. Owait? You've had sex before with others before you got married? You're not worthy of getting married now, you're unclean, sorry. Sarcasm just incase people think I'm being serious. Share this post Link to post
Posted January 26, 2014 It also has to do with this deep seeded virginity fetish most of the world has. Share this post Link to post
Posted January 26, 2014 YES! Woman In Texas Tooken off Lifesupport YES ! Thank EVERYTHING out there. What a blessed relief. And I HOPE Munoz doesn't get ANY more bills. Share this post Link to post
Posted January 27, 2014 .... That's GREAT news. Feels like one of those "too little too late" things though... I mean it's great news and all, I'm sure the family is relieved, but I can't even be glad to hear that news because I can't see that article without thinking BUT IT SHOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED AT ALL! Share this post Link to post
Posted January 27, 2014 I am appalled to see that his local firefighters have set up a fund to pay his bills. THERE SHOULD BE NO BILLS. But it seems they will likely be almost a million bucks for those weeks of intensive care. If only Obama had got his FULL healthcare bill through.... At least in the UK or Canada he'd have walked away from that hospital debt free. Share this post Link to post
Posted January 27, 2014 Finally! I'm glad the poor woman's dying wish was finally full filled <3 (and I don't care if you think that sounds cheesy) Share this post Link to post
Posted January 28, 2014 I'm surprised nobody here has caught wind of this yet. I'll just leave this here... Share this post Link to post
Recommended Posts