{OT} alternative to killing babies

Then it wasn't about her being a burden to the husband, it was about her husband doing what she wanted.

Reply to
ToMh
Loading thread data ...

That's a tough concept for some people to follow, even for people who have put those instructions in writing for doctor and family.

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

Yeah, right...

Reply to
badgolferman

Are you 100% positive that your opinions on this issue are objective?

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

Did she have those instructions in writing?

Reply to
badgolferman

Are you going to ever say something that doesn't have a question mark attached to it?

Reply to
badgolferman

I don't recall. But, I honestly don't think it would've mattered, considering the political and religious horseshit surrounding the case.

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

Yeah, right. If he was just being selfish, we would of just let the parents deal with it and he could of just washed his hands of it. He chose to fight for his wife. Regardless, it's still none of your's or the government's business.

Reply to
ToMh

They didn't have a living will. If she did, there would not have been this big controversy. People are taken off life support all the time. Some because of a living will and some because everybody in the family agree it's best. In this case there was no living will and the husband and parents disagreed on removing life support, hence the mess.

Reply to
ToMh

And that you can't answer her question cause you don't have a clue to what your talking about.

---------------------------------------------------- OK sure whatever. You have the final word.

Reply to
mark digital©

But it doesn't address my point, at all.

Cathy

Reply to
Cathy F.

Exploitation. As it stands now IVF involves super ovulation. It's very easy to jump to creating embryos. Now, I must really get back to my bread. It's calling me ;)

Reply to
mark digital©

Tom, the only thing I typed was, "the crux of the matter is". That's all, everything else is quoted. I do agree however with the quoted. Why spend taxpayer money on this? Why not george soros and some of his rich buddies fund it. This will be vetoed again which will buy more time to find a better more lasting solution.

I wish you wouldn't get so upset, life is too short.

Reply to
dbu,

No she did not.

Her parents wanted to take care of her.

The only 'instructions' were relayed by her husband.

Reply to
Scott in Florida

Joe, the legend in his own mind?

Nah....

Reply to
Scott in Florida

IVF should NEVER be paid for from taxpayers' money. We need less population, not more.

Reply to
sharx35

Surely, for anyone with any emotional health at all, it is far from being easy.

Reply to
sharx35

Well, there is a reason for using public money. OTOH, USians of a certain political stripe have such a profound abhorrence of any public involvement in private life that I hesitate to mention it. If public money is used to fund an invention, presumably it could then be patented for the public good, rather than to enrich (say) this "george soros" (who is not someone I know) and his mates.

Reply to
Andrew Stephenson

Hmmm. Good bread. I'm unhappy to say it didn't rise as well as I expected it would. Back to the drawing board. Have a nice day.

Reply to
mark digital©

did you use fresh yeast and warm water?

Reply to
dbu,

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.