About the author: Kevin Fobbs

Kevin Fobbs has more than 35 years of wide-ranging experience as a community and tenant organizer, Legal Services outreach program director, public relations consultant, business executive, gubernatorial and presidential appointee, political advisor, widely published writer, and national lecturer. Kevin is co-chair and co-founder of AC-3 (American-Canadian Conservative Coalition) that focuses on issues on both sides of the border between the two countries.

View all articles by Kevin Fobbs
  • Marge

    Thank God for that Texas law…what is wrong with this husband? It’s his child. You would think he would want a part of her to live on.

    • Mary

      He can’t run around and be a playboy if he has a baby to take care of. He has to grow up and be a responsible adult. To him, that’s asking too much.

      • Bonney Bacon

        He already has a son (under two years old). So I think your comments of him being a ‘playboy’ and ‘grow up and be a responsible adult’ are rude and crude and inappropriate. It took me two minutes to google the hospital and find out more info–try that next time before putting foot in mouth. I’m the down check.

        • caskinner

          It is my understanding that they are basing their (husband and her parents) wishes based on the woman’s wishes to not be kept on life support if this situation ever came up. This is a little more complicated and I would be willing to bet that this situation was not discussed between husband and wife.

          • Memphis Viking

            I’d be willing to bet her desire to not be left on life support didn’t include a situation where she was pregnant at the time.

          • Bonney Bacon

            caskinner, Barbaree and Memphis Viking–I’m sure you’ve pegged it–who in their right mind would discuss such a situation–I’m sure their never even thought it would come up. Of course this incident probably will provide a starting point for couples in discussing not only ‘end of life’ issues but also this situation. Good from bad.

          • Louise

            Sadly cases like this have been around for at least 50 years. I attended CU for a degree in nursing in the sixties. We had a female college student try to to commit suicide by crashing her car into an abutment- she was pregnant, The bioethics group voted to keep her alive as an incubator for the fetus. After a C section delivery was done, the mother’s body was harvested for organs to save others. So a baby was saved as well as seven others. The family was divided on what they wanted- no one knew who the baby’s father was so the grandparents were the voice for the daughter and ultimently the grandson.

          • Barbaree

            If it was discussed, although I also have doubts, I would bet my life that a situation of pregnancy never came up.

          • caskinner

            I agree.

    • RobinTX

      1) Is it for sure his? 2) He does not want it!
      If he did this article would not exist. It would read something like “TX Father Fighting for Unborn Child’s Life”…. argues that brain dead wife makes perfect incubator for his…

  • guest

    Does the state have a conflict of interest, in that abortions are legal in Texas? If not a conflict of interest, isn’t there certainly a duality of reasoning here? I see both sides of this case, and would not want to be in this husband’s position. However, it seems a bit heavy-handed for the state, on one hand, to take away the family’s decision-making abilities, yet on the other hand permit abortions that are ultimately decided on by one person – the mother.

  • Carrie54

    so the family wants to end the childs life to show that the mothers life is more valuable? this is a place to be in but i would think that the mother would have chosen life for the baby if she knew that she would be brain dead

  • soanonymous

    Why the heck can’t they just keep her alive until the baby can be delivered via C-section? Would that be so horrible? Then, if they don’t give a rip about the baby (I’m sure they don’t), they can have it put up for adoption.

    • http://www.facebook.com/aemoreira81 aemoreira81

      That is precisely for what Texas law calls—see the article’s fifth paragraph.

  • anastasia

    I’m amazed that the parents are calling for them to end life support. I have a grandson that is 14 months old, and a daughter that is having a baby in MAY–and as painful as it would be for my daughter or daughter inlaw to be brain dead–I would want that grandchild, and my daughter & daughter in law would want the life of thier child to live on and to be loved and taken care of. It amazes me that they don’t want the baby—That’s cold.

  • Tired of the Same Old Crap

    .
    Does this not present a dilemma for the women’s rights abortionist groups? If Texas cannot let the mother die because there is a live baby in her then how can they say that a fetus of the same age can be aborted at the mothers will? Is it not murder in both cases or does the mothers desire to abort the child take precedence over Texas law?.
    .

    • Scarface13

      Great Point!

    • RobinTX

      … and the father has no say in any case. If a father is pro-life, and the mom does not want the baby, he must sit idly by and allow the mom to murder his unborn child. The father is the on without “rights”…

  • wandamurline

    If she had been in an accident and dies and the baby close to delivery…they would take the baby and leave the mother. As a mother, I would want my family to keep the machine on until they could safely save my baby and I believe that most mothers who have children would want the same. Is the want to terminate the life of the mother only the father’s decision…..have the grandparents joined him. I can see his problem….the cost of her on the machine grows daily, so I would ask the hospital since they will not relieve me by allowing her to die….that they relieve me of the expenses of continuation. That being said, I believe that my husband would want the baby and would doe the right thing. I am a Texan and I am glad that we have these new laws….there will always be a few instances of things such as this….but not having Planned Parenthood murdering babies on a daily basis is worth it all.

    • caskinner

      I can not imagine that being in this situation that her family would not want to do everything to bring this baby into the world. I believe they fear that the baby did without oxygen and may not be ok. No one is assured a normal baby. He parents are on the same page as her husband.

  • trugrits

    It does seem strange that they allow abortion of a baby that is way many more weeks in development but in this case the baby has rights. Something wrong with this picture.
    If the mother is alive the baby has no rights but in this case the baby has rights to life because the mother is considered dead.
    What a strange world we live in today. Who comes up with these decisions and how?

    • awkingsley

      Thank you for your lucid espousal of this philosophical dilemma.

    • enigmaticaluna

      I’M 1000% for life, if anyone of you ever live in dictatorship as I did, maybe you will have more respect for life than what some people has speculated her that should be done with the life of one, over the dead of another. God’s plans many people talk about, When God give life, He does since the conception of that life. Plain and simple.
      What makes a difference point of view between a woman who abort their baby and this one, it’s that the law, protect ” women choices ” in this case, it’s not the choice of the woman, because she’s “brain dead ” but those outside her body, we’re all individuals, even if marry with someone we still individual minds, thought process and actions, the husband has no power over the life of his wife, as I do… in this case dead, the only power as father he has, is to the life of the child, since the state considerate that his power is over abuse the life of another, the state use the law to stop him from this killing.
      Might I remember all of you that we talking about Texas, that has pass laws to protect the unborn, forcing mothers that want to have an abortion to actually hear the beat of the child, see what abortion does as well, and a period of waiting time, from that moment to the moment of the abortion, all the children are not save, but they are being save many because of this laws. Also, the gov. has make a law where all the “clinics that work on abortions must be close” if they are not in a particular distance from a hospital, that most the hospital are to take this roll of abortions and must be done by doctors that are prepare, if a woman have in abortion for example in plain parenthood, the clinic and the woman can be persecuted… it’s not the best thing, but they are steps in the right direction.
      We just have a huge fight in the Texas legislation over this issue, in fact a nasty democrat “Davis ” through a filibuster try to stop these law to pass, when not just the unborn child will be protected, so it’s the mother… it’s not talk about it, but women do suffer greatly because this abortions in the hands of butchers, and we don’t know how many actually have died because of it, it’s not tell, but we know the mental and physical stage that many suffer, with out talking about health. Is going to take the American people to stand up for life, when you kill the children of a Nation, you’re killing the future of that Nation, that means, in few years over this issue, the USA will be taken by another culture, because will not be Americans to protected, comes in mind islam… so people better start placing their hearts in their best place… THE FUTURE OF THE USA, they are OUR CHILDREN, you KILL them, you have no future!

  • jeepdude911

    Life begins at conception. I feel for the family, but if the baby is viable, the baby comes first. Thank God for Texas.

  • Larry

    Seems to me: Marlize was unconscious and without oxygen long enough to be brain dead, so is it possible that the baby was not oxygen deprived for some time too?

  • homer1057

    And this: is as it should be..nation wide! For all of you that can remember John 3:16 (KJV) it says for God so “LOVED” the world, that He “GAVE” his only begotten “SON”…however don’t forget the other side of HIS nature, He hates those that “Shed Innocent Blood”! Pro 6:16-19 KJV While i am at it, HE also hates those that “PUT AWAY” i.e. Divorce. Also HE hates those that “Imagine evil against his neighbor, and those that love a lie/false oath (Zeck 8:17 KJV) See, God is a balanced God, who has a “PERFECT” love and a perfect hatered! You had better get that! The world has God loving men to death and acts as IF, God wouldn’t send me to hell, He loves me too much! He will accept me no matter how bad I am! he wouldn’t dare send me to hell, He is a God of Love! Better not bet your eternal soul on that one! John 3:36 says He has “WRATH” on those that hate Him and believe not! Go ahead, read it for yourself, don’t believe me..READ IT!!

  • homer1057

    ….that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou (YOU) and thy seed may live: That thou mayest love the Lord thy God…Deut 30:19-20 KJV There is NO other BOOK, better than a King James Bible to give you/me the directions to all the answers we need to make ANY decisions in life! Let’s begin to consult that INNERRANT, INFALLIABLE BOOK, the WORD of God!

  • A Texas Patriot’s Wife

    Thank God for Texas. That baby should be born and not be given to the father or the parents who obviously don’t want it but want it dead. I am sure there is a loving family who will take it and give it a wonderful life and somehow the mother will know her child lives on despite her death. A part of that mother will always be here because of the people of Texas. What a wonderful gift from God! I would take this child in a minute if I could.

    MY TERMS OF SERVICE: No response to cretins, misogamists, anti-life supporters, users of profanity, users of sexual references, pro-gay supporters, anti-Christians, pro-Islamic, progressives, anti-2nd Amendment (especially non-Americans), anti-veteran or a non-supporter of our troops, feminists, if you are puerile, if you insult my husband or family, are rude or if you are unable to understand what you have just read since the above mentioned seem to have this problem and expect a response they will never get. For the rest of you, God Bless you, my brothers and sisters. As for my brave veteran husband, I love him to the moon and back, respect him above all others. He is the love of my life, soulmate and caregiver to my handicap.

    • darkcyder

      Wow- this is a tough one. As an up front note, let me add that my wife is a quadriplegic, so I am also a caregiver. And I do live in Texas. I was furious with the whole Terry Schaivo issue, because I know that without somebody else caring for her, my wife would also perish. Stop feeding her and she would die a horrible death as did Terry. I also believe that several “lack of care issues” led to Terry’s state of being, as I know that any slip could send my wife into a similar tailspin.
      This matter is something different. Here are my points:
      – The baby was only 14 weeks along. Normal gestation period is 38 weeks. that means about 1/3 of the way along. So, the body must be kept as a human incubator for up to 24 more weeks- six months.
      – if the state requires this against family wishes, who is responsible for the hospital bills? The husband/ his insurance? Or the taxpayers?
      – What are the implications of living in the birth canal without the healthy heartbeat/ brainwaves and all other things that contribute to what we state as a normal gestation process? Happy moms make happy babies- what do dead moms make? Do the babies systems and synapses develop normally, or are they creating a frankenstein? And I don’t mean that iffensively if you ever read the original novel.
      – I am concerned as the father seems to be that there may be issues arising from lack of life support for the baby for some period .i.e. lack of oxygen/ bloodflow etc.
      – What would God have us do? Is it right to artificially support one life to save another? I find myself at a moral dilemma on this one.
      I pray for all involved that they are able to find peace and resolution from God. I’d guess that if it was me, I’d want to keep my wife alive, but then I don’t have all the details or understand the extenuating circumstances. I cannot imagine them now, but I would guess there are potential scenarios where I might decide otherwise. What an unfortunate set of circumstances this man faces, as well as the wrath of people he does not even know, and who do not know the entire story. It seems to me that many of the people posting here have not respected you “terms of service” on his behalf.

      • A Texas Patriot’s Wife

        My husband would keep me alive for he would not want to kill his own child. He would know how I feel about abortion. As to my terms of service, they are to prevent nasty, vile, profanity directed at me for expressing my opinion by people who come to sites just for that reason. I have had to change my name 3 times to get the barnacles off my behind and my husband actually wrote most of them for my protection. It is just a warning unless someone actually does any of those things. You have been perfectly polite and a gentleman and I appreciate your thoughts, feelings and ideas. As you can see, I am a lady, and I do not attack people who may have a differing viewpoint. All I ask is that others do the same, but the majority don’t so it is a protection. Thanks for your response and it was a pleasure to hear your opinion. God Bless

      • caskinner

        The baby lives in the uterus of her/his mom not the birth canal.

  • David Weakland

    This is a simple issue for me. The “state” is not accountable to GOD, the individual is. Let the individual(s) make the decision they feel is best for them and their family and let GOD judge them in his time.
    Personal feelings and the “will of society” have no spiritual standing in these matters.

    • Memphis Viking

      The state’s responsibility is to protect its citizens.

      • David Weakland

        Respectfully disagree. The “state” cannot protect everyone all the time, therefore it is only a false sense of security that the “state” provides. The “state” is responsible for reasonably protecting society from outside invasion. The individual is responsible for their own moral/spiritual path and decisions.

        • Memphis Viking

          The state’s responsibility to protect its citizens is a general responsibility, for example, enforcing laws against harming each other. I agree that the state is incapable of individually protecting everyone and that we are responsible for our own safety, but your argument seems to be that there should be no laws against, say, murder because the state is only responsible for protecting against threats from outside the state.

          • boccagalupe

            The “state” does a p**s poor job of protecting all of its citizens when you consider that many Unborn citizens are killed by abortion. Can you have it both ways?

          • Memphis Viking

            I agree. Unborn children are the most helpless among us, especially when their biggest threat is their mother. Abortion is even worse than child sacrifice, since it’s done in the name of nothing more than convenience.

          • David Weakland

            “Convenience” is your opinion as you do not have all of the relevant facts about any of the people involved.

          • David Weakland

            My point is that the “state” has no moral or constitutional authority to not allow the parents and husband to terminate the life support of a brain dead individual. The “social society” of today are NOT the ones responsible for the actions of these individuals. They, and they alone are responsible to the Almighty, whether “society” agrees or not. The unborn child’s life or death, as a result of those people actions, are on their conscious and the “state” should NOT be involved.

          • Memphis Viking

            In other words, if someone wants to kill a person, it’s between them and God, and the state should just get out of the way, right? If the state has no authority to protect life, our most basic right, what’s the point of even having a state?

          • David Weakland

            The “state” only has the responsibility to protect the society as a whole. The individual has a GOD given (and constitutionally protected) right to make their own choices. The individual will be held accountable for their choices when their time comes. On this topic, the “state” has NO authority over the choices these adults have made. Nobody on this posting has ALL of the facts in this case. Nobody here knows with 100% certainty what the mothers choice would be so therefore the responsibility falls on the husband. As the husband (and father) have the concurrence of the mother’s parents, the “state” has no obligation or authority to interfere. While the termination of this unborn child may be horrendous in the eyes of some, they (the non-principals), are not accountable to GOD or the parents and husband. IMO the “state” might have standing, IF, there were no living relatives/next of kin. In other words, you are looking at this from a “societal” point of view and not an individual’s right to choose what is best for them and there family.

        • LibertyNow

          Of course they can’t protect everyone but they can protect a living viable baby when possible. In this case the outside invasion is you and those who would promptly end a life. If you choose to end this life the state must protect this life from you and your decision to play God.

      • enigmaticaluna

        Specially when the citizen as is in this case has no voice, but do have a heart beat. As a mother myself, if my situation were similar, I will want my child to live, because that is what we’re created to be, life givers, not life takers… plain and simple. Yes, some might want to call up to God on this, but the thing here is not what we think should be done or not, the right thing is the right thing no matter how unfortunate or hard is to do it.
        That baby have as many rights to live as those of us who are placing comments on this blog…plain and simple.

  • Memphis Viking

    “Fortunately for that growing baby, the state of Texas has decided that the legal protection afforded all residents of Texas also extend to the life of the unborn child” Too bad they won’t protect unborn children from their mothers.

  • COMMANDER58

    The mother is still alive and aside from being clasified as brain dead she is in relatively good health. Any mother would want her child to live so she should be kept on life support until the unborn child can be removed and be able to survive on its own. Three months is only a drop in the bucket for the time the father could have with his child and possibly grandchildren. Let’s not do a repeat of the Terri Shaviro case whose husband wanted her dead so he could legally marry the woman he had been living with and give legitamacy to his bastard children.

  • Dwightmannn

    Ind the old days, both the mother and the child would be dead. Let God decide, not men. . . Men make the worst decisions possible.

  • awkingsley

    The couple has another child – 14 months old. The father needs to take care of his other child and to be with him. He was spending all of his time at the hospital with his wife, and grandparents were taking care of the child. One of my other concerns is the hospital bill that will be inflicted on the father and the 14 month old child. Prolonging death issues need to be decided only by surviving spouses. The public has no business being involved because the public has no karma involved in the decision, unless – – – the man cannot pay his hospital bill and tax payers have to pick up the tab. At that point, the individuals who got the law passed are participating in theft. The karma to the father, if he ended life support, is the same as if he fell asleep at the wheel while driving with his family in the car, and his unborn child was killed in an accident as a result. The karma to the father is negligible.

    The mother had gone back to school to become a nurse in addition to full-time employment, and when she completed her degree program the father was going back to school. This family does not need additional financial burdens. I wouldn’t want the responsibility of making decisions that hurt this family any more than they have already been hurt.

    • Mary

      If he doesn’t want the child he can put it up for adoption. Chances are since the state ruled in the babies favor the state will pick up the tab. There are special funds for these types of issues. I suspect that when the child is born the family will want it and if not another childless couple will take it off their hands. God bless the state of Texas. Then the family will have to deal with the issue of the fact that the child may one day find out they never wanted it
      and wished him dead. We have a couple of kids in my family whose fathers wanted them aborted. Now that the kids are adults they don’t hold their fathers in high esteem.

      • awkingsley

        I’m sorry Mary, but I do not believe anyone gets points with God for inflicting pain on this family and making their decisions for them. The husband made a choice in accordance with his wife’s wishes and in the interests of the child he already had. I have to tell you again that I do not believe this is anyone else business. And I would imagine the father will keep the child, if it is a live birth. I’m sure no one will cruen enough to tell the child that he wasn’t wanted, first of all, because that wasn’t the nature of the decision. This isn’t an abortion. This is about prolonging death – not an admirable thing, in my opinion.

        • Mary

          I for one feel blessed by the birth of the two kids born into my family who were unwanted by their fathers and can’t imagine life without them. As far as I’m concerned it’s their fathers loss. You better hope the child never finds out. Our kids were devastated when they were told. The fathers are embarrassed now and are in denial. Those 2 kids are very successful and have nice careers and beautiful families of their own. And have given the two creeps many grand kids. The two kids ended up more successful than their fathers other children by other women which is a bigger slap in the face to them. God Bless my niece and nephew.

          • awkingsley

            The problem is that you are looking at this situation through your own eyes and your own family situation instead of putting yourself in Erick Munoz’s shoes. This case isn’t about abortion, and it isn’t about simple adoption.

            Munoz’s wife is brain dead. There is some reason to suspect that his unborn child is also brain dead or severely impaired from lack of oxygen. Marlise was resuscitated twice before they gave up. Marlise was also only 14 weeks (3.23 months) along at the time her body was shocked twice with resuscitation, so what was happening to her could have severely affected her babies health. Are you willing to adopt a retarded child or one with severe medical necessities? Are you willing to put up the money for all of the hospital bills instead of transferring the bills to the tax payers?

            What I have noticed is that the same individuals who are such fanatic pro-lifers to the point of prolonging death are also those who voted for Santorum, a candidate who wanted to attack Iran. I would also bet that these same individuals are really upset when Child Welfare takes a child from a Conservative home for some awkward reason. When people ask the State to get involved in taking decision making away from families, they can expect the State to make more and more decisions that Conservatives do not like.

            Another problem is mental illness. When families chained their mentally ill children, husbands, and spouses in the basement or made them live in the barn we didn’t have all of the mass shootings. Families took care of their own in whatever way they could to protect themselves and society. But then, well meaning people in our society decided the families were abusive, so the mentally ill were turned loose on society to maim and kill.

            Families are in the best position to make decisions about issues affecting their families. In the past, when some families did not do a good job of taking care of functional children, many times the children ended up in the houses of neighbors or friends with whom they lived most of the time. (I had an uncle by marriage who found his safe place with an elderly couple who loved him.)

            Neither the State nor well meaning individuals have done a good job of making decisions for other people’s families. I’m not pro-abortion, but I also do not believe in allowing the State to dictate to families. That does not work.

        • sandraleesmith46

          The law was already in place; no one “did this” specifically to this family. Neither was it intended to cause harm and pain. They hadn’t discussed the issue as involving an in utero child at the time they did discuss wishes; and that would likely change the perspective of the mother greatly. It’s about prolonging one death to save another LIFE; and that’s the difference in our views. And don’t bet on that child NOT learning at some point that he was considered disposable and an inconvenience, if he does survive. Kids have a way of finding those things out, whether intentional or not. I did!

          • awkingsley

            The law needs to be changed because no one should have the right to dictate to a family in a prolonging death situation. This is not about abortion, and it is not about an adoptive situation. It is also not about an unwanted child. In my opinion, the public imposing judgment on families with a brain dead spouse is mean. You are not placing yourself in Munoz’s shoes. I made another post in which I asked if the person was willing to pay Munoz’s medical bills, so tax payers, Munoz, and his 14 month old son do not have to suffer under that responsibility, or to adopt a child with severe medical necessities or retardation should that be necessary? If you do not want this responsibility, then accept the fact that neither does Munoz.

            It is also well known that most adopted children were not wanted, except by their adopting parents, which means they were wanted tremendously.

          • sandraleesmith46

            And I will repeat to you; the situation of a baby”s life being involved too was never discussed. WHY are you so ready to kill that innocent? WHY do you so hate children? This is not about destroying one life; it’s about saving one that can be saved!

          • awkingsley

            Those of us who did not vote for Santorum or Romney saved the lives of approximately 1 million innocent Iranians, including women and children. Now, who is the child hater? Who is the person who would destroy the lives of millions? In the case of Prolonging Death, this it isn’t about the baby it is about usurping the Rights of families to make rational decisions for the welfare of all of the members of the family not just one who is unborn and may not be functional when it arrives. As my grandmother used to say, you give respect to the living.

          • sandraleesmith46

            There are 56 million infants that have been murdered in this nation alone, in just 4 decades; FAR more than have been killed in those wars, so changing the subject doesn’t get you off that hook in the LEAST! As a nurse, I took the Florence Nightingale pledge in public, with my class, when we were capped, So don’t even go there. War is an entirely different matter, and a whole different issue than that under discussion, so either stay on topic or concede you’re in the wrong. This IS about a living baby, who would be MURDERED should you have your way! That baby IS LIVING, and you’re IGNORING that fact!

          • awkingsley

            You must have missed something here. I am pro-life, but not pro prolonging death. There is a huge difference. And, yes, calling you out for you hypocrisy is on topic, and I will go there because righteousness dictates that I do that. You should know that I do not consider those who are pro unprovoked war to be moral human beings, and i never will. You are endorsing mass murder. And, if Santorum or Romney had been elected, the deaths of 1 million Iranians or more would have been credited to you in heaven. There are very few of these prolonging death cases,and the public needs to stay and out of this area entirely. You are behaving like the bleeding heart Liberals, completely fanatical in a situation in which you have no karma for the actions of this family, until you decide to take it upon yourselves to make their decisions for them. You do get the karma for stealing from tax payers.

          • sandraleesmith46

            NO, you aren’t “pro-life” obviously; you’re repeatedly advocating the murder of a LIVE infant! When I went through nursing school and learned all the ways we could be sued as well, THAT was considered murder and it still is! You ASSUMED I “endorse” mass murder, and none of the rest of that is relevant to this discussion. I’m FAR from a “bleeding heart liberal” and have never BEEN one of those. YOU need to stay out of it because you have NO idea of the grief they’re apt to suffer later when they get over the loss of the mother and realize they MIGHT have saved her child too. So you really need to recheck YOUR position.

          • awkingsley

            Your fanaticism is well noted. The fact that you pretend not to be a Santorum supporter is also well noted. It is needless to say, I find your holier than thou attitude completely untenable. The fact that you are determined to label me a murderer instead of allowing families to make their own decisions in Prolonging Death situations is to me irrational and morbid.

            You make a lot of assumptions about me that are completely incorrect. Would it interest you to know that my husband was a physician, and 4 other members of my family are in medicine? As to the relevancy of murder in its various forms, you are the one who keeps talking about murder. It is obvious you like discussing murder very much. Since you have such a fascination with murder, it appears you need to be acquainted with it in its various forms, including your own probably complicity and endorsement of MASS murder.

          • sandraleesmith46

            Maybe I am a fanatic; Jesus was about such things, and He’s my example. I didn’t deny anything, I simply IGNORED an irrelevant comment! As to assumptions, you keep making boatloads of your own. I have no “fascination” with murder; it’s a SIN and I abhor it! That simple. What kind of “medicine” were/are they practicing? Abortions? It’s YOU that is in such a hurry to see that infant murdered, not me; and that has NOTHING whatever to do with “mass murder” that you keep going on about! Get over yourself! You aren’t the authority on everyone’s feelings or rights either. and thank-you for conceding that you really have no point to make when you begin calling names and labeling others.

          • awkingsley

            You are the one who does all of the labeling, and I have no interest in murdering infants, nor does anyone in my family. Taking someone off life support isn’t abortion, and equating that with abortion is irrational and illogical. You are an extremist who for the sake of a “POSSIBLE” life would destroy the living. Where the mother is brain dead from lack of oxygen, it is anyone’s guess as to the condition of the baby she is carrying. The father has to be concerned about taking care of and providing for the child he already has. That is a practical and rational stance with very little karmic repercussion. This isn’t the outright murder that you are claiming, and it has no relationship with abortion. which you keep harping on.

            You keep playing a game with me, trying to isolate this situation from all other forms of murder, even mass murder, in which fanatical Conservatives are well known to participate – primarily unprovoked war. You haven’t said you are against unprovoked war, so I assume you are for it. You refuse to face the fact that your own morality is in question
            because of this. I do not believe that any Conservative who is a such a
            fanatical Prolonging Death advocate is really pro-life across the board,
            including you, but you won’t admit that. You refuse to even address this issue, so I’m putting you into the irrational hypocrite category. I was curious to see if someone like yourself could ever accept the truth about the Conservative stance. And by the way, in listening to Santorum answer questions on other issues, he demonstrated an acute lack of verbal logic, which is why the weird Prolonging Death game. Santorum, in addition to his lack of ethics, is not smart enough to manage our nation. In any case, I’m done here with your game. This is my last post.

          • Mary

            You’re taking this story so personal and you know details know one else would know. If I didn’t know better I’d suspect you were a member of the family, or a close family associate. In any event the state will more than likely pick up the tab. You sound so bitter. Hopefully when that beautiful child is born, you people will change your attitude. God has a plan for that child and it’s viable. Were it not so, the baby would be expired by now. Get over your bitterness and celebrate life. Too many folks in this country look on children as another liability or burden instead of a blessing. I have 5 kids of my own and 20 grand kids. I feel blessed by the Lord and thank God everyday for the huge tight knit loving family I have.

          • awkingsley

            I figured the story was biased, in order to try to gain support for the irrational prolonging death game, so I did my research. I’m also not a Socialist, so I do not believe the State should be picking up the tab for your decisions. Nor am I bitter, except about one thing: The same man that promotes the irrational Prolonging Death game, Santorum, would have killed approximately 1 million Iranians, plus some Americans, in an unprovoked attack on Iran while pretending to be pro-life. I’m not at all impressed by the hypocrisy of a platform that is pro-life and pro-war.

          • Mary

            Exactly. Our kids found out through a family feud. The kids didn’t know for years their fathers wanted them aborted until one day they visited a spiteful in-law. She told them everything. The whole story. My little 9 yr. old niece had tears in her eyes and came to me and said, Auntie Alma told me my daddy wanted my mommy to abort me and I almost wasn’t born. I comforted my niece and then called the in-law to tell her off. There was a family feud going on at the time and she did it out of spite.

          • sandraleesmith46

            Exactly; there are all kinds of ways the kids find out; not always intentionally like that, but they do, and that hurts the kids.

      • enigmaticaluna

        I live in Fort Worth, have two grand children, and even if our live is tied up on many things, I will be more than happy to take care for this one, I know my daughter too. To me, the family want to act in a selfish way, they don’t see the life of a child as a blessing, the mother wanted her baby, other wise she will not carry him/her, but they do not want the responsibility of another child. It’s a shame that emotions and selfishness are more important than life itself. That baby can be in their future, the very reason of a better life. While not said in this article, I’m very sure that the father and “the love one’s ” want to turn off the life support for commodity and less burden… I’m happy that here in Texas we STILL UNDER GOD.

    • sandraleesmith46

      An accident is one thing but to deliberately cut off the life support to a live baby, because it’s still housed in the body of a brain dead mother is another matter; that’s deliberate murder, not an accident.

      • awkingsley

        No, that is not deliberate murder because that death of the mother is a natural occurrence without life support. But I bet you voted for Santorum who wanted to attack Iran, killing a million people or more. You do not share in the karma of another family’s decision. It is their’s alone. And, quite frankly, I do not believe a prolonging death situation is any of your business. In fact, you are committing theft from tax payers by forcing the State to pay for your decision. Hopefully Munoz can sue the State of Texas for his medical bills and the child’s care in the instance that the child is retarded or has severe medical necessities.

        • sandraleesmith46

          It would be so if both had died immediately, but that DIDN’T happen; so now it would indeed be murdering that baby to pull the plug on the mother! I see what your problem is; you don’t see that baby as a human LIFE, a person! Well, he’s already learning and has his own heart beat, brain and DNA separate from either parent! So yes, he’s a separate person, and to stop his life support now is murder!

          • caskinner

            Exactly right. I don’t understand why some people can’t get that.

          • sandraleesmith46

            Frankly, neither do I. The image above could be as early as 12 weeks’ gestation; that’s about the development they are. Does that LOOK like a “bit of tissue, like a tumor”, or does it look like precisely what it is: a HUMAN infant? I see a baby! And I’ve seen them from spontaneous abortions {commonly called miscarriages} just about that size!

          • Tired of the Same Old Crap

            .
            If it is murder to pull the plug on the mother thereby killing the child (and I agree it is) then why is abortion permitted at the same gestation period that this child is experiencing? Should not both situations be considered murder or do you need the mothers permission to kill the child?
            .

          • sandraleesmith46

            It is; and should be treated as such by society; but this sinful society that ignores God’s law is more concerned with their pleasure and convenience. The ONLY time an abortion is even excusable, not right, is when to do nothing WILL unquestionably result in 2 deaths and by terminating the pregnancy, thus killing the infant, MIGHT save the mother’s life, such as in an ectopic pregnancy, but such instances are EXTREMELY RARE! Even the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, in their report before Obamacare was passed, so stated; and they were more than a little upset that Ms Kagan twisted their report to suit the wants of the administration. They reasserted that it’s ALMOST NEVER NECESSARY to terminate a pregnancy!

  • pj4me

    Ohhhhh, if I were the mom, I would want my husband to keep me alive until my precious baby was born. That would be my legacy to my baby — I gave her/him life. I could not cause my child to die because there was no hope for me. Never!

  • Ocean Sprayz

    In fact, today’s notions of democratic socialism in Europe are mostly the result of French conceptions of human social relations introduced by Saint-Simon over ten generations ago.

The latest from ClashDaily.com

  • RELIGION OF PEACE: Look What Happens to an Infidel Who Says “F*** Allah” (VIDEO)
  • THANKS TO ISLAM: “Beheading” Has Been Re-introduced Into Our Discussions
  • ISLAM, SEX SLAVES, BEHEADINGS: Muhammed Would Be Proud!
  • UNREAL: College Student Had to Remove American Flag from Balcony Because It Was ‘Offensive’
  • HEY CONGRESS: Canada Started Invalidating Passports of Citizens Who Join ISIS
  • ISIS FOR SALE: Facebook and Amazon Have Yet to Ban ISIS-Branded Items to be Sold On Their Sites
  • ALL ABOUT HIM: Obama’s Iraq Policy Driven By …
  • CONFUSING: Are There Any Muslims in the Middle East?
  • #WHYWELOSE: Democrats Poised To Hold The Senate, And It’s Conservative’s Fault
  • CAN OF WHUP ASS: US General, ‘Obama’s ISIS Strategy ‘Doesn’t Have A Snowball’s Chance In Hell’
  • CALGARY SUN SHREDS OBAMA: ‘Now He Wants Help From Allies He’s Spent His Presidency Snubbing’
  • PAUL UNPLUGGED: Obama ‘Has created a lawless atmosphere in Washington’
  • ROCK-N-ROLL: Punk Gets Tangled In Electric Fence After Mom Blasts Him With Shotgun
  • SAFARI CIGAR: How to Cut, Light, and Smoke A Cigar
  • MAN STUFF: 5 Bad-Ass Facts About Ernest Hemingway
  • CLASH BETWEEN OBAMA & U.S. MILITARY: Big Rift Over Strategy To Fight Islamic State
  • How To Survive A Beheading Attempt
  • OH, PLEASE: Michelle, ‘Americans Take For Granted What Barack Has Done For The U.S.’
  • WTH: Gay ISIS Leader Sodomizes New Recruits To Blackmail Them Into Fighting
  • 9 Obvious Reasons Why Islam is NOT a ‘Religion of Peace’