Life support forced on pregnant woman

[DaShi]

Your inheritance is already taxed by income tax. It should be plainly obvious why having an estate tax on top of that is ****ing dumb. It leads to all sorts of inefficient arbitrage that results in wasteful spending which diminishes value.

There's no value in inheritance.

[notyoueither]

If I had to choose between saving you from a burning building or saving a perfectly normal person I would choose the latter, definitely.

You just failed at Apolyton.

HE WILL NEVER ADMIT THAT HE IS WRONG
HE HAS NEVER ADMITTED THAT HE IS WRONG
IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW BIG OR SMALL THE ISSUE
STOP ARGUING WITH HIM
STOP QUOTING HIM
EVERY TIME YOU QUOTE HIM, A BABY OTTER DIES IN AGONY

[Dr Strangelove]

If she was merely 14 weeks pregnant then I'm not sure how much brain was there to damage. I think the primitive brain cells would not yet have been fully differentiated into neurons and would not be as sensitive to hypoxia as neonatal neurons.

[Guynemer]

You just failed at Apolyton.

HE WILL NEVER ADMIT THAT HE IS WRONG
HE HAS NEVER ADMITTED THAT HE IS WRONG
IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW BIG OR SMALL THE ISSUE
STOP ARGUING WITH HIM
STOP QUOTING HIM
EVERY TIME YOU QUOTE HIM, A BABY OTTER DIES IN AGONY

PLAGIARIST.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Before reading the story I was ready to agree with you, but after learning she was only 18 weeks in and had been oxygen deprived long enough to cause massive brain swelling.. sorry, but if the husband and parents are all unanimous that they (and she) don't/wouldn't want this to happen, it should not happen.

I think this is closest to my view. 18 weeks, yikes! If it was more like 24 weeks, I can see it more.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Also, double taxation isn't really a compelling argument. After all, if your state has a sales tax, you are facing double taxation every time you buy anything (your money has been taxed through income taxes). The 'wasteful spending at end of life' argument is a far better one to use.

[DinoDoc]

There's no value in inheritance.

Maybe not yours.

[Ban Kenobi]

Also, double taxation isn't really a compelling argument. After all, if your state has a sales tax, you are facing double taxation every time you buy anything (your money has been taxed through income taxes). The 'wasteful spending at end of life' argument is a far better one to use.

That's not what "double taxation" means. "Double taxation" is shorthand for "if you save your money and spend it at a later date, you pay an additional tax and therefore are effectively taxed at a higher rate than if you had spent the money right away". The "wasteful spending" argument that you deemed a far better one is actually basically the same argument since it's built on the premise that with an inheritance tax in place people will have less incentive to save their money.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's not what "double taxation" means. "Double taxation" is shorthand for "if you save your money and spend it at a later date, you pay an additional tax and therefore are effectively taxed at a higher rate than if you had spent the money right away". The "wasteful spending" argument that you deemed a far better one is actually basically the same argument since it's built on the premise that with an inheritance tax in place people will have less incentive to save their money.

The most common definition of double taxation refers to being taxed twice on the same income:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_taxation

[Ban Kenobi]

The most common definition of double taxation refers to being taxed twice on the same income:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_taxation

I think it can be inferred from the context of this discussion that the first definition given in the article (getting taxed by two or more jurisdictions) isn't the relevant definition. The second is closer, since taxes on profits and dividends can be considered "double taxation" in the same sense as inheritance taxes, although it still misses the point when people refer to such taxes as "double taxation", for example:

Critics of taxation also refer to capital gains taxation as double taxation, although no specific prior taxation took place.

In fact earned income was already taxed, and then invested, and when capital gains are taxed an additional tax occurs which penalizes saving relative to immediate consumption.

[DirtyMartini]

If she was merely 14 weeks pregnant then I'm not sure how much brain was there to damage.

All of it.

[Ben Kenobi]

If I had to choose between saving you from a burning building or saving a perfectly normal person I would choose the latter, definitely.

Who is the perfectly normal person to choose in this example? The child?

[Ben Kenobi]

If she was merely 14 weeks pregnant then I'm not sure how much brain was there to damage. I think the primitive brain cells would not yet have been fully differentiated into neurons and would not be as sensitive to hypoxia as neonatal neurons.

Dr. Strangelove needs to brush up on his embryology.



The unborn child at 14 weeks. Why not simply wait 10 weeks and then deliver?

[DirtyMartini]

because a 24 week premie is barely viable? (sorry, dead baby otters).

Obviously, the fundamentals of the issue are just the same old un-winnable, un-civil, don't-even-start-it abortion debate, but putting that aside and assuming that the law itself is fine (which I don't) -- Who's going to pay for all this care? This poor guy is going to end up completely destitute paying for medical care his wife clearly expressed that she would not have wanted. If Texas insists on keeping her alive, he should be able to delare her a ward of the state and make them pick up the tab for 26 weeks of ICU care followed by a C-section followed by whatever advanced care his, possibly special needs, child requires.

[Ben Kenobi]

Obviously, the fundamentals of the issue are just the same old un-winnable, un-civil, don't-even-start-it abortion debate, but putting that aside and assuming that the law itself is fine (which I don't) -- Who's going to pay for all this care?

Are you arguing we should euthanize everyone requiring 10 weeks of care in a hospital bed?

This poor guy is going to end up completely destitute paying for medical care his wife clearly expressed that she would not have wanted.

Is it right to kill another person because you can't afford care for them? It's been suggested that this man simply take a gun to his wife's head and shoot her, killing her and her child. Is this the outcome you'd prefer?

If Texas insists on keeping her alive, he should be able to delare her a ward of the state and make them pick up the tab for 26 weeks of ICU care followed by a C-section followed by whatever advanced care his, possibly special needs, child requires.

Should a man be able to get out of child support this way too? This is his child. He made the decision to have the child, and he has the obligation to care for his child. Are we going to let every man who has an unwanted child, let the state care for his child? Is having a handicapped child justification for a father to bail?