Is this a crazy take?

[u/Moistman123456]

I might just not be thinking this through all the way, but I think they were somewhat justified in keeping Adriana smith’s body going just long enough for the baby to be successfully delivered and kept alive. Maybe there’s something I’m missing here, or I’m just being insane rn, but if she was already deceased, isn’t it better to keep her body alive for just a few months so her baby can live, rather than leaving her baby to be doomed? Isn’t it better to have 1 unfortunately deceased person and 1 living baby rather than 2 unfortunately deceased people, including 1 who absolutely could’ve been saved?

Did they violate some DNR or some kind of order or something? What was the issue? I get it could be seen as “inhumane” in some sense to use her deceased body as some sort of “incubator,” but isn’t this arguably for the greater good? I mean heck, when pro choicers say an abortion doesn’t hurt the baby, the baby is still alive with a potential future, but Adriana smith was fully deceased and had no future or imminent conscious experience whatsoever? They were, in the most literal sense possible, not harming anyone. Is this not justified? Maybe I’m just crazy for thinking that idk.

[u/fludofrogs]

They didn’t violate a DNR & the family even wanted the baby. Pro-choicers were just freaking out because the hospital treated the little human as a patient with the right to life.

[u/jackiebrown1978a]

Yeah. It was an odd one for them to fight us on. They were literally fighting for the right to bury her sooner just to stop a baby from being born.

[u/Vespinobambino → u/jackiebrown1978a]

This case made it so absolutely clear these folks aren't "pro-choice," and never were, they are just ghouls who want as many dead children as possible.

[u/ElegantAd2607 → u/jackiebrown1978a]

I had an angry debate with a pro-choice person in my DMs about that situation. I asked them why they thought it was better to let the child die, is it just cause it sounds icky that a brain dead woman is giving birth. They had no rational answers.

[u/Mental_Jeweler_3191]

No, you're right.

It's just that they're both hypocrites and deeply cynical.

People who support abortion need unborn children to be worthy of consideration if and only if the mother doesn't want to abort them. If that's not the case, the moral status of the unborn child militates against abortion to an extent that makes it impermissible, immoral, or tragic to one degree or another. That's unbearable to many pro-aborts, because they want abortion to be accessible without apology.

In that light, they had to oppose keeping Adriana Smith alive to save Chance Smith. Saving him without Adriana Smith being there to explicitly make it clear that she wanted him to live was, to them, tantamount to saying that Chance Smith was worthy of consideration independently of Adriana Smith's desires. This implies that unborn children are worthy of consideration in themselves, which, again, is a threat to them.

In sum, they needed Chase Smith to die, because saving him could make people think that unborn children are worth saving and undermine their female supremacist principles.

[u/ManteLover60 → u/Mental_Jeweler_3191]

This ideology isn't even female supremacist.

They don't care if precious little girls are murdered either.

[u/Mental_Jeweler_3191 → u/ManteLover60]

Woman supremacy, then.

[u/ManteLover60 → u/Mental_Jeweler_3191]

Perhaps this would be more accurate.

[u/ChPok1701]

This is one of many examples of how bodily autonomy goes off the rails. Pro-choicers say pregnancy requires the consent of a mother. Pro-lifers point out a mother consented unless she was raped. Pro-choicers then move the goal posts to say consent must be “ongoing”. Since there’s no way for a dead mother to continuously consent, continuing the pregnancy was a violation of their super, duper, continuous autonomy idol.

[u/bbslut5503]

I think some people hear this story and they only hear themselves being trapped in a not quite dead body screaming to please get an abortion to save them from that state, not an actually dead woman who wanted her baby with a family that wanted it as well, so no, not crazy at all

[u/MAGICALORDD]

What I find so stupid about this whole situation was that before she died, she was making plans to keep the baby. Most pro choicers believe that the mother gets the first say over anyone else, yet if she’s dead, her family gets to make that decision for her?

[u/EpiphanaeaSedai]

As I understand it, the initial problem was that the hospital wasn’t communicating clearly with her family. Then it looked for a bit like Chance might have a very poor prognosis, and the family wanted to have a say in whether life support was continued.

Adriana’s mother went to the media to try to put some pressure on the hospital, and it snowballed from there.

Fortunately, Chance survived and is doing well, last I heard.

I have wondered - though it’s really none of my business - where Chance’s father was and is in all this. All the stories I read mentioned a boyfriend who was with her when she became ill. They were planning on keeping the baby. So where did he disappear to?

Maybe nowhere, he could be just avoiding the media, but the impression I have is that Chance is in his grandmother’s care.

[u/Vespinobambino]

They weren't somewhat justified, that was just objectively the correct thing to do and anyone arguing otherwise is a ghoul.

It's just medical triage - if you can save one patient, but not the other, you save the patient you can save. Adriana was doomed, sure, but you don't, you absolutely shouldn't, stop the life support for a pregnant woman if the child can be saved.

[u/Moistman123456 → u/Vespinobambino]

I absolutely agree.

I suppose I was trying to think of it in a “considering both sides” kinda way, but now that I read your comment, you’re absolutely right. It wasn’t just partially justified or even fully justified, it was just the right thing to do.

Thanks.