Sorry, but the goalposts here seem to be moving from "we weren't really sure of Munoz's condition" to a variant of "every sperm is sacred" and allowing the rights of a fetus in unknown condition to trump the rights of a dead woman, her husband, her family and her doctors.
The rights of the fetus do not trump the rights of the mother. That's settled law. Women are not mere incubators.
That's an insipid and trite evaluation which naturally favors your own view points in this matter. I suggest you review the extensive discussion several pages ago wherein Onya, myself, and a few others made very clear the distinction in this case and an extreme interpretation of the 'potential human being' stance.
Suffice to say, there aren't "goal posts", we're simply trying to tease out an optimal situation or grounds on which we can all agree to a common moral standard, principle, or preference in this matter.
Thanks to Iniquitous, we are very much more sure about her condition in regards to being brain-dead, and for the sake of argument, I ceded on the previous page that it was agreeable to treat this as legally dead for the continued debate. That still leaves unanswered however the question as to which of Mrs. Munoz's wishes (to have a child, not to remain on life support) take precedence over the other given that each is established only through hearsay.
Besides which, the discussion which you a referencing is an examination of not the fetus's rights in contrast to the mother's, but the fetus's rights in contrast to the father's disposal of the mother's body.
A fetus has no rights. It is not a person, it is not protected by laws.
The mother's right to choose whether she would remain on machines or not was made and communicated to both her husband and her family. It is that decision made by the mother which is being ignored - presumably to cover the hospital's ass because of a law that was passed which takes away a woman's right to decide what is done with her body postmortem.
Which brings us back to the fact that this is, in fact, a violation of the 14th Amendment. As a citizen of this country, Mrs. Munoz had the legally protected right to decide what was done with her body postmortem. She made that decision and made it clear to husband and family what it was. (Do not bring up the fact it was not written down in an AD or living will. From the way the law reads it wouldn't have mattered, the hospital and state can overlook it - which pretty much makes it a useless piece of paper) The hospital chose to ignore the wishes because of the fetus - a fetus that has no rights whatsoever. Call me a monster, but that means the fetus has no right to life. No right to trump the mother's final wishes. And the state has no right to try and claim such.
But you are the one ignoring the mother's other pre-mortem decision; that she expressly made clear that she had every intention of carrying the child to term. Given that she may very well still be able to do that and
be taken off life-support after a certain point, why should the family's privilege to dispose of their daughter's body take precedence over the fetus's potential for life?
Also, you're misinterpreting the defense of termination of pregnancy under the 14th Amendment. In point of fact, the 14th Amendment guarantees the right to Abortion under equal protection under the law; that is to say, it is illegal for states to establish laws against abortion because that unfairly targets pregnant women. It is that principle which the Texas State Law is in violation of, but the 14th Amendment does not in fact establish that a fetus is not a life and does not have rights.
A woman's absolute sovereign right to control of her body is a moral standard applied to the debate on abortion, and one which I fully support. Which is why, I reiterate, no one can decide to terminate her pregnancy for her. In fact, I'm going to go the whole 9 yards on that one. The woman has absolute sovereign right to control of her body. Hearsay is not enough to establish what her will would have been in regards to the disposal of her body, therefore the husband has no right to interpret her will in this matter, therefore she cannot be taken off life-support.
Regrettably, I don't. The unusual circumstance of pregnancy aside, though, I find it hard to believe the late patient's instructions can be trumped by anyone else. Of course, they are often conveyed by next of kin who may not be the most reliable relators.
Actually, as it happens, a further examination of your arguments, and my own moral standards, has lead me to believe that it is wrong to decide this matter at all on the basis of mere hearsay. That if we're looking to uphold this woman's absolute sovereignty over her own body, that we cannot accept anything less than a written will in the execution of her mortal remains.
I'm hardening my position, the family's wishes are wholly irrelevant in this matter. The only thing that matters is that Mrs. Munoz is on life-support and her will to remain as such (regardless of pregnancy) cannot, in fact, be explicitly established, therefore no one has any authority to pull the plug.