Page 15 of 18 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 175

Thread: In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses arenít people

  1. #141
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses arenít people

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    The Constitution only protects the rights of a "person", which is defined as someone who has been born. Your desire to have unborn children protected has no basis in the constitution.
    Which is currently defined by the law, not by the constitution itself, as someone who was born. There's absolutely NOTHING suggesting it's unreasonable, NOR that it requires one to believe it ONLY because of their religious beliefs, for someone to believe that law should be changed and that those that are not "born" could still be considered persons. There is already precedence for this, under the law, in cases where a woman is murdered while with child and both are considered "persons" despite the child not being "born".

    There's no "basis in the constitution" for "personhood" to be defined by "being born" either....so your ridiculous argument of "no basis in the constitution" is laughable at best because the foundation of your argument also has no direct basis in the constitution either.

  2. #142
    King Conspiratard
    Dr. Chuckles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-14 @ 03:04 PM
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    12,895

    Re: In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses arenít people

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    It's enforcing their VIEWS against you, but you have ZERO proof or evidence that it's a view made SPECIFICALLY due to their religious beliefs.
    Yeah, I don't get this need to push the idea there are no possible ethical/moral dilemmas brought about by engaging in the act of abortion, besides those injected via religion.

  3. #143
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses arenít people

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Which is currently defined by the law, not by the constitution itself, as someone who was born. There's absolutely NOTHING suggesting it's unreasonable, NOR that it requires one to believe it ONLY because of their religious beliefs, for someone to believe that law should be changed and that those that are not "born" could still be considered persons. There is already precedence for this, under the law, in cases where a woman is murdered while with child and both are considered "persons" despite the child not being "born".

    There's no "basis in the constitution" for "personhood" to be defined by "being born" either....so your ridiculous argument of "no basis in the constitution" is laughable at best because the foundation of your argument also has no direct basis in the constitution either.
    SCOTUS was very clear that personhood begins at birth. They disagree with everything you just said.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  4. #144
    King Conspiratard
    Dr. Chuckles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-14 @ 03:04 PM
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    12,895

    Re: In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses arenít people

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    SCOTUS was very clear that personhood begins at birth. They disagree with everything you just said.
    scotus also saw slavery as legal at one point. So we can conclude a) scotus can not just be wrong, but really wrong b)their rulings do not approach unassailable truth. Hence, Citing them here as you do above, as a means to trump any and all disagreement with their rulings, leaves much to be desired for anyone that doesn't need their toes to count to 20

  5. #145
    Sage
    minnie616's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,953

    Re: In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses arenít people

    [QUOTE=Grant;1061394059]
    ...


    It was quite legal for the now defunct "Tiller the baby killer" to carry on with his practice, with a lot of support from the pro-abortionists, and there are still a few more doctors doing the same thing....
    Actually it is legal to perform abortions in the last trimester if the woman's life is at risk ,or irrepairable damage to a major bodily function will occur if the pregnancy were allowed to continue or if the fetus died in the womb.
    Some states also allow late term abortions if the fetus is so malformed it will be stillborn or will only live only live a few hours . In those cases the fetus is considered non-viable or unable to survive even with medical help.

    Less than one percent of all legal abortions in the Unites States takes place after 21 weeks gestation and less than .08 percent of a notions takes place after 24 weeks gestation.
    They are extreme cases. Such as the cases where the fetus has died in the womb.

    The extraction of dead fetus is still called an abortion so a big portion of late term abortions are because the fetus is dead, will be stillborn or would only live for a minutes or hours.


    Dr. Tiller helped women whose lives/health were in danger and whose fetuses were non viable by perfoming late term abortions in these extreme cases.

    From pages 8 & 9 of the Abortion in Kansas 2008 web site:
    [Abortions past the 22 week gestation mark]

    Was the fetus viable ? No 131 (they died in the womb...or they would be stillborn.or die within a few minutes or hours ...They were NOT viable)

    To prevent substantial and irreversible impairment of a MAJOR bodily function
    192 out of 192.

    So out of 323 late term abortions that took place 2008 ...
    323 were either not viable or continuing the pregnancy would have caused substantial , irreversible bodily damage.


    http://www.kdheks.gov/hci/abortion_sum/08itop1.pdf
    Last edited by minnie616; 01-26-13 at 02:40 PM.
    When it comes to matters of reproduce health, Politicians and the religious dogma of another faith should never interfere with religious liberty of an individual or her faith.

  6. #146
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses arenít people

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Chuckles View Post
    scotus also saw slavery as legal at one point. So we can conclude a) scotus can not just be wrong, but really wrong b)their rulings do not approach unassailable truth. Hence, Citing them here as you do above, as a means to trump any and all disagreement with their rulings, leaves much to be desired for anyone that doesn't need their toes to count to 20
    Wehn SCOTUS overrules Roe v Wade, you may have a point. Until then, your point is hypothetical
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  7. #147
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses arenít people

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    SCOTUS was very clear that personhood begins at birth. They disagree with everything you just said.
    So your assertion is that one can not disagree with a particular SCOTUS reasoning except for religious reasons?

    So I take it you fully agree with Citizen's United's ruling and feel it's correct and shouldn't be changed?

  8. #148
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses arenít people

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    So your assertion is that one can not disagree with a particular SCOTUS reasoning except for religious reasons?
    No, but feel free to continue using the dishonest tactic of making crap up I never said.

    So I take it you fully agree with Citizen's United's ruling and feel it's correct and shouldn't be changed?
    CU says an unborn child is protected by the Consitution? That's news to me!!
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  9. #149
    King Conspiratard
    Dr. Chuckles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-14 @ 03:04 PM
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    12,895

    Re: In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses arenít people

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Wehn SCOTUS overrules Roe v Wade, you may have a point. Until then, your point is hypothetical
    No, my point is perfectly valid despite the current status of RvW. It's based on a very simple concept that the law doesn't act as an objective truth:

    It's like someone arguing that marijuana should be legal and you butt-waffling into the thread going "but it's illegal under the law". Besides the poster likely pointing out such is the very fulcrum the discussion pivots on, current legal status hardly informs the ethical and moral discussion of *should* it be legal/illegal.

  10. #150
    King Conspiratard
    Dr. Chuckles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-14 @ 03:04 PM
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    12,895

    Re: In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses arenít people

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    No, but feel free to continue using the dishonest tactic of making crap up I never said.
    No, that is exactly what you did.

Page 15 of 18 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •