• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses aren’t people

SCOTUS was very clear that personhood begins at birth. They disagree with everything you just said.

That is clearly false, and you know it, since the SCOTUS, even in Roe v. Wade, asserted "viability" not birth as the cut off for "legal" abortion rights. There have been many cases of "homicide" involving the death of an unborn child. In essence the SCOTUS has allowed fetal homicide, only by the "mother" and her assigns, before the point of viability to be defined as abortion.

Fetal Homicide State Laws
 
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.

There are scientifically valid reasons to legalize marijuana. There is no scientifically valid reason to consider a fetus a "person" because "person" is not a scientifically defined term.
 
That is clearly false, and you know it, since the SCOTUS, even in Roe v. Wade, asserted "viability" not birth as the cut off for "legal" abortion rights. There have been many cases of "homicide" involving the death of an unborn child. In essence the SCOTUS has allowed fetal homicide, only by the "mother" and her assigns, before the point of viability to be defined as abortion.

Fetal Homicide State Laws

There is no "cut off" for abortion. Women can get an abortion after viability
 
There are scientifically valid reasons to legalize marijuana.

Science can inform law, but it doesn't define it. But that is entirely missing the point that citing the law in a discussion about "what should be the law" is about as useful and informative as tits on a bull

There is no scientifically valid reason to consider a fetus a "person" because "person" is not a scientifically defined term.

actually when and if a fetus is living isn't likely a question science is really equipped to answer. Surely it can tell us when brain activity begins, when things like viability start, etc, but there is no binary 'test" that would give us a clear answer on what is a "person". That rests much more in the realm of philosophical discussion

Also, I very well could be wrong, but I have never heard view of "when life begins" being presented in terms of a scientific consensus. Can you offer us some citations because I would be really interested in reading anything on the topic?
 
Science can inform law, but it doesn't define it.



actually when and if a fetus is living isn't likely a question science is really equipped to answer. Surely it can tell us when brain activity begins, when things like viability start, etc, but there is no binary 'test" that would give us a clear answer on what is a "person". That rests much more in the realm of philosophical discussion

Exactly! The belief about when a human life becomes a "person" is a philosophical one involving belief, not fact

Also, I very well could be wrong, but I have never heard view of "when life begins" being presented in terms of a scientific consensus. Can you offer us some citations because I would be really interested in reading anything on the topic?

Of course you haven't, because scientists know that life began millions of years ago. Human life began tens of thousands of years ago. An individual human life has no beginning. That's why ithe reproductive "cycle" is known as "the circle of life". Like a circle, it has no beginning.
 
Exactly! The belief about when a human life becomes a "person" is a philosophical one involving belief, not fact

Do you just write what ever you think sounds good? Please inform me how that makes any sense as a reply, since a) it doesn't limit the issue against abortion to those of religion (in fact, it does the exact opposite by pointing to the philosophical nature of the discussion), and b) doesn't address your claim that the law is dictated by science being false.

In fact, it seems you focus on something of no consequence to either above points, affirm it as if such informed the discussion



Of course you haven't, because scientists know that life began millions of years ago. Human life began tens of thousands of years ago. An individual human life has no beginning. That's why ithe reproductive "cycle" is known as "the circle of life". Like a circle, it has no beginning.

Sangha, these constant attempt to cloud the discussion, back track, and toss in bizarre declarations of triumph anytime you are shown to be wrong doesn't do much for your position. In fact, they come off as extremely tedious and childlike

But getting back to the point, if there is no scientific consensus , and science isn't equipped to answer the question, then why are you citing "science" as if the two previous points were not true.
 
Last edited:
Do you just write what ever you think sounds good? Please inform me how that makes any sense as a reply, since a) it doesn't limit the issue against abortion to those of religion (in fact, it does the exact opposite by pointing to the philosophical nature of the discussion), and b) doesn't address your claim that the law is dictated by science being false.

a) You're defining religion far too narrowly. The philosophical basis for believing that a fetus deserves protection of the law is religious in nature

b) Never said that. I merely pointed out that the example you gave could be argued on scientific grounds, not religious grounds.


Sangha, these constant attempt to cloud the discussion, back track, and toss in bizarre declarations of triumph anytime you are shown to be wrong doesn't do much for your position. In fact, they come off as extremely tedious and childlike

I could just as well say that you efforts to misportray my beliefs as anything but my honestly held beliefs are childlike, but I wouldn't do such a tedious thing.
 
a) You're defining religion far too narrowly. The philosophical basis for believing that a fetus deserves protection of the law is religious in nature

yes, if you fail to make the distinction between philosophy and religion, and think the virtues of democracy can only be expressed religiously

b) Never said that. I merely pointed out that the example you gave could be argued on scientific grounds, not religious grounds.

Again, attempts to deny what already exists on a computer screen isn't very productive




I could just as well say that you efforts to misportray my beliefs as anything but my honestly held beliefs are childlike, but I wouldn't do such a tedious thing.

you could, but your failure to address the early observed and noted inconsistencies in your argument would be rather glaring, and come off as another childlike attempt to shift focus

Oh...
 
yes, if you fail to make the distinction between philosophy and religion, and think the virtues of democracy can only be expressed religiously



Again, attempts to deny what already exists on a computer screen isn't very productive






you could, but your failure to address the early observed and noted inconsistencies in your argument would be rather glaring, and come off as another childlike attempt to shift focus

Oh...

The only place inconsistencies in my posts exists is in your imagination
 
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

Appreciate your comments but don't want to side track the issues of the debate. It was only an observation on how sometimes a babies life is sacred and others times it's just a blob of cells. People will often argue both sides, depending on their political point of view.
 
Don't apply the actions of one hospital or one doctor to the entire church, they are trying to cover their own butt in court. Is it not based on principle? I can agree with that. However, if they were to argue that they should be punished because fetuses are people that would also be incorrect because the law doesn't reflect that. Ultimately the ruling will be based by whats on the books today, not based on what the Catholic church may want on the books tomorrow.

I agree with your statement, but I also think they could have made a different argument as to why they should not be punished. In any case, their argument has strengthened the current law that they are not people.
 
Appreciate your comments but don't want to side track the issues of the debate. It was only an observation on how sometimes a babies life is sacred and others times it's just a blob of cells. People will often argue both sides, depending on their political point of view.


People will also argue for choice depending upon the health of the mother. At this time some of the more radical anti-abortion crowd outright state they support the 'rights' of the foetus over those of the mother - how "pro-life" is that?
 
If the hospital made the decision to save the life of the mother at the expense of the children, or could be proven to have treated the fetuses with gross negligence, then they certainly could be called to the carpet for ignoring their own dogma.

That's not what's happening here. The question before us appears to be one of liability, not ethics or morality. Unfortunately, in our sue happy culture, even Catholic businesses have to cover their asses. If they admit liability for the fetuses, the monetary judgement would skyrocket. This hospital, rightfully, should pay a heavy price for dropping the ball and allowing a mother and her two unborn babies to die. But anti-Catholic hatred shouldn't make it a blank check.

I think this tragedy points out the problems of legally considering a fetus a person.

As you said, if they only focused on the mother's life and saved her, they would have been in the same situation facing a malpractice suit for neglecting the foeti.

At what point does a doctor say that the mother's life is lost, and then cuts her up to get the babies out of the womb? Doctors shouldn't have the authority to make those medical decisions IMO, but if abortion is illegal and murder, and neglecting unborn life so that dies can result in charges, then the doctor will have to preform life saving measures just for the unborn life in these situations.

If a fetus was considered a person by law, in the pro life sense, a doctor would be pressured to preserve the unborn life and the female would have little say in critical health situations.

It's similar to what happened in Ireland, to avoid legal prosecution the doctors took care in making sure the unborn life was not interfered with, and the mothers request to abort or speed up the miscarriage was denied.

Women lose the ability to tell the doctor what measures should be used to save their own life and preserve their own health.
 
People will also argue for choice depending upon the health of the mother. At this time some of the more radical anti-abortion crowd outright state they support the 'rights' of the foetus over those of the mother - how "pro-life" is that?

Of even their claims about caring for the fetus is bogus. We know that certain pollutants increase the number of miscarriages, but the Religious Right freaks of course are against regulation of industry, and so are quite happy to let corporations kill fetuses to make more money.

The whole anti-abortion movement is a sham -- it's really just more conservative pro-business, anti-women agitprop.
 
People will also argue for choice depending upon the health of the mother. At this time some of the more radical anti-abortion crowd outright state they support the 'rights' of the foetus over those of the mother - how "pro-life" is that?

I don't know who these people are but I certainly disagree with them. They don't appear to be part of this conversation.
 
Uh...excuse me, but does anybody know who "Catholic Charities Organization" is...other than the owners of the chain of hospitals who just won the malpractice suit? Is there an owner relationship with the Catholic Church itself?
 
Uh...excuse me, but does anybody know who "Catholic Charities Organization" is...other than the owners of the chain of hospitals who just won the malpractice suit? Is there an owner relationship with the Catholic Church itself?

They are affiliated as a catholic hospital, and the church has stated it will be reviewing that relationship, I believe
 
This post is dedicated to Dr. Chuckles.

The following shows that while there is a financial relationship between the Catholic Church and the Catholic Charities Organization. The CCO is the principal owner of the chain of hospitals that was cleared of malpractice claims...and is apparently NOT legally OWNED by the Catholic Church. There is a very clear legal distinction between the Catholic Church and the CCO.

Catholic Charities received a total of nearly $2.9 billion from the US government in 2010. In comparison, its annual revenue was $4.67 billion. Only about $140 million came from donations from diocesan churches, the remainder coming from in-kind contributions, investments, program fees, and community donations.
Catholic Charities USA

So it appears that the US Government provides about half of the funding the organization in the form of grants or the like. The government sure gets around, huh? They provide a huge financial support to both Planned Parenthood and the Catholic Charities Organization. They are all just one big happy family, so it seems.
 
So it appears that the US Government provides about half of the funding the organization in the form of grants or the like. The government sure gets around, huh? They provide a huge financial support to both Planned Parenthood and the Catholic Charities Organization. They are all just one big happy family, so it seems.

While I can't comment on the specifics of either groups relationship with the govt, I don't really think the govt should be choosing what organizations they involve themselves with, especially at the charity and community service level, based on their politics.
 
While I can't comment on the specifics of either groups relationship with the govt, I don't really think the govt should be choosing what organizations they involve themselves with, especially at the charity and community service level, based on their politics.

I'm not sure how these organizations are actually funded. If it's a direct function of Congress, which when it comes to money, they are also involved, then I would agree. If these Organizations are filling for grants in order to obtain federal assistance...then I would want to know a bit more about the grant programs.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom