• 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

digsbe said:
A malpractice case deals with the laws on the books. Under the laws fetuses are not given human rights or considered persons.

I'm not Catholic, but regardless they are arguing a court case along the lines of what is currently on the books.
Click to expand...

ReformCollege said:
The Catholic Church isn't going to make a martyr of itself in court. I'm not even religious, but expecting an institution to do anything but cover its own ass is being pretentious.
Click to expand...

While I agree they are on solid legal grounds, the Catholic Church is a bit different than the average individual. They do not get to hide behind the law the way you or I might. They are to chartered with living the Word: living by their own doctrine Do to anything less, even if it costs them money (maybe especially if it cost them money), makes them hypocrites. Sorry, the Catholic church does not get the luxury of taking the best legal position when its inconsistent with their doctrine. They have a duty to "man-up" in ways individuals do have. While they may be legally on solid grounds, but they are morally overdrawn. The original poster and all others that wish to join him are on solid ground with calling the Catholic church out on its hypocrisy.

HYPOCRITES!
 
Last edited:
Mr.Nick said:
The same can be said by those of society (and currant law) who believe in abortion.

You believe abortion is right and your argument is that life isn't viable until the child is birthed, however in this situation the children were viable?

Both sides are talking out of both sides of their mouths in this case, however the pro-choice crowed gave the doctor his defense and you cant blame him for using it.....
Click to expand...

Actually I believe a fetus becomes viable at about 22 to 24 weeks gestatation.
The law says a fetus does not become a person until birth but protects states rights in the interest of the "potential person"
After viability.


The fetuses in this case were probably viable and most likely would have survived if an emergency c section was preformed.
Roe vs. Wade recognized that states could take an interest in potential life after viability.
This is a very interesting case.

I wonder if the state could sue the hospital in the case.
 
wasn't their argument based on current state law?

they are arguing state law protects doctors from liability concerning unborn fetuses on grounds that those fetuses are not persons with legal rights
Click to expand...

also, I would love someone to explain the claim in the OP how arguing contrary to this would help establish some legal precedent against abortion
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
wasn't their argument based on current state law?



also, I would love someone to explain the claim in the OP how arguing contrary to this would help establish some legal precedent against abortion
Click to expand...

Arguing contrary to current law and saying a fetus is a person might (not likely...but just might) get the Supreme court to revisit Roe vs Wade.

A few states have tried and failed to pass personhood laws for a fetus.
 
madman said:
So, the church uses a law that goes against their teaching for defense? Doesn't sound like principle to me.
This is more picking and choosing even though it goes against their principles. And i wonder why the church is is suing the fed over Obamacare. :confused:
Click to expand...

Catholic Health Initiatives is not "the Church." Like any other hospital, those with "Catholic" in their name are run by boards of lay persons. But, it can be stripped of its Catholic affiliation and any clergy involved in this can even be excommunicated by the Diocese. It will be interesting to see how this develops and what the Diocese's response will be.
 
Last edited:
minnie616 said:
Arguing contrary to current law and saying a fetus is a person might (not likely...but just might) get the Supreme court to revisit Roe vs Wade.
Click to expand...

First: P'fffft~!!! Second, what they are arguing is that under current state law the charge of wrongful death doesn't apply. I'm not sure it's realistic to expect them to argue contrary, or even if they are in a position to do so. Third, I'm talking about an actual legal opinion on how it would shape future precedence under the law, not a fantasy about taking this to the Supreme and overturning RvW



minnie616 said:
A few states have tried and failed to pass personhood laws for a fetus.
Click to expand...

If such a law existed they could probably base an argument on it. But what would their argument be based on absent such a law and how would it even be applicable to the case?
 
Bear with me and my obtusity. This strays a bit from the topic.

If
A. The state decides a fetus is a live human w/ rights, at the moment of conception.
and
B. The parents decide to relinquish responsibility of the child to the custody of the state, at any point during the pregnancy.
Than
C. Couldn't the mother force the state to remove the child from her property (body)?
OR
D. Couldn't the mother force the state to provide and care for the mother during her pregnancy to ensure the child is properly cared for, since removal would harm the human life?

Lego
 
Somerville said:
This is not an abortion case.
Click to expand...

True enough. In fact the name of the thread is "In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses aren’t people".
It is an instance of medical malpractice - the doctor was on call, that obligates him to answer emergencies when notified by the hospital AND the hospital had no Plan B in place for those times Plan A (doctor on-call) didn't work.
Click to expand...

Yes, the doctor was on call.
Aborting the foetuses in this one case might have brought criminal charges as they were viable, (7 months) and had shown no problems during the pregnancy.
Click to expand...

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.
This was a case of a doctor not answering the phone when he had promised to do so, particularly bad in this one case as the mother was one of his own patients.
Click to expand...

So not answering the phone is a criminal offense but aborting a baby in its third trimester isn't. That was my point.
Click to expand...
 
madman said:
rut rohhh!
This cant be good for the business of religion.
I mean, you use the defense of "those fetuses are not persons with legal rights"?


Maybe a "pro-lifer" would like to make an excuse for this.

This should be good.




In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses aren’t people | The Colorado Independent


​
Click to expand...

my two cents

a hospital is not within a religious realm and in most cases religious freedom is not extended to it, and this is exactly how it should be.
With that being said the opposite is also true, thier religious views dont really matter since this is a LEGAL/HOSPITAL/PUBLIC matter.

do i find it grossly hypocritical? of course, its a pure example of being extremely hypocritically two faced

BUT

that also deosnt matter

not sure how the case will go but their argument is a perfectly legal one
 
sangha said:
And yet, you can't name one non-religious reason why a fetus should be protected by law
Click to expand...

"I believe it's a child, even if it's not 'born' yet, and children are deserving of protection on the part of the government".

That's a legitimate, reasonable, statement that says NOTHING about a persons religious beliefs. Simply because YOU disagree with it does not mean it's enforcing their religious views against you. 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.
 
Zyphlin said:
"I believe it's a child, even if it's not 'born' yet, and children are deserving of protection on the part of the government".

That's a legitimate, reasonable, statement that says NOTHING about a persons religious beliefs. Simply because YOU disagree with it does not mean it's enforcing their religious views against you. 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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
sangha said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS was very clear that personhood begins at birth. They disagree with everything you just said.
 
sangha said:
SCOTUS was very clear that personhood begins at birth. They disagree with everything you just said.
Click to expand...

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
 
Grant said:
...


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....
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Dr. Chuckles 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
Click to expand...

Wehn SCOTUS overrules Roe v Wade, you may have a point. Until then, your point is hypothetical
 
sangha said:
SCOTUS was very clear that personhood begins at birth. They disagree with everything you just said.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Zyphlin said:
So your assertion is that one can not disagree with a particular SCOTUS reasoning except for religious reasons?
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

CU says an unborn child is protected by the Consitution? That's news to me!!
 
sangha said:
Wehn SCOTUS overrules Roe v Wade, you may have a point. Until then, your point is hypothetical
Click to expand...

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.
 
sangha said:
No, but feel free to continue using the dishonest tactic of making crap up I never said.
Click to expand...

No, that is exactly what you did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom