• 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!

Catholic hospital 'risked woman's life by forcing her to deliver 18-week fetus[W:465]

Your point was that the doctors did not know the condition of the woman's fetus.

Your point was a lie and exposed as such, so now you're pretending that your point is something else

It is a policy decision. And this case is about policy. You are too quick to jump on it when you don't really understand it. This case is not about medical negligence, it is about policy. She is accusing the hospital of acting in accordance with a policy. The same as a Jewish or muslim deli is acting in accordance with a policy when they refuse to serve pork. I realize that it is difficult for someone without a legal background to understand.

Actually, the case is about medical negligence. Once again, your claims have been proven to be BS.

From the suit:

The ACLU doesn't offer services for medical mal cases. Any plaintiff attorney will take a med mal case on contingency with no cost to the plaintiff if they do not win. This case is about a Catholic hospital not doing a therapeutic abortion on a woman who claims she had no chance of carrying the child to term, and whether the law supports the hospital refusing to do a therapeutic abortion for religious reasons. Bishops don't practice medicine. It would be silly to sue them for med mal. Bishops make policy. Therefore the suit against the bishops. If you notice the cases the ACLU takes are policy issues and the question is whether or not a particular policy is constitutional.
 
The ACLU doesn't offer services for medical mal cases. Any plaintiff attorney will take a med mal case on contingency. This case is about a Catholic hospital not doing a therapeutic abortion on a woman who claims she had no chance of carrying the child to term, and whether the law supports the hospital refusing to do a therapeutic abortion for religious reasons. Bishops don't practice medicine. It would be silly to sue them for med mal.

Every single sentence is untrue.
 
Your point was that the doctors did not know the condition of the woman's fetus.

Your point was a lie and exposed as such, so now you're pretending that your point is something else

It is a policy decision. And this case is about policy. You are too quick to jump on it when you don't really understand it. This case is not about medical negligence, it is about policy. She is accusing the hospital of acting in accordance with a policy. The same as a Jewish or muslim deli is acting in accordance with a policy when they refuse to serve pork. I realize that it is difficult for someone without a legal background to understand.

Agreed. And her motivation and the ACLU motivation may be quite different.

It is entirely possible that she doesn't even understand the ACLU's motivation.
 
Your point was that the doctors did not know the condition of the woman's fetus.

Your point was a lie and exposed as such, so now you're pretending that your point is something else

It is a policy decision. And this case is about policy. You are too quick to jump on it when you don't really understand it. This case is not about medical negligence, it is about policy. She is accusing the hospital of acting in accordance with a policy. The same as a Jewish or muslim deli is acting in accordance with a policy when they refuse to serve pork. I realize that it is difficult for someone without a legal background to understand.

Is it always necessary to constantly call people liars? Why can't you have a conversation where you argue your points without all the vitriol?

I thought there was a rule against calling people liars. But maybe that's a different forum.
 
Your point was that the doctors did not know the condition of the woman's fetus.

Your point was a lie and exposed as such, so now you're pretending that your point is something else

It is a policy decision. And this case is about policy. You are too quick to jump on it when you don't really understand it. This case is not about medical negligence, it is about policy. She is accusing the hospital of acting in accordance with a policy. The same as a Jewish or muslim deli is acting in accordance with a policy when they refuse to serve pork. I realize that it is difficult for someone without a legal background to understand.

Every single sentence is untrue.

Where did you go to law school?
 
It is entirely possible that she doesn't even understand the ACLU's motivation.

You claimed that the doctors did not know her condition. That was a lie

Changing the subject won't work

I thought there was a rule against calling people liars. But maybe that's a different forum.

i did not call you a liar. I said your claims are lies.

Learn the difference

Where did you go to law school?

Since you can't refute my claim, you're engaging in ad hominems
 
She had two children.

I think she thought the pregnancy could be saved.
Apparently she was not seeking an abortion but wanted help because her water broke 5 months early , she was bleeding and apparently she was experencing pains.

Yes they should have induced labor and delivered the fetus.
Howevre since she was only 18 weeks along the fetus would not survive deliery and apparently the Catholic Church would deem that a "direct abortion" which is against their ethics.

So they sent home twice and would have sent home a third time even though she had two inefections that could have life threatening ,but the fetus was being expeled before they could get her out of the hospital the third time.

And why anyone thinks that it's ok for the Catholic hospital to put their religious beliefs ahead of treating a woman appropriately - a woman who could have died for the infection - well, anyone who thinks it's ok, I just don't understand. I don't even know how to approach you this issue because our perspectives are so different. I don't think religion trumps a woman's life. You do. I hope you never end up in a hospital needing a transfusion only to find out it's run by Jehovah's Witnesses.
 
And why anyone thinks that it's ok for the Catholic hospital to put their religious beliefs ahead of treating a woman appropriately - a woman who could have died for the infection - well, anyone who thinks it's ok, I just don't understand. I don't even know how to approach you this issue because our perspectives are so different. I don't think religion trumps a woman's life. You do. I hope you never end up in a hospital needing a transfusion only to find out it's run by Jehovah's Witnesses.

The First Amendment.
 
I thought there was a rule against calling people liars. But maybe that's a different forum.

That would be something to PM a mod about...They are sensitive about discussing their rules in open forum.
 
Your point was that the doctors did not know the condition of the woman's fetus.

Your point was a lie and exposed as such, so now you're pretending that your point is something else

It is a policy decision. And this case is about policy. You are too quick to jump on it when you don't really understand it. This case is not about medical negligence, it is about policy. She is accusing the hospital of acting in accordance with a policy. The same as a Jewish or muslim deli is acting in accordance with a policy when they refuse to serve pork. I realize that it is difficult for someone without a legal background to understand.

You claimed that the doctors did not know her condition. That was a lie

Changing the subject won't work

Where did I say that? I believe I said 'IF there was no objective evidence.....' IF there was objective evidence that she could not carry the child to term, then a therapeutic abortion would likely have been an option. IF that was the case, and they didn't offer her a therapeutic abortion, then the bishops' policy that no therapeutic abortions be done is what this case is about.

I can assure you that I'm not scouring the web for medical records in this case. Nothing will count except what is presented to a jury.
 
Your point was that the doctors did not know the condition of the woman's fetus.

Your point was a lie and exposed as such, so now you're pretending that your point is something else

It is a policy decision. And this case is about policy. You are too quick to jump on it when you don't really understand it. This case is not about medical negligence, it is about policy. She is accusing the hospital of acting in accordance with a policy. The same as a Jewish or muslim deli is acting in accordance with a policy when they refuse to serve pork. I realize that it is difficult for someone without a legal background to understand.

That would be something to PM a mod about...They are sensitive about discussing their rules in open forum.

No biggie. If it's allowed, that's fine. I think I'm done trying to discuss with the person who has been so hostile toward me, though.
 
Where did I say that? I believe I said 'IF there was no objective evidence.....' IF there was objective evidence that she could not carry the child to term, then a therapeutic abortion would likely have been an option. IF that was the case, and they didn't offer her a therapeutic abortion, then the bishops' policy that no therapeutic abortions be done is what this case is about.

I can assure you that I'm not scouring the web for medical records in this case. Nothing will count except what is presented to a jury.

There is objective evidence, and the case is not about the hospital's policy of not performing abortions.
 
Your point was that the doctors did not know the condition of the woman's fetus.

Your point was a lie and exposed as such, so now you're pretending that your point is something else

It is a policy decision. And this case is about policy. You are too quick to jump on it when you don't really understand it. This case is not about medical negligence, it is about policy. She is accusing the hospital of acting in accordance with a policy. The same as a Jewish or muslim deli is acting in accordance with a policy when they refuse to serve pork. I realize that it is difficult for someone without a legal background to understand.

There is objective evidence, and the case is not about the hospital's policy of not performing abortions.

Where did you go to law school?
 
Your point was that the doctors did not know the condition of the woman's fetus.

Your point was a lie and exposed as such, so now you're pretending that your point is something else

It is a policy decision. And this case is about policy. You are too quick to jump on it when you don't really understand it. This case is not about medical negligence, it is about policy. She is accusing the hospital of acting in accordance with a policy. The same as a Jewish or muslim deli is acting in accordance with a policy when they refuse to serve pork. I realize that it is difficult for someone without a legal background to understand.

Where did you get the ideas for the fantasies you've posted?

I understand the law. But since you don't, here it is off the web:

The ACLU wants Catholic hospitals to practice medicine without morals. The American Civil Liberties Union is so upset that a Michigan baby died just after being born that the group is suing the Catholic Church for not deliberately killing the child earlier. // !function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs'); // In a lawsuit filed on Nov. 29 against the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in U.S. District Court in Michigan, the ACLU contends that the church's medical directives reflecting a pro-life stance against abortion resulted in negligent care for a woman with a troubled pregnancy who eventually lost the child. "It's not just about one woman," said Kary Moss, executive director of the Michigan ACLU, in a Newsmax report quoted in The Washington Times. "It's about a nationwide policy created by nonmedical professionals putting patients in harm's way." Translation: Either the Catholic Church directs Catholic hospitals to perform abortions or it will be bankrupted, courtesy of the ACLU, which fights for the "right" to abort even full-term, healthy babies. For good measure, the ACLU named as defendants the current and past two directors of Catholic Health Ministries, the group that issues national ethical directives for Catholic health institutions. - See more at: Can the ACLU force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions?

Can the ACLU force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions?
 
The First Amendment.

By that logic it would be ok for a surgeon whose god is the aorta and has sworn never to touch it to let his patient bleed to death if it gets nicked during surgery.
 
No biggie. If it's allowed, that's fine. I think I'm done trying to discuss with the person who has been so hostile toward me, though.

Understandable....That's what I do when select members continue relentlessly, and won't discuss the topic, but continue to attack...I just ignore them, til the next time I feel like engaging them.
 
Your point was that the doctors did not know the condition of the woman's fetus.

Your point was a lie and exposed as such, so now you're pretending that your point is something else

It is a policy decision. And this case is about policy. You are too quick to jump on it when you don't really understand it. This case is not about medical negligence, it is about policy. She is accusing the hospital of acting in accordance with a policy. The same as a Jewish or muslim deli is acting in accordance with a policy when they refuse to serve pork. I realize that it is difficult for someone without a legal background to understand.

non-sequitor noted

I did not write the article. I merely posted it for your edification. Now, please stop attacking me.
 
Your point was that the doctors did not know the condition of the woman's fetus.

Your point was a lie and exposed as such, so now you're pretending that your point is something else

It is a policy decision. And this case is about policy. You are too quick to jump on it when you don't really understand it. This case is not about medical negligence, it is about policy. She is accusing the hospital of acting in accordance with a policy. The same as a Jewish or muslim deli is acting in accordance with a policy when they refuse to serve pork. I realize that it is difficult for someone without a legal background to understand.

By that logic it would be ok for a surgeon whose god is the aorta and has sworn never to touch it to let his patient bleed to death if it gets nicked during surgery.

And what would be the name of this 'aorta god?' LOL. I've got to admit, that was funny and a new one on me! :D
 
By that logic it would be ok for a surgeon whose god is the aorta and has sworn never to touch it to let his patient bleed to death if it gets nicked during surgery.

A new low in risible argumentation.:peace
 
Back
Top Bottom