• 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]

sangha said:
Where does it say that a belief in an Aortic God can not be considered religious?
Click to expand...

It doesn't, but I'm betting that the 2,000-year-old Catholic Church will be more credible before the SCOTUS than aorta worship.:peace
 
on a related topic that has been mentioned in this thread is what seems to be a comnspiract that the ACLU is only doing this to attack the hospital because its catholic.


what evidence is there to this

and also whats wrong with that? now let me be clear on what im asking.

If the ACLU was attacking these hospitals ONLY because and SOLELY because of a religious affiliation then yes I have a HUGE problem with that and its complete crap and i hope they lose and are told to go pound salt.

but

If the ACLU is attacking these hospital because these particular HOSPITALS are letting their religious afflictions are interfer with sound medical and science based decisions for quality and safe care then i have ZERO problem with and support them in every step.

my point is if its strictly religion based then im on the side of the church but if its medical science based then im on the side of medical science.

there should be zero difference between the medical/science protocols and procedures and safety standards between HOSPITALS no matter their affiliations. There should be a set bar regulated by medical science facts/guidelines and safety standards and that should be the minimum a hospital is allowed to conduct itself. RELIGION should play ZERO part in the medical/science field.

but of course like i have already said, IF this hospital did the things claimed that an issue but only IF
 
AGENT J said:
on a related topic that has been mentioned in this thread is what seems to be a comnspiract that the ACLU is only doing this to attack the hospital because its catholic.


what evidence is there to this

and also whats wrong with that? now let me be clear on what im asking.

If the ACLU was attacking these hospitals ONLY because and SOLELY because of a religious affiliation then yes I have a HUGE problem with that and its complete crap and i hope they lose and are told to go pound salt.

but

If the ACLU is attacking these hospital because these particular HOSPITALS are letting their religious afflictions are interfer with sound medical and science based decisions for quality and safe care then i have ZERO problem with and support them in every step.

my point is if its strictly religion based then im on the side of the church but if its medical science based then im on the side of medical science.

there should be zero difference between the medical/science protocols and procedures and safety standards between HOSPITALS no matter their affiliations. There should be a set bar regulated by medical science facts/guidelines and safety standards and that should be the minimum a hospital is allowed to conduct itself. RELIGION should play ZERO part in the medical/science field.

but of course like i have already said, IF this hospital did the things claimed that an issue but only IF
Click to expand...

That is the question to which the ACLU seeks an answer: Whether the First Amendment permits a Catholic hospital to limit its offer of medical options based on religion.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
That is the question to which the ACLU seeks an answer: Whether the First Amendment permits a Catholic hospital to limit its offer of medical options based on religion.:peace
Click to expand...

well the answer to that is already a factual no

now there are grey areas they can try and play in but in general the answer is factually no

laws, individual rights and medical/sciences regulations/safety standards rank first

a hospital is not a religious realm and has nothing to do with religion.

They cant refuse people of other religions treatment in the ER simply based on religion
They can deny me my legal spouse privileges because i wasn't married by their religious rules
They cant deny homosexual treatment simply based on sexuality
THey cant deny me the right to have a rabbi visit me
etc etc etc

they can choose to not do any elective procedures they want and Im fine with that but once one the procedure is no longer elective and it is needed to save my life or to elevate a large risk to my life based on medical/science facts, regulations and safety standards they have no right at all to deny that.
 
AGENT J said:
well the answer to that is already a factual no

now there are grey areas they can try and play in but in general the answer is factually no

laws, individual rights and medical/sciences regulations/safety standards rank first

a hospital is not a religious realm and has nothing to do with religion.

They cant refuse people of other religions treatment in the ER simply based on religion
They can deny me my legal spouse privileges because i wasn't married by their religious rules
They cant deny homosexual treatment simply based on sexuality
THey cant deny me the right to have a rabbi visit me
etc etc etc

they can choose to not do any elective procedures they want and Im fine with that but once one the procedure is no longer elective and it is needed to save my life or to elevate a large risk to my life based on medical/science facts, regulations and safety standards they have no right at all to deny that.
Click to expand...

We'll have to wait to see whether the SCOTUS shares your certainty.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
We'll have to wait to see whether the SCOTUS shares your certainty.:peace
Click to expand...
well we will have to wait and see

BUT its not "my" certainty im using, its history and the court cases that have already been decided, some by them.

Some of the examples i made are ones that already came to pass
 
AGENT J said:
well we will have to wait and see

BUT its not "my" certainty im using, its history and the court cases that have already been decided, some by them.

Some of the examples i made are ones that already came to pass
Click to expand...

As I said, we shall see.:peace
 
US Conservative said:
Your lack of historical context is showing.

History of hospitals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

nope your ability to invent strawman and make things up is what is showing

never said they didnt have "history" lol

try to keep up and in context and follow whats actually being discussed instead of inserting false meaning into my posts that isnt there.

a hospital is factually not a religious realm and has nothing to do with religion and thats the way it is in america. What factually makes it that way? Laws, rights, facts and medical science standards and regulatory processes.

Marriage has ties to religion and history with religion too, the fact remains though that legal marriage has nothing to do with religion based on the same things mentioned above :shrug:

theres a huge and factual difference. I can have a religious dinner doesnt make all dinners religious matters under the law lol

Sorry you misunderstood.
 
Jack Hays said:
That is the question to which the ACLU seeks an answer: Whether the First Amendment permits a Catholic hospital to limit its offer of medical options based on religion.:peace
Click to expand...

That is not true.

It is whether a hospital can provide negligent care because its' inane beliefs do not allow it to provide adequate care.
 
paddymcdougall said:
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.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you are referring to another poster but Quoted me by mistake.

I don't think it was ok not to inform the patient what was happening.
I understand fully the infections she had could have been life threatening.

And I am the one that gave the example of a Jehovah's Witness owned hospital and blood transfusions.
 
AGENT J said:
nope your ability to invent strawman and make things up is what is showing

never said they didnt have "history" lol

try to keep up and in context and follow whats actually being discussed instead of inserting false meaning into my posts that isnt there.

a hospital is factually not a religious realm and has nothing to do with religion and thats the way it is in america. What factually makes it that way? Laws, rights, facts and medical science standards and regulatory processes.

Marriage has ties to religion and history with religion too, the fact remains though that legal marriage has nothing to do with religion based on the same things mentioned above :shrug:

theres a huge and factual difference. I can have a religious dinner doesnt make all dinners religious matters under the law lol

Sorry you misunderstood.
Click to expand...

How many hospitals are religious? A huge percentage. Just because the left has apparently decided what is acceptable doesn't change that.
 
sangha said:
No one is claiming that someone who wasn't at the hospital omitted any information
Click to expand...

Its in her complaint; None of the Defendants listed in her complaint were at the hospital. She is suing for negligence and omission by proxy.

Plaintiff
request
s
that this Court:
a.
assert jurisdiction over this matter;
b.
declare
that
Defe
ndants
’
negligent acts and/or omi
ssions caused Plaintiff
injury;
c.
declare that Defendants’ negligent acts were willful, wanton, grossly negligent
and/or reckless
Click to expand...
 
US Conservative said:
1.) How many hospitals are religious? A huge percentage.
2.) Just because the left has apparently decided what is acceptable doesn't change that.
Click to expand...

1.) still changes nothing, no facts are impacted. How many marriages are religious? a huge amount yet the fact remains legal marriage has nothing to do with religion.
2.) as soon as one mentions "left" or "right" and groups them all together the argument cant be taken seriously

also your subjective opinion about what the left thinks is acceptable doesnt change the fact of the statement i previously made.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom