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

page: 4
27
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 06:42 PM
link   
I hope the father doesn't have access to guns if he loses this. If it were me and the hospital didn't do everything they could to save my unborn children, well there would be hell to pay!




posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 



I hope that they decide the fetuses were "alive" and thus covered by wrongful death statutes. This would be an excellent precedent for ending abortion.


This isn't in response to this case but to the issue in general.

It isn't a matter of the "alive" status. A cell is alive. I would hope no one is attempting to refute basic science. It's a matter of suffering. Self awareness, sentience. That's the moral antecedent to why aborting at a young enough stage is okay, and aborting at an old enough stage is not okay. All abortions are a living thing. When I garden I don't consider it infant genocide when I harvest young plants despite them being alive. They are not sentient, they do not suffer. If I cut a branch off a tree its "pain" reaction may be to ooze sap. Give that tree sentience and that pain is like ours and that sap is blood (okay probably not
). What I mean by that is...it's not just a matter of being able to experience pain, it's a matter of being able to experience the subjectivity of pain.

The neuroanatomical system for pain is considered complete at 26 weeks. From what I am reading. It's probably around this point. 24-28 weeks for the basic neuro structure in general.

Please understand I am not trying to present a strong case for anything-everything-pro-choice. I am saying sentience is what matters. We should continue to understand the science and place the abortion laws/regulations in accordance to it.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by votan
 


In many cases I agree. But in this case they are going against their beliefs (I guess that is normal today though).


Nice avatar by the way Groucho Marx



Raist



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by reject
 


While I do nto agree with the last line in your post I do agree with the rest of it.

After reading a few posts in this thread though I am starting to think there is an agenda to this.

Raist



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by DaesDaemar
 


I can agree about being a father and making someone pay. I cannot agree with the gun route though. As a gun owner that is not the responsible road to take. This is an accident possibly caused by human error. I would demand a full investigation and possible a settlement. Violence in this case would be out of the question though. Save the violence for those that violently harm your family with intent.

Raist



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


yes seriously you seem to have not a clue regarding "normal" hospital procedure. I have worked in a small community hospital in ob for the last 10+ years. If you had any clue you would know that it is procedure to do an emergency crash section on a dying woman with fetuses over 24 weeks. In layman's terms that means a very good chance of survival. I personally have seen it done.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by jojomomto3
 


Not disagreeing with you but after my 22 week son was still born I looked into it. There has been one as young as 21 weeks survive and the rates of 22 and 23 week survival is going up.

It seems there has been more. I read about a 21 week old surviving years ago.

healthland.time.com...

www.dailymail.co.uk...

miscarriage.about.com...

There is hope as early as 21 weeks, I am not sure if younger than that can survive.

Raist



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Raist
 


Yes, babies are potentially viable at 19+ weeks, a small community hospital does not always have the means to keep these children alive. I meant no ill will.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by jojomomto3
 


Wow, I was not aware that they had a chance even if slim at 19 weeks.

I was only aware of the 21 week survivor(s). No ill is seen in either of your posts. I hope I did not convey that I felt any.

Raist



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Raist
 


Sorry if I sounded snotty. We send expectant moms 19+ weeks to a tertiary facility in hopes they make it to a viable age of 22 weeks. You are correct!



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Raist
 

Oops! My post was cut off. So very sorry about your loss. My intention was not to be insulting.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Raist
 


I don't understand how you can say that when they clearly don't practice what they preach...you're in denial



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by reject
 


I was simply saying that I do not agree that God is imaginary. The rest of your post I agreed with. They do not respect their beliefs by using a law they oppose on their side.

Just because we do not agree on the God issue is not reason to say I am in denial.

Raist



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:04 PM
link   
This is typical of actions seen by many people and the groups they run nowadays. When a certain point of view serves their purpose, they use it...And when it does not, they don't. Although I knew the Catholic Church had done many wrong things in the past, I never would have guessed at this kind of hypocrisy. Although, this may just be the wrangling of their lawyers, who will not fail to find any loophole to exploit, regardless of their client's moral beliefs. Their job is to win the case. I do not know if this is what happened, but it is possible, and wouldn't be as bad in my opinion. But then again, they are allowing these people to represent them, so I dunno.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by JiggyPotamus
 


This is a good point. Even if it is the lawyers doing it they are allowing them to do it.

I still say they should have just settled out of court and it would be viewed differently. On the other hand by allowing it to go to court as others have pointed out they could win by losing.

Raist



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Seven months into pregnancy was plenty for a fetus to survive after emergency Cesarean today.

Now the problems with fetuses exiting the uterus before term is that the less time they have in the uterus the more less chances for the new born to grow healthy.

Prematurity is one of the leading death of infants in any country due to complications, infections and from those that survive the chances of cerebral diseases like retardation, delay on development and other dangerous handicaps will always be a possibility.

This is a littler secret that certain groups agenda do not tell, when babies are born premature the less time in uterus the less chances of surviving to be a healthy adult.

America with all the technology has fallen behind in the issue of infant mortality, we may have a child born premature survive birth but then to die later on some health related issues from the premature birth.

Sad but truth.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:26 PM
link   
being a seven month baby I can say it was a tough go but with decent care and some luck...
its all good

The church takes what ever position seems to preserve profitability and the power base..it seems
edit on 24-1-2013 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Mr. Confusion back in the game. I just don't get it. Is it because people don't like Catholics? That's the best reason I can come up with and would appreciate help in understanding.

A person comes to the hospital and says "Under the existing laws of the State, I am taking you to court. A court which exists and has it's own rules. I followed all the existing court rules in making my filings and serving the required papers. I expect to show, under the existing rules of tort law, that you owe me a bundle."

The Church then replies: "Under the existing rules of tort law, we don't owe you anything. We don't like the rules, but there they are. We follow the rules we don't like as well as the ones we like. That's probably what you do, too. You chose the playing field and the rules. Under those rules you lose."

Why come down on the Church in this case? The hospital is filing a legal answer as prescribed by the legal system the man is using. They are not filing a doctrinal statement.

It's as if you're claiming that every Catholic runner in a race is required to run as slowly as possible because the Bible teaches that "the last shall be first."



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:58 PM
link   
hey Charles!
hows trix?
well why then say the last shall be first?

hating catholics is a statement containing quite a leap
not liking hypocracy might be more accurate

edit on 24-1-2013 by Danbones because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-1-2013 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 11:03 PM
link   
What type of species was this? Human , you say? Classification pretty much defines does it not? Human fetus, embryo it matters not! At some point the "creature" had the classification of human, correct? Who among us has the authority to judge?





top topics
 
27
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join