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

reply to post by Malcher


Those with money have always decided how the law is used. I believe that is what is being done in this case in a way as well. Why is it being looked at as fetuses are not people vs. wrongful death (which is indeed what this is)?

I am starting to like the idea of an alternate agenda at work in this case. It does seems to be possibly the case.

Raist

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by Malcher

 

Those with money have always decided how the law is used. I believe that is what is being done in this case in a way as well. Why is it being looked at as fetuses are not people vs. wrongful death (which is indeed what this is)?

I am starting to like the idea of an alternate agenda at work in this case. It does seems to be possibly the case.

Raist

Deciding cases is a pretty clear cut process and not, as far as i can tell, possible to decide how the law is used. In this case it is interesting, but would be outside of the norm to not cite legal sources, procedure and precedence. I am not a litigious person and understand in hospitals people die, these are complicated procedures and also what a person can endure is somewhat variable. All medical procedures are risky.

Its actually a win win for the church, and as much as people really want the church to lose they should think twice.
If the church wins then the state kind of overturns the ruling that unborn people are in fact people and just gives future anti-abortion legislation that much easier.

reply to post by Raist


Well because I am not familiar with the case or how the state laws about abortion limits are, I believe that it could be an effort from the husband of the diseased women to start something in order to have laws in the state to address the issue of what is considered murder under malpractice in relation to unborn children.

If the court side with refering the term "people" to the unborn fetuses then this can open the door more state legislation and laws in relation to abortion.

I know that some other states have tried to do this but with no results in order to ban abortion.

reply to post by Malcher


That is true and in the cases of surgery you often sign a release saying that you undersatand the risks involved with drugs being used to put you under. At least I recall signing something before surgery many years ago. It was for sinus surgery but they still had to put me under, been so long I forgot what the paperwork was for. I am pretty sure my wife signed something before they opened her up to get my son out. That again has been several years ago and I forget the details of the paperwork there as well.

It is clear though that something went wrong.

His patient died at the hospital less than an hour after she arrived and her twins died in her womb.

Raist

reply to post by RandyBragg


I am starting to see how that might be true for this case.

It should be watched closely for sure. I wonder what money interests are involved in this right now?

Raist

Originally posted by RandyBragg
Its actually a win win for the church, and as much as people really want the church to lose they should think twice.
If the church wins then the state kind of overturns the ruling that unborn people are in fact people and just gives future anti-abortion legislation that much easier.

It wont make any difference.

Look at this example:

One day someone physically attacks another person. The person they attack has a belief in total pacifism even if someone attacks him. He uses force to thwart the attack and in the process the other person sues him. He can say "you are a pacifist" as a defense, but what does the law say? So if that were his defense it would not be a good one even if the person himself still declares himself to be a pacifist anyway. For that matter he cannot even take it upon himself to decide he was wrong to protect himself based on a belief. I am not in the law field in any way but fairly certain the above is accurate.

reply to post by marg6043


I cannot claim to know much about the laws in CO either.

This case certainly will be gaining a lot of attention as we move closer to the ruling. This case has potential to change a lot of things.


Raist

reply to post by Malcher


That poster is right though. If the court rules that the unborn are indeed people with rights it sets precedent for further rulings. This case has the potential to change abortion rights on the side of giving the unborn rights. Until now they do not have rights and are not seen as people. If they are seen as people it will change things or at least give opportunity to change things in the future.

Raist

reply to post by Raist


One hour was long enough to get the unborn children before the mother died.

Still perhaps the doctors were more worry about her survival than those of the fetuses, because after all her survival was priority at the moment that would have ensured the survival of the fetuses, sad that this happen specially when she was so far in her pregnancy.

I can not imagine the ramifications of this when it comes to interest groups with agendas.

What can be considered more important, the life of the mother or the unborn children, kind of slippery slope here, unless she signed papers specifying that in case of preserving the life of her fetuses she will give away her own life I don't see how all the case can be played.

I still see the whole issue as malpractice.

I am having this nagging feeling that she and her unborn children were made into an example (martyrs) in order to further agendas, but then again that is only me and my conspirators mind.

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by Malcher

 

That poster is right though. If the court rules that the unborn are indeed people with rights it sets precedent for further rulings. This case has the potential to change abortion rights on the side of giving the unborn rights. Until now they do not have rights and are not seen as people. If they are seen as people it will change things or at least give opportunity to change things in the future.

Raist

The unborn already do have legal rights. I never had a reason to study the particulars and how encompassing they are or even what is involved with this case but laws are very clear. The point is regardless of their stance, in the case the Catholic church, they dont have any other options except to have representation apply and cite rules of law so as far as that its not negotiable.

reply to post by marg6043


I think your mind is right. I think a few others thinking the same thing are right. I am starting to think there is an agenda to all of this.

Raist

reply to post by Malcher


Ah but what rights do they have if they can be aborted? They have no rights, at least from what the law says.

If they are seen to have rights and be people it will open things up for the future of things to come.

Here are a few links that say they have no rights, at least in CO.

ballotpedia.org...(2010)

www.huffingtonpost.com...

www.denverpost.com...

www.coloradorighttolife.org...

Even the CO shooter was not charged with killing an unborn.

www.lifenews.com...

In CO the unborn have no rights as they are not seen as people. This court ruling could very well change a lot of things.


Edit to add: as for the church if they feel that the unborn are people they should have settled that part out of court. The unborn were in their care and died. They failed to hold to their beliefs, despite what the law says.


Raist

Whatever happened to the days when we were asked to back the OP with our own thoughts and perceptions about the subject matter. I think I remember that a few of my threads were noted for just posting an article from outside sources without, well, you know.

Not picking here, okay, well yes I am. Not trying to make enemies, just wondering. . . no, it's probably just me.

Now I'm ranting about stuff not related. . .sorry
These lawyers are ruthless and evil.

reply to post by Divine Strake


I did and have been. Did you not read the post below the into post?

You know this one...

www.abovetopsecret.com...


But hey, thanks for adding to the thread.


Raist

This has EVERYTHING to do with malpractice....If the mother was dying or dead, the responsibility to save the lives of the children was next on the priority list!
I agree with Jibeho,.(should have starred you but that was back a ways...)
These babies had an excellent chance to live....and should have been given that chance!
Whoever was in charge needs to pay for that...............

reply to post by Raist


Sorry Raist, lost power in the middle of post. It wasn't about THIS thread.

reply to post by Raist


No different than what everyone else doesn. Sometimes it is just a fetus sometimes it isn't.

Damned if they do and damned if they don't.

reply to post by Raist


hypocrisy is the real issue here...

Indirectly, they are saying what they believe god wants doesn't matter. Maybe they know their god is just imaginary anyway.

Originally posted by stirling
This has EVERYTHING to do with malpractice....If the mother was dying or dead, the responsibility to save the lives of the children was next on the priority list!
I agree with Jibeho,.(should have starred you but that was back a ways...)
These babies had an excellent chance to live....and should have been given that chance!
Whoever was in charge needs to pay for that...............

See, I don't necesssarily agree that "someone must pay" every time something bad happens. The woman had a massive pulmonary embolus and went into cardiopulmonary collapse. I doubt that there would have been a good outcome even if it happened when she was in an OR, draped and prepped, with the knife poised and ready to go. But hey, this is America so anytime something goes wrong we have to sue for millions of dollars.