Catholic Hospital Says Fetus Isn't Human Life

wait, i thought catholics were agaisnt abortion because 'it is life' ???

..That's the joke

Big rule of rhetoric: Always frame your position as "pro" something. being "anti" something sounds too negative.
There used to be abortion displays on my campus and everyone (both sides) were really rude to each other.

I"M PRO "THIS IS MY VAGINA, I DO WHAT I WANT"

Not watching video because I'm at my Department now... but... wait the hospital is a Catholic church (or the other way round)? Or the church is in charge of hospitalizing the mother?

I seriously don't understand how this would be possible if it weren't either of these two. A professional duty must come before a religious duty (if the doctors were Catholic, that is... I can understand if a Catholic doctor refused to perform abortion), else the doctor / hospital is medically unprofessional. Even to err on the religious side of caution would imply saving the twins (do not take lives) =.= Furthermore the one to provide the permission in a professional setting is the direct kin (i.e. the father), not the church! What's going on??

Probably the only viable reason to not perform a C-section is that there was too little time and the mother is too weak to handle a C-section, such that a C-section would carry a significant risk of all three [lives/person] dying, whereas not havnig a C-section would at least save the mother's life.

Hadriel

Pregnant mother was giving birth, her heart was failing, she was at a catholic hospital, who believes that the moment there's fertilization, then it's a "person", refused to do a c-section to see if they could save the kids, claiming, in the court at least, they are simply "fetus'" which directly contradicts their very loud stance against this issue.

she was at a catholic hospital

Ok that's all the clarification I needed. Thanks.

Hadriel

They are not saying a fetus is not a person.
They are saying that by Colorado law a fetus is not a person.
Basically, they're saying to the Colorado court: "Don't you be hypocrites. If you don't convict abortion doctors of murder, you can't convict us of wrongful death, either."

As for how they justify not trying to save those babies to God, that is between them and their confessors.

That's if the whole thing even happened. Sounds too much like a reductio ad absurdum argument of the type anti-abortionists like to make.

They are not saying a fetus is not a person.
They are saying that by Colorado law a fetus is not a person.
Basically, they're saying to the Colorado court: "Don't you be hypocrites. If you don't convict abortion doctors of murder, you can't convict us of wrongful death, either."

As for how they justify not trying to save those babies to God, that is between them and their confessors.

That's if the whole thing even happened. Sounds too much like a reductio ad absurdum argument of the type anti-abortionists like to make.

I was under the impression that after a 6 month period it's illegal to do an abortion as it's seen as manslaughter? Some fetus timeline or something. Not really something I can research appropriately with a work computer unfortunately

I was under the impression that after a 6 month period it's illegal to do an abortion as it's seen as manslaughter? Some fetus timeline or something. Not really something I can research appropriately with a work computer unfortunately

I have no idea. Probably varies between jurisdictions. Also, I only watched the video once, but I didn't hear them saying she was giving birth. Just that she was pregnant and her heart was failing. So we don't know whether this was before or after the 6 month mark.

IMO a reasonable man would be willing to save another if it is within one's abilities and does not put one in harm's way (directly, that is). I'm starting to wonder if these doctors are being reasonable or not... They define a fetus that is delivered as a baby and therefore a living person, while if it's still inside the mother and it dies (e.g. miscarriage/delivery failure) then they're not liable to homicide because it's not delivered and therefore not a living person?

Are there states that do not allow abortion because the state law dictates that a fetus is a living person? (I know this is going abit off, but this is related to what Sapta said...)

This is... strange. To me.

Hadriel

IMO a reasonable man would be willing to save another if it is within one's abilities and does not put one in harm's way (directly, that is). I'm starting to wonder if these doctors are being reasonable or not... They define a fetus that is delivered as a baby and therefore a living person, while if it's still inside the mother and it dies (e.g. miscarriage/delivery failure) then they're not liable to homicide because it's not delivered and therefore not a living person?

Are there states that do not allow abortion because the state law dictates that a fetus is a living person? (I know this is going abit off, but this is related to what Sapta said...)

This is... strange. To me.

Hadriel

Yes, but I'm under the assumption this was a late time during pregnancy and their refusal is odd which is the bottom line. If someones dying there's no harm trying to get the babies out as a possibility, now they are trying to fall back on the very law they try to change.

Catholic church was hospitalizing a pregnant female with twins, she started having massive heart failure, she asked for a c-section to save the twins, they refused. Father suing because they refused as manslaughter, they are claiming that a fetus is not a "person".

Ahh, the old "Preach something until it bites me in the ass then completely change my ideas and pretend like I never said it even when there's video proof."

Ahh, the old "Preach something until it bites me in the ass then completely change my ideas and pretend like I never said it even when there's video proof."

I think its more like this

They are not saying a fetus is not a person.
They are saying that by Colorado law a fetus is not a person.
Basically, they're saying to the Colorado court: "Don't you be hypocrites. If you don't convict abortion doctors of murder, you can't convict us of wrongful death, either."

and as much of a bullshit thing to do, they could very well have a point.

and as much of a bullpomegranate thing to do, they could very well have a point.

It's not a could, it's a do. In the eyes of the law, they did nothing wrong. The law says fetuses are not human (or whatever the exact language of it is), therefore it is not acceptable for the hospital to be sued for manslaughter.

It's not a could, it's a do. In the eyes of the law, they did nothing wrong. The law says fetuses are not human (or whatever the exact language of it is), therefore it is not acceptable for the hospital to be sued for manslaughter.

I think it depends on the age of the fetus/children in question though. I'm pretty sure you can't abort a fetus after awhile though I'm not sure of an exact date. If they made no effort when the children could have very well survived and developed without the mother then the defense kind of goes out the window. Although the law may think differently.

I think it depends on the age of the fetus/children in question though. I'm pretty sure you can't abort a fetus after awhile though I'm not sure of an exact date. If they made no effort when the children could have very well survived and developed without the mother then the defense kind of goes out the window. Although the law may think differently.

As far as I know, it is legal in every state to abort a baby when the mother's health is at risk.

As far as I know, it is legal in every state to abort a baby when the mother's health is at risk.

You and everyone should actually watch the video, it's very clear what happened. The mother was dead, they refused to do a c-section to see if they could save the kids. The disgusting hypocrites are trying to use the law they have been trying to change 3 times now. And I have found, in majority of the united states, including colorado, it's illegal to get an abortion after 3 months. This women was 7 months pregnant.

As far as I know, it is legal in every state to abort a baby when the mother's health is at risk.

and what does that have to do with anything?

From what little information the video does indeed give, the mother was having heart failure(it wasn't stated if the pregnancy was or was not the cause) and asked them to save the kids. The mother was going to die. If she was 7 months pregnant as Khainiwest says, then the children could have certainly grown and developed without the mother, as tragic as it may be. The hospital should atleast try and save them at that point.

and what does that have to do with anything?

From what little information the video does indeed give, the mother was having heart failure(it wasn't stated if the pregnancy was or was not the cause) and asked them to save the kids. The mother was going to die. If she was 7 months pregnant as Khainiwest says, then the children could have certainly grown and developed without the mother, as tragic as it may be. The hospital should atleast try and save them at that point.

You and everyone should actually watch the video, it's very clear what happened. The mother was dead, they refused to do a c-section to see if they could save the kids. The disgusting hypocrites are trying to use the law they have been trying to change 3 times now. And I have found, in majority of the united states, including colorado, it's illegal to get an abortion after 3 months. This women was 7 months pregnant.

It is illegal to get late term abortions in most states. However, virtually every state have abortions legal if the mother is in danger (and then a few have it legal in cases of rape and incest). It's just a random tibdbit I was throwing out since you all seem so misinformed.

It is not a matter of the Catholic church flip-flopping. The Catholic church did not issue a formal statement: "We are pro-life in cases of our finances, then we are pro-choice." It is a matter of the law. It is not legal to be sued for manslaughter when in Colorado fetuses are not considered living. Now I don't know the entirety of the law and whether it's a matter of fetus is viable, fetus is birthed, or fetus could be birthed. However, as far as I'm concerned, they have a sound case even if it is against what they typically believe. Sapta hit the nail on the head, and for whatever reason, you basically ignored her point.

It is illegal to get late term abortions in most states. However, virtually every state have abortions legal if the mother is in danger (and then a few have it legal in cases of rape and incest). It's just a random tibdbit I was throwing out since you all seem so misinformed.

It is not a matter of the Catholic church flip-flopping. The Catholic church did not issue a formal statement: "We are pro-life in cases of our finances, then we are pro-choice." It is a matter of the law.

The law they have been trying to change for 3 years is ironically the one they fall back on, or try too. It's hypocritical and frankly pretty shallow considering how they throw away their loud opinion over a law suit. Lose lose situation for them.

I think/believeIt is not legal to be sued for manslaughter when in Colorado fetuses are not considered living.

I fixed that for you. You seem to have a problem of trying to get your 2-cents in without even doing any research. Uneducated statement is uneducated

Now I don't know the entirety of the law and whether it's a matter of fetus is viable, fetus is birthed, or fetus could be birthed. However, far as I'm concerned, they have a sound case even if it is against what they typically believe. Sapta hit the nail on the head, and for whatever reason, you basically ignored her point.

I find it funny how you just declare that they are right and try to apply your limited experience/knowledge on the matter. The reason I ignored sapta's point is because it's just incorrect.

Ends or causes pregnancy to be ended by any means other than justified medical termination or birth

Considering it was 7 months in, the denial of trying to save them, with both mother/father consent is not justified medical termination. Period.

http://statelaws.findlaw.com/colorado-la...-laws.html

Feel free to end this conversation by pomegranateting my post and never looking at the thread again, very common practice for you it seems.

The law they have been trying to change for 3 years is ironically the one they fall back on, or try too. It's hypocritical and frankly pretty shallow considering how they throw away their loud opinion over a law suit. Lose lose situation for them.

Never said that it wasn't hypocritical, tacky, etc. I just said it was legally sound. Good work putting words into my mouth, maybe one day I'll do it to you.

I fixed that for you. You seem to have a problem of trying to get your 2-cents in without even doing any research. Uneducated statement is uneducated

1.A person commits the crime of manslaughter if:
(a) Such person recklessly causes the death of another person; or
(b) Such person intentionally causes or aids another person to commit suicide.
© (Deleted by amendment, L. 96, p. 1844, § 13, effective July 1, 1996.)

Fetus is not a person. Therefore, cannot be manslaughter. Did a little more research, Colorado considers life to begin at birth.

I find it funny how you just declare that they are right and try to apply your limited experience/knowledge on the matter. The reason I ignored sapta's point is because it's just incorrect.

And your experience....? I mean, you're no more (if not less) experienced than I am. Unless you count e-justice, I guess you'd probably be an expert on that.

Considering it was 7 months in, the denial of trying to save them, with both mother/father consent is not justified medical termination. Period.

Not sure where you're going with this but immediately after the definition of an illegal abortion, which you gave, it gives the definition of a legal abortion.

Continuation of pregnancy likely to result in death or permanent physical or mental impairment of mother, or child born with grave mental or physical retardation, or within first 16 weeks of pregnancy and pregnancy result of sexual assault or incest.

Death of mother, the abortion would have been legal. How interesting.

Feel free to end this conversation by pomegranateting my post and never looking at the thread again, very common practice for you it seems.

Will do. Perhaps if you respond with something of substance I'll be coerced into responding, but I doubt it.

Never said that it wasn't hypocritical, tacky, etc. I just said it was legally sound. Good work putting words into my mouth, maybe one day I'll do it to you.

Fetus is not a person. Therefore, cannot be manslaughter. Did a little more research, Colorado considers life to begin at birth.

Completely ignore my relevant point. Okay.

And your experience....? I mean, you're no more (if not less) experienced than I am. Unless you count e-justice, I guess you'd probably be an expert on that.

Although my job does not deal specifically with criminal justice, I do in fact have to talk with lawyers on a daily basis concerning tax law. It's the same jargon pretty much. Foot in your mouth twice now.

Not sure where you're going with this but immediately after the definition of an illegal abortion, which you gave, it gives the definition of a legal abortion.

Death of mother, the abortion would have been legal. How interesting.


Will do. Perhaps if you respond with something of substance I'll be coerced into responding, but I doubt it.

I'm sorry, would you care to point where you read that? I feel like you're trying make up statements to benefit your argument.

Intentional ending of pregnancy by licensed physician using accepted medical procedures and as required, with appropriate consent. Continuation of pregnancy likely to result in death or permanent physical or mental impairment of mother, or child born with grave mental or physical retardation, or within first 16 weeks of pregnancy and pregnancy result of sexual assault or incest. Court declared unconstitutional, but not repealed

With basic sentence comprehension you can see the following bolded points.

It's legal to do an abortion at any time if the pregnancy is killing the mother. This is not the case, the mother was suffering heart failure and they refused to attempt to save the children. Although I will correct myself and mistakenly put manslaughter when I meant to put malpractice. Again, if you watched the video or actually looked for the article you would see they are in fact suing for malpractice, which would have been a legitimate correction you could have used.

Tut tut.

Completely ignore my relevant point. Okay.

Didn't see anything relevant other than bashing the Catholic Church for being hypocritical and flip-flopping on a law that they've been working to defeat. Nothing of relevance in a legal case.

Although my job does not deal specifically with criminal justice, I do in fact have to talk with lawyers on a daily basis concerning tax law. It's the same jargon pretty much. Foot in your mouth twice now.

And if we're going off of experience based off of association and talking to tax lawyers (the reality: similar jargon, different execution), then I'd be just as experienced given the fact that I've taken two classes on American law with both of my professors being in the legal profession (one a Supreme Court judge in Missouri). I'm still in regular contact with these people. I've also sat in on numerous court martials as well.

Just because you talk with them, doesn't mean you have actual experience. Theory is one thing and execution is another.

I'm sorry, would you care to point where you read that? I feel like you're trying make up statements to benefit your argument.

Same place where you found it, different interpretations. Facts and circumstances is everything in law, which you should know from all your talks with tax lawyers. From my research, all I've found was a blocked artery. It's hard to say whether or not that blocked artery can be attributed to stress, bad luck, or bad life habits. There's not really enough information out there to determine whether or not you can attribute the pregnancy playing a role (or at least for a judge) in any way to her death.

Again, if you watched the video or actually looked for the article you would see they are in fact suing for malpractice, which would have been a legitimate correction you could have used.

Didn't watch the full extent of the video. Also, the same article used by TYT uses malpractice and wrongful death (manslaughter) interchangeably. The description of the video uses wrongful death and then within the first ten seconds of the video, the anchor uses malpractice. It's a mere distinction, hence why I didn't correct it.

But real actual last post this time. im srs. supa srs.

Didn't see anything relevant other than bashing the Catholic Church for being hypocritical and flip-flopping on a law that they've been working to defeat. Nothing of relevance in a legal case.

The response was towards the entity of the entire post, as it was regarding the legality of the case.

And if we're going off of experience based off of association and talking to tax lawyers (the reality: similar jargon, different execution), then I'd be just as experienced given the fact that I've taken two classes on American law with both of my professors being in the legal profession (one a Supreme Court judge in Missouri). I'm still in regular contact with these people. I've also sat in on numerous court martials as well.

It's not association, my job is essentially enforcing and defining more than 8 different type of tax codes in my state. Although IFTA could be considered internationally (internationl fuel trade agreement). Your terrible attention to detail kind of destroys any form of credibility of either your claims or your teachers. Just sayin.

Just because you talk with them, doesn't mean you have actual experience. Theory is one thing and execution is another.

Sorry, I was under the assumption that you knew what my job was as I was vocal about it for months. I deal with almost every type of tax/state legislature in my state. I don't directly write the laws, but I do directly enforce them, which means understanding them.

Same place where you found it, different interpretations.

Talking out of your ass to save face I see. I copied and pasted the entire definition you tried to throw in my face. There's no interpretation, you're wrong, its clearly stated and there's no ambiguous vocabulary to deter to any alternative. You either misread it or simply don't understand it.

Facts and circumstances is everything in law, which you should know from all your talks with tax lawyers. From my research, all I've found was a blocked artery. It's hard to say whether or not that blocked artery can be attributed to stress, bad luck, or bad life habits. There's not really enough information out there to determine whether or not you can attribute the pregnancy playing a role (or at least for a judge) in any way to her death.

Didn't watch the full extent of the video. Also, the same article used by TYT uses malpractice and wrongful death (manslaughter) interchangeably. The description of the video uses wrongful death and then within the first ten seconds of the video, the anchor uses malpractice. It's a mere distinction, hence why I didn't correct it.

But real actual last post this time. im srs. supa srs.

Are you f`ucking serious?! You're trying to fall back on the possibility that her pregnancy caused a clogged artery thus heart failure? I would love for you to find me an example of that, but I'm no doctor. Although your elementary definition of how "law" work's was kind of cute considering you can't actually hold a relevant argument case and point;

From my research, all I've found was a blocked artery. It's hard to say whether or not that blocked artery can be attributed to stress, bad luck, or bad life habits. There's not really enough information out there to determine whether or not you can attribute the pregnancy playing a role (or at least for a judge) in any way to her death.

Why is this relevant? The malpractice is not anywhere associated with why the mother died, it's the lack of action the doctors took. Under the fathers consent they should have done what he asked. Again I'm no doctor, but I'm pretty sure, especially if the f`ucking mother is dead, they have an obligation, legally to take his request, unless, because I know you'll point this irrelevant point out, it puts the patient in danger. The person was dead, attempting to save those kids brought no harm to anyone, period. It was corner cutting and that's it, otherwise the catholic hospital would give us a real excuse rather than 'oh...according to the state law, which we want to change...we shouldn't be convicted!".