tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post7765522408444468838..comments2024-03-16T05:00:38.826-04:00Comments on Egnorance: "You don't need a cardinal to answer that."mregnorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comBlogger127125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-11640537632740467692013-03-05T02:29:02.295-05:002013-03-05T02:29:02.295-05:00I've just done a Google search. I found an ar...I've just done a Google search. I found an article from February 4 stating that the 3 Catholic bishops in Colorado have said that the tactics employed by the hospital's lawyers was morally wrong. I agree with them.<br /><br />Anyway, you and Ilion missed my point. I was noting that personhood of a fetus is a legal definition, not a biological one. You reckon an unimplanted fertilized ovum is a person. I don't. I think it should be at least 20 weeks gestation as a compromise. The state of Colorado goes even further not giving unborn fetuses the right to legal protection, which I'd disagree with.<br /><br />A human embry is human, but not a person, legally.<br /><br />I wasn't having a go at the Catholic church in this case. I was having a go at lawyers. (Reminds me of a joke. A couple on the night before their wedding day were killed in a road traffic crash. They appear together before the Pearly Gates and ask St Peter if they can marry in Heaven, since they missed their wedding day on Earth. St Peter says he would have to think about it... 3 months later, he comes back to the couple and tells them, fine you can get married. The couple have also thought about it - eternity is a very long time, they might find themselves incompatible; if so, can they also get divorced? St Peter is angry, and says; listen - it took us 3 months to find a priest in Heaven. Do you realize how long it will take us to find a lawyer?)bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-87576332625630458332013-03-04T20:37:28.984-05:002013-03-04T20:37:28.984-05:00Hoo,
A HUMAN embryo is human, as you have alread...Hoo, <br /><br />A HUMAN embryo is human, as you have already agreed. <br />It is a new human organism in the process of organizing and growing. It is a totally unique in it's coding. <br />Unique in it's potential. <br />It is an individual human organism. <br />It is not an infant, a teen, or a senior - it is an embryo. <br />A human embryo, as we both know, is a stage of human development. <br />Legalisms aside, we are discussing a unique human organism at a very early stage - an individual human being. <br />The operative term here is HUMAN and not embryo, Hoo. <br /><br />I am not sure what you mean by your common ancestry argument. <br />Do you mean to suggest that because humans use animals as food and as industrial resources, that humans should also consider other humans not legally defined as 'persons' in a similar fashion to the way we (mis)treat animals?<br />I must have that wrong....right?<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-78866476205971509722013-03-04T18:14:57.673-05:002013-03-04T18:14:57.673-05:00Michael,
Again, you've missed the point. It ...Michael,<br /><br />Again, you've missed the point. It wasn't the father of the woman who died who was bringing the malpractice suit. It was the father of the 7 month gestation twins who was bringing the malpractice suit.<br /><br />The father of a woman doesn't own her, regardless of whether she's married or not. If a father is entitled to damages for the death of an offspring then he has to demonstrate an injury, and the damages are compensation for that.<br /><br />The case should have been decided as a malpractice suit. Was there negligence involved? I don't think that there was. Having the case dismissed on the basis of a legal technicality leaves a bad taste. And 3 Catholic bishops agree with me when they expressed disquiet.<br /><br />I don't think that the hospital would have lost its case, so it would not have had to pay damages. If it had, then I think damages would have been extremely modest, and would have been useful in establishing what sort of care is necessary.<br /><br />I've just had another thought. Are hospitals in America insured by independent insurance companies? If so, perhaps the hands of the hospital were tied by an insurance company, not concerned with ethics, who insisted that these tactics were employed? Although, I haven't read anything about this being the case.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-87779958309454008752013-03-04T17:05:50.155-05:002013-03-04T17:05:50.155-05:00Little John,
Enlighten me: what stops people fro...Little John, <br /><br />Enlighten me: what stops people from reading the readily available print version? Are we all illiterate or something? <br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-33413720427531353772013-03-04T16:47:51.919-05:002013-03-04T16:47:51.919-05:00@Joey: I know what you're getting at. This Hoo...@Joey: I know what you're getting at. This Hoo is just being obtuse.<br /><br />Little JohnAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-1383171982400622272013-03-04T16:46:29.985-05:002013-03-04T16:46:29.985-05:00Giving a plaintiff and his lawyers money to which ...Giving a plaintiff and his lawyers money to which they are not entitled under the law is not a moral act. It's foolishness, lack of legal professionalism, and possible illegal (the hospital involved has fiduciary responsibilities that likely preclude giving money to plaintiffs despite that lack of a legal basis for doing so). <br /><br />The issue here is not the ontology of the fetus-- the Church always acts to protect the unborn. <br /><br />The issue is the legal responsibility of the hospital, which was properly adjudicated. <br /><br />Perhaps the Church or hospital could offer to compensate the father privately for the loss of his daughter, outside of the legal system, out of respect for her personhood. The prudence of that decision would depend on such things as the legal fiducial responsibilities of the hospital (it's not clear that an organization such as a hospital can simply give money away) and on a thoughtful balance considering the ways the money could be used to help indigent patients, etc. The Church and Catholic hospitals are massively involved in charity, and they may believe that a "payoff" of the father was a less prudent and just use of their money than the ends already in place. mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-27996821525376816072013-03-04T16:35:55.359-05:002013-03-04T16:35:55.359-05:00Another point is that you have often railed agains...Another point is that you have often railed against the Law as being an ass. Taking the moral position that a 7 month gestation fetus is a person isn't bearing false witness against your neighbor. It's actually being a 'true' witness and making the point that in this case the Law is definitely an ass.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-87117670397497234872013-03-04T16:27:03.279-05:002013-03-04T16:27:03.279-05:00And even if the father had won his case, it's ...And even if the father had won his case, it's extremely unlikely that massive amounts of money would have been awarded in damages. Because there's no living 'damaged' individual requiring the cost of ongoing care.<br /><br />Unlike the case in Oregon, in which antenatal screening failed to diagnose trisomy 21, because the cells examined came from the mother (according to the plaintiffs) or because it was a mosaic trisomy 21 - with a normal placenta (according to the defendants, in which case they should have won the case).bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-70078502618047795652013-03-04T16:19:04.693-05:002013-03-04T16:19:04.693-05:00Ilion and Michael,
You both miss the point. The ...Ilion and Michael,<br /><br />You both miss the point. The lawyers acting for the Catholic hospital could have, under instruction from the Catholic hospital, agreed that for this case the 7 month gestation twins would be regarded as 'persons' perhaps establishing a precedent.<br /><br />And then preceded to defend themselves against the charge of malpractice, which I think they would have won. It's not necessary for a perfect result to be achieved from medical care, it's just necessary for the care to meet accepted standards of the time.<br /><br />It was a tragic case. The woman had a massive pulmonary embolus which killed her within an hour. The doctors in the hospital were almost certainly doing everything they could to diagnose, treat and hopefully save the woman. Having to make a decision to abandon the third aim of saving the woman by doing an emergency caesarean section would be a terrible one.<br /><br />Imagine if instead of a pulmonary embolus, she had a ruptured berry aneurysm and a massive subarachnoid hemorrhage. Could the same course of events happen? Would you recommend a caesarean section at any time?<br /><br />It's a different situation to a case in which a pregnant woman is having eclamptic fits. Delivery of the fetus, even if non-viable, is mandatory. There's definite benefit to the mother, with a live mother instead of a dead mother and a dead fetus.<br /><br />The last I heard about this case (in a report in the Melbourne 'Age', it's created such interest), was that 3 American Catholic bishops expressed disquiet that the hospital's lawyers were able to get the case dismissed on a legal technicality. I think they're right.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-49138071363257261222013-03-04T13:05:49.665-05:002013-03-04T13:05:49.665-05:00So, Joey, if an unabridged version of the book is,...So, Joey, if an unabridged version of the book is, and has always been, readily available, why are you characterizing this as an attempt to hide the association between Obama and his friend Frank? The conspiracy theory makes no sense if any adult American has easy access to that information. <br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-91795051112101694312013-03-04T12:48:24.872-05:002013-03-04T12:48:24.872-05:00"You're hopeless."
Actually, his pr..."<i>You're hopeless.</i>"<br /><br />Actually, his problem is that he's <i>fundamentally dishonest</i>.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-13278246602937046822013-03-04T12:42:00.815-05:002013-03-04T12:42:00.815-05:00Ilion:
You points are appreciated and well taken,...Ilion:<br /><br />You points are appreciated and well taken, and the issues you raise do trouble me. <br /><br />But it is not the teaching of the Church or of any Christian denomination that for purposes of tort law plantiffs should be able to collect massive sums of money from hospitals based on the death of unborn children. <br /><br />The ontological status of children in the womb is not the same issue as the legal opportunities for plantiff bar enrichment. <br /><br />The lawyers for the Catholic hospital were merely making a correct legal point. To misrepresent the law-- even to make a moral point-- would actually be a sin against the Eighth Commandment.<br /><br />The Church had two genuinely moral and legal options: do what it did, or offer to give the guy and his lawyer the money outside of the legal process, to emphasize that although the law did not recognize the fetus as a human being, the Church did.<br /><br />That would have been an interesting and perhaps laudable approach, but giving money away does impair the mission of the Church in healthcare, which is not a trivial issue. mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-1377030163811657192013-03-04T12:27:20.169-05:002013-03-04T12:27:20.169-05:00"If someone was "whitewashing" Obam..."If someone was "whitewashing" Obama's book in 2005, how come the 2007 edition of the print book has none of the whitewashing?"<br /><br />Because it's UNABRIDGED!!!!<br /><br />Is this so hard to follow? The unabridged version is the original and complete book. The abridged version is shortened, yes. That's what abridged means. But the way in which it was shortened looks like a deliberate whitewash. A major figure vanishes completely? 22 references (by name) are reduced to none at all? <br /><br />You're hopeless.<br /><br />Joey Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-43591028187852225812013-03-04T12:02:13.248-05:002013-03-04T12:02:13.248-05:00mregnor: "The Colorado case has noting to do ...<b>mregnor:</b> "<i>The Colorado case has noting to do with the Church's moral teaching. It is a legal issue regarding liability at tort. The hospital lawyers made a legal point, and they were correct.</i>"<br /><br />Is it moral and just to use an immoral and unjust law as a means to achieve one's presumably moral and just legal ends? <br /><br />"<i>The Colorado case has noting to do with the Church's moral teaching.</i>"<br /><br />Then how is it that the embarrassment from public knowledge of a legal argument being made on behalf of an institution of the Roman demonination, which argument was so utterly at odds with the official moral teaching of the Roman demonination, could have an impact upon the legal case/argument going forward?<br /><br />-------<br />Please, brother, don't allow yourself to fall/dive into sin in response to 'bachfiend's' <i>to quo quo</i> taunting. Getting you to sin is, after all, his whole purpose.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-89298272066280577642013-03-04T10:13:59.220-05:002013-03-04T10:13:59.220-05:00Joey,
If someone was "whitewashing" Oba...Joey,<br /><br />If someone was "whitewashing" Obama's book in 2005, how come the 2007 edition of the print book has none of the whitewashing? People can read, can't they? <br /><br />This <i>is</i> a conspiracy theory (by definition), and a silly one at that. <br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-68059989459617829442013-03-04T09:49:05.484-05:002013-03-04T09:49:05.484-05:00I think you mean that I can't find my ass with...I think you mean that I can't find my ass with both hands since I'm the one who asked where you found the Frank Marshall Davis references, not the Torch. <br /><br />Let's see, a figure important to Obama's life who merited 22 mentions by name in the unabridged edition completely vanishes from the abridged edition. And you don't think that it's because it became a liability to his political career to be associated with him?<br /><br />It ceases to be a "conspiracy" "theory" when in fact it's true. <br /><br />You really don't need to explain the meaning of the word "abridged." It sounds very condescending. I can't believe that that's your only defense: hey, it's the abridged edition!<br /><br />Yeah, very abridged. Whitewashed, some might say. Oops, racist dog whistle. <br /><br />I noticed that you had nothing to say about Bill Ayers. The point, which I think I've made, is that Obama's got some skeletons in his closet. Americans should subject him to a background check, not the other way around.<br /><br />JoeyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-28206861937791320562013-03-04T09:32:50.635-05:002013-03-04T09:32:50.635-05:00The Colorado case has noting to do with the Church...The Colorado case has noting to do with the Church's moral teaching. It is a legal issue regarding liability at tort. The hospital lawyers made a legal point, and they were correct. <br /><br />The Catholic hospital system isn't in the business of giving away huge cash awards to plantiffs who are not entitled to the money under law. <br /><br />The lawyers would have been guilty of legal malpractice if they hadn't made the legal case they did. <br /><br />mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-76665885564682946262013-03-04T08:02:40.522-05:002013-03-04T08:02:40.522-05:00You, guys, crack me up.
An abridged book covers ...You, guys, crack me up. <br /><br />An abridged book covers some threads of the original. Clearly Frank was not one of those threads. <br /><br />To suggest a coverup in this case is ridiculous. Buy the fucking print edition (available from Amazon) and read about Frank till your heart's content. <br /><br />Torch, you couldn't find your ass with both hands, I suppose. Go to the book's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Dreams-My-Father-Story-Inheritance/dp/0307383415/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0" rel="nofollow">Amazon page</a>, click on Look Inside and enter the name Frank in the Search Inside the Book field. <br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-12666099366154381982013-03-04T07:53:06.249-05:002013-03-04T07:53:06.249-05:00The Torch,
Trust you to miss the point I was maki...The Torch,<br /><br />Trust you to miss the point I was making. You need to have read the previous comments. A Catholic hospital in Colorado was sued for malpractice because a woman carrying twins of 7 months gestation presented to the emergency department very unwell due to a massive pulmonary embolus from which she unfortunately died 1 hour later.<br /><br />The hospital was sued for malpractice because the obstetrician on call was not contactable and the husband thought that an emergency caesarean section should have been done to save the lives of at least the fetuses. The lawyers for the Catholic hospital managed to have the suit dismissed because according to Colorado law an unborn fetus isn't a person.<br /><br />Michael regards an unimplanted fertilized ovum as a person. I don't, until 20 weeks gestation, and that's being conservative. The state of Colorado is even more extreme. <br /><br />Calling a fetus of 7 months gestation a 'baby' is just semantics.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-18155573292943442752013-03-04T07:46:07.808-05:002013-03-04T07:46:07.808-05:00"It has all of the signs of a conspiracy theo..."It has all of the signs of a conspiracy theory."<br /><br />Like being demonstrably true? <br /><br />You're trying to tell me that the abridged edition eliminating twenty-two references to the same person doesn't sound a little suspicious?<br /><br />Little John Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-41075672100788663732013-03-04T05:30:15.786-05:002013-03-04T05:30:15.786-05:00I know that, Bachfiend. That's not the point. ...I know that, Bachfiend. That's not the point. The point is that the legal definition of human sometimes needs to change. <br /><br />The TorchAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-12121740616715005032013-03-04T05:23:05.406-05:002013-03-04T05:23:05.406-05:00A conspiracy theory, by Hoo's definition, is w...A conspiracy theory, by Hoo's definition, is when a conservative won't stop talking about a subject that makes liberals uncomfortable, even after the phalanx of bullshit defense has been deployed.<br /><br />Thanks for your service, Joey.<br /><br />The TorchAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-59541863459263072012013-03-04T05:09:35.740-05:002013-03-04T05:09:35.740-05:00I underwent a background check for a US government...I underwent a background check for a US government security clearance when I was in the Army. I don't believe that Obama could pass one. They ask, for example, if you associate with people who advocate the violent overthrow of the US government. Obama would have to answer yes, or else perjure himself.<br /><br />Background checks for president sound like a good idea to me.<br /><br />JoeyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-53578995080979762602013-03-04T05:04:13.161-05:002013-03-04T05:04:13.161-05:00I followed the link and didn't see any referen...I followed the link and didn't see any reference to Frank Marshall Davis on the Amazon page. Can you point it out?<br /><br />"The audiobook is an older edition (2005) and it is abridged. That means not everything is there."<br /><br />Yes, I know what abridged means. And Random House now only offers the abridged edition of the audiobook. The unabridged edition has 22 mentions of "Frank" by name, and more by pronoun. The abridged edition has zero, by name or pronoun. <br /><br />Paul Kengor wrote a book on Frank Marshall Davis's communism. <br /><br />And of course there are more examples. Obama denied during the 2008 campaign that communist terrorist Bill Ayers was a friend of his, saying that he was merely some guy who live in the neighborhood. A few conservative opinion commentators pushed the subject until it boomeranged around. Suddenly the scandal wasn't that Obama was friends with a communist terrorist, but that conservatives wouldn't stop talking about it. That was the scandal!<br /><br />In a new foreword to Ayers' 2001 book, released just after the election by sheer coincidence, Ayers describes Obama as a "Family friend," which is exactly what conservatives had claimed and Obama had denied throughout the campaign. It still comes up from time to time, and liberals still claim that this chestnut has been "debunked," by which they mean denied. Obama has denied it, so that means it isn't true. Move along, move along.<br /><br />http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/13/bill-ayers-calls-obama-a_n_143654.html<br /><br />Liberals have declared the president's past off-limits, unless, of course, you feel like discussing Obama's awesomeness. Some people transgress the social taboo and talk about it anyway, sure. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a taboo about discussing the man's past, or that liberals attempt to enforce it. It just means that some people--"crackpots" like me--refuse to be intimidated. <br /><br />Now, if you will drop by the faculty lounge, or whatever you call it, and share with them the Huffington Post article, I think you will see my point. Ask your friends, if the president isn't friends with this communist terrorist, why does this communist terrorist claim Obama as a friend of his? See their reaction. <br /><br />Also, I'm going to have to see some proof of this allegedly conservative colleague you have. I'm awfully skeptical. Academia is a very closed institution and political litmus tests are used to enforce orthodoxy.<br /><br />Joey Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-76017536392445036512013-03-04T04:01:56.856-05:002013-03-04T04:01:56.856-05:00A fetus at 7 months is a person, but not a baby?
...A fetus at 7 months is a person, but not a baby? <br /><br />Why can you say that a fetus is a person and I can't?<br /><br />The TorchAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com