- Joined
- Nov 11, 2013
- Messages
- 33,522
- Reaction score
- 10,826
- Location
- Between Athens and Jerusalem
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
She should not have been discharged.
We dont know that, she went 3 times.
For some one who doesent have all the facts of the case you sure seem certain. :roll:
Why is it so hard for you to admit that?
The facts are listed in the suit. Your entire argument is based on the claim that the suit is a bunch of lies, a claim you do not know to be true.
You mean the CLAIMS listed in the suit. And what about the facts of the other side?
Im not saying anyone is lying-IM SAYING WE DONT KNOW THE FACTS OF THE CASE.
Dont tell me what my argument is-especially when you get it wrong. :roll:
You are speculating, nothing more.
Your entire argument is based on the nonsensical notion that, on a discussion board, the only thing that should be debated are things where everything is already known.
Maybe you're a bit unclear on the concept.
And your blather about speculation is ironic given your constant "speculations" about liberals and their motives.
You continue to use extreme and insane logic.
There are 2 sides to this, of which we know one. I should add that I have a medical backround and know that there is vital information missing in this case.
Therefore we dont know enough to intelligently discuss the case.
Is this so unreasonable? Take a deep breath.
Not having enough info has never stopped you speculating in other threads. It's only because you're losing this argument that you are objecting to speculation.
The fact is you argued as if it were not only the norm, but that it applied in every case. Not only that, but you argued that a woman should know enough that she should disregard what a doctor told her in favor of info that isn't even true.
And I asked you if it is reasonable to believe that she was told about the need to induce labor but chose instead to suffer with severe pain even though it would not prevent the need to go through labor?
And if it were reasonable to believe that she returned to a hospital where she knew she would not be given the treatment that the hospital told her she needed?
I said you showed that it wasn't "necessarily" the case. I accept that, what more would you like?
I think it is reasonable to believe that is a possibility....Sure, why not...If she wanted to keep that baby, and I can see the doctor giving her several scenarios and her making the choice to do everything possible to save it, even if it meant enduring pain.
Now, after talking it over with my wonderful wife, (the moderate voice of the family) I actually agree here that no it isn't reasonable...And after going back and re reading the OP, the article makes it clear that according to her, and according to the hospital spokesman, it is against policy to inform her that her life may have been in danger, if she didn't terminate the pregnancy. So, I can now see why she is bringing suit....
I am going to stop it there, and say that you are correct in the path you are taking with our conversation, and I have changed my mind. If the bishops force this hospital, and its doc's to with hold information, even to the point of endangering the life of the mother, then she should sue.
My apologies for being obstinate, and I will continue to watch this case.
My opinion is that if she was in pain, water broke, and she is being sent home, but doesn't believe she should be, then she should have gotten in the car, and told her friend to take her to the other hospital.
I said you showed that it wasn't "necessarily" the case. I accept that, what more would you like?
I think it is reasonable to believe that is a possibility....Sure, why not...If she wanted to keep that baby, and I can see the doctor giving her several scenarios and her making the choice to do everything possible to save it, even if it meant enduring pain.
Now, after talking it over with my wonderful wife, (the moderate voice of the family) I actually agree here that no it isn't reasonable...And after going back and re reading the OP, the article makes it clear that according to her, and according to the hospital spokesman, it is against policy to inform her that her life may have been in danger, if she didn't terminate the pregnancy. So, I can now see why she is bringing suit....
I am going to stop it there, and say that you are correct in the path you are taking with our conversation, and I have changed my mind. If the bishops force this hospital, and its doc's to with hold information, even to the point of endangering the life of the mother, then she should sue.
My apologies for being obstinate, and I will continue to watch this case.
I said you showed that it wasn't "necessarily" the case. I accept that, what more would you like?
I think it is reasonable to believe that is a possibility....Sure, why not...If she wanted to keep that baby, and I can see the doctor giving her several scenarios and her making the choice to do everything possible to save it, even if it meant enduring pain.
Now, after talking it over with my wonderful wife, (the moderate voice of the family) I actually agree here that no it isn't reasonable...And after going back and re reading the OP, the article makes it clear that according to her, and according to the hospital spokesman, it is against policy to inform her that her life may have been in danger, if she didn't terminate the pregnancy. So, I can now see why she is bringing suit....
I am going to stop it there, and say that you are correct in the path you are taking with our conversation, and I have changed my mind. If the bishops force this hospital, and its doc's to with hold information, even to the point of endangering the life of the mother, then she should sue.
My apologies for being obstinate, and I will continue to watch this case.
Oh goodness. You guys are giving Laura ( the wife ) quite the confidence boost. Lol
Well, she sounds like a wonderful woman (even if her taste in men leaves something to be desired) :wink:
Lol yeah, I married way out of my league.
Mind blown!
Get your wife on here. The more voices of reason on here, the better.
We will all continue to watch the case if only to see what bat**** crazy arguments the bishop's lawyers come up with. Maybe something called religienza.
However I don't think it will go that far. My guess is out of court settlement, no admission wrongdoing and an NDA. I really hope not because nothing will stop this from happening again if the same policies stay in place.
It always seems to need the death of woman to get people to open their eyes about reproductive health.
My guess is that when the ACLU takes a case, they are not looking for a hush hush no wrongdoing out of court settlement.
Perhaps I am wrong.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?