Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
A Tragic Case of Modern Bioethics: Denying Life-Sustaining Treatment to a Patient Who Wanted to Live
A Texas man was taken off life support despite his objections and the objections of his family according to this article. It was all done because a hospital ethics committee decided to do it.
And the ethics committee cannot be questioned in any way, nor can we know who they are and these people need no qualifications.
Scary stuff
yes hospitals and healthcare professionals should care for sick people period. Money isn't the issue. There are ways to recover costs. Just are. There are many charitable organizations who help with people today. so please!The left love killing babies. At least talk factuallyI see none of the diaper/coma kids one have answered this question:
What policies would you enact so that this guy could have gotten health care?
*sigh* I'm trying not to take it personally but then I remember they don't really care about human life after conception.
You poor dependent slave.
So, are you going to answer the question of should hospitals and healthcare professionals be compelled by law to provide services and care to those who cannot pay for it?
Or are you going to just hide behind stupid talking points all night.
Maybe if you email your party leader he will send you an email with the right talking points so you can answer the question
so all libs are against everything Cons are for then, correct? what an asinine statement.The left love killing babies. At least talk factuallyYou poor dependent slave.
A zygote isn’t not a baby .
.
Well, actually it is. And also, a zygote is not what is being aborted. When the baby is still a zygote the woman does not even know she is pregnant, thus there would be no abortion yet.
So you draw this arbitrary line at fertilization .
Hey, why are cons against the morning after pill ?
I draw the arbitrary line at implantation, personally.
Cons are against everything that Libs are for, there is no more thought than that. That is why zealots from both sides suck so much
The left love killing babies. At least talk factually
A zygote isn’t not a baby .
.
Well, actually it is. And also, a zygote is not what is being aborted. When the baby is still a zygote the woman does not even know she is pregnant, thus there would be no abortion yet.
zy·gote
ˈzīˌɡōt/
noun
BIOLOGY
- a diploid cell resulting from the fusion of two haploid gametes; a fertilized ovum.
ba·by
ˈbābē/
noun
No, I'm thinking they are two different things.
- 1.
a very young child, especially one newly or recently born.
"his wife's just had a baby"
synonyms: infant, newborn, child, tot, little one; More
They are both merly stages of a human beings development.
Yes, they are. They are not the same thing. Otherwise we're all babies. You know, as opposed to just JC456.
Well, 'baby' can mean grown adults to include sons and daughters and boyfriends and girlfriends to include unborn fetuses, embryos and zygotes but that's just a term of endearment. Adults are not really (excluding JC456) babies nor are zygotes.
you are correct, that adults are not zygotes...but zygotes formed by two humans are humans themselves.
If there was a fire in the human factory and in one room has a baby in a crib and in the other were 1000 fertilized zygotes alive and swimming around in test tubes or whatever it is they do...viable is what I'm saying, who do you save? You only have enough time to get to one room.
I would save the baby in the crib, but as I stated for me, the arbitrary line starts at implantation. Also, talking about zygotes in connection to abortion is silly as a zygote is not what is being aborted.
Ok, so they aren't equal. A baby is 1000 times more important, more human, whatever than a zygote, correct? If I said a million zygotes would it matter?
Nothing is ever equal. IF there was a baby in one room and an 65 year old in the other room I am going to save the baby, does that give me the right to kill 65 year olds if there is not a fire?
Somebody hide Sarah Palins babyA Tragic Case of Modern Bioethics: Denying Life-Sustaining Treatment to a Patient Who Wanted to Live
A Texas man was taken off life support despite his objections and the objections of his family according to this article. It was all done because a hospital ethics committee decided to do it.
And the ethics committee cannot be questioned in any way, nor can we know who they are and these people need no qualifications.
Scary stuff
you are correct, that adults are not zygotes...but zygotes formed by two humans are humans themselves.
If there was a fire in the human factory and in one room has a baby in a crib and in the other were 1000 fertilized zygotes alive and swimming around in test tubes or whatever it is they do...viable is what I'm saying, who do you save? You only have enough time to get to one room.
I would save the baby in the crib, but as I stated for me, the arbitrary line starts at implantation. Also, talking about zygotes in connection to abortion is silly as a zygote is not what is being aborted.
Ok, so they aren't equal. A baby is 1000 times more important, more human, whatever than a zygote, correct? If I said a million zygotes would it matter?
Nothing is ever equal. IF there was a baby in one room and an 65 year old in the other room I am going to save the baby, does that give me the right to kill 65 year olds if there is not a fire?
We're not talking a one for one here for the 65 year old has had a chance to live a life. We're talking about 1000 humans (as you describe them) to one baby. Of course we could say 1 millions embryos (if you like that better) to a baby and you're still going to value the one life over the million.
Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if you'd save a puppy over a million fetuses.
yes hospitals and healthcare professionals should care for sick people period. Money isn't the issue. There are ways to recover costs. Just are. There are many charitable organizations who help with people today. so please!The left love killing babies. At least talk factuallyI see none of the diaper/coma kids one have answered this question:
*sigh* I'm trying not to take it personally but then I remember they don't really care about human life after conception.
You poor dependent slave.
So, are you going to answer the question of should hospitals and healthcare professionals be compelled by law to provide services and care to those who cannot pay for it?
Or are you going to just hide behind stupid talking points all night.
Maybe if you email your party leader he will send you an email with the right talking points so you can answer the question
BTW, do organ doners families pay for their loved ones organs after they pass? Or do the hospitals and doctors harvest the service for free?
sure I can. There are many, shriners, Moose, Catholic charities, there are sports charities. many resources to contact to cover costs. There is now the social network to have voluteers donate money. works really well. soooo many options to avoid cutting off life as a murderer.yes hospitals and healthcare professionals should care for sick people period. Money isn't the issue. There are ways to recover costs. Just are. There are many charitable organizations who help with people today. so please!The left love killing babies. At least talk factually*sigh* I'm trying not to take it personally but then I remember they don't really care about human life after conception.
You poor dependent slave.
So, are you going to answer the question of should hospitals and healthcare professionals be compelled by law to provide services and care to those who cannot pay for it?
Or are you going to just hide behind stupid talking points all night.
Maybe if you email your party leader he will send you an email with the right talking points so you can answer the question
BTW, do organ doners families pay for their loved ones organs after they pass? Or do the hospitals and doctors harvest the service for free?
That's not an answer. You can't count on charities to always have the money to do the right thing. How do you save this guy's life that has no insurance? Please, share with us the conservative solution.
If there was a fire in the human factory and in one room has a baby in a crib and in the other were 1000 fertilized zygotes alive and swimming around in test tubes or whatever it is they do...viable is what I'm saying, who do you save? You only have enough time to get to one room.
I would save the baby in the crib, but as I stated for me, the arbitrary line starts at implantation. Also, talking about zygotes in connection to abortion is silly as a zygote is not what is being aborted.
Ok, so they aren't equal. A baby is 1000 times more important, more human, whatever than a zygote, correct? If I said a million zygotes would it matter?
Nothing is ever equal. IF there was a baby in one room and an 65 year old in the other room I am going to save the baby, does that give me the right to kill 65 year olds if there is not a fire?
We're not talking a one for one here for the 65 year old has had a chance to live a life. We're talking about 1000 humans (as you describe them) to one baby. Of course we could say 1 millions embryos (if you like that better) to a baby and you're still going to value the one life over the million.
Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if you'd save a puppy over a million fetuses.
None of this makes killing a human being in the womb for the convenience of the mother an ok thing to do.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
what if you crossed the international date line? Hey father.I would save the baby in the crib, but as I stated for me, the arbitrary line starts at implantation. Also, talking about zygotes in connection to abortion is silly as a zygote is not what is being aborted.
Ok, so they aren't equal. A baby is 1000 times more important, more human, whatever than a zygote, correct? If I said a million zygotes would it matter?
Nothing is ever equal. IF there was a baby in one room and an 65 year old in the other room I am going to save the baby, does that give me the right to kill 65 year olds if there is not a fire?
We're not talking a one for one here for the 65 year old has had a chance to live a life. We're talking about 1000 humans (as you describe them) to one baby. Of course we could say 1 millions embryos (if you like that better) to a baby and you're still going to value the one life over the million.
Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if you'd save a puppy over a million fetuses.
None of this makes killing a human being in the womb for the convenience of the mother an ok thing to do.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Actually it's a moral question best left up to the mother and I'm not so sure a man who skirted the 'is a puppy more valuable than 1 million embryos' question really the best one to be making decisions for her.
yes hospitals and healthcare professionals should care for sick people period. Money isn't the issue. There are ways to recover costs. Just are. There are many charitable organizations who help with people today. so please!
sure I can. There are many, shriners, Moose, Catholic charities, there are sports charities. many resources to contact to cover costs. There is now the social network to have voluteers donate money. works really well. soooo many options to avoid cutting off life as a murderer.yes hospitals and healthcare professionals should care for sick people period. Money isn't the issue. There are ways to recover costs. Just are. There are many charitable organizations who help with people today. so please!The left love killing babies. At least talk factuallyYou poor dependent slave.
So, are you going to answer the question of should hospitals and healthcare professionals be compelled by law to provide services and care to those who cannot pay for it?
Or are you going to just hide behind stupid talking points all night.
Maybe if you email your party leader he will send you an email with the right talking points so you can answer the question
BTW, do organ doners families pay for their loved ones organs after they pass? Or do the hospitals and doctors harvest the service for free?
That's not an answer. You can't count on charities to always have the money to do the right thing. How do you save this guy's life that has no insurance? Please, share with us the conservative solution.
the government does in my industry. We have to manufacture per many guidelines set by both industry and government. what industry doesn't have to?yes hospitals and healthcare professionals should care for sick people period. Money isn't the issue. There are ways to recover costs. Just are. There are many charitable organizations who help with people today. so please!
So, what you are saying is that you are ok with the government forcing private individuals and companies to provides goods and services that the one receiving them cannot pay for.
I do not know what you do for a living, but would you be ok if the government forced your industry to do that and told you "well, there are lots of charities, go ask them for money".
Would you be ok with the government forced restaurants to serve anyone that came in asking for the food but could not pay and told them to go ask the charities to pay them back?
How about a landlord, should they be forced to provide a place to live to those who cannot pay and they too can go ask charities for their money back?
Pee Wee?sure I can. There are many, shriners, Moose, Catholic charities, there are sports charities. many resources to contact to cover costs. There is now the social network to have voluteers donate money. works really well. soooo many options to avoid cutting off life as a murderer.yes hospitals and healthcare professionals should care for sick people period. Money isn't the issue. There are ways to recover costs. Just are. There are many charitable organizations who help with people today. so please!The left love killing babies. At least talk factually
So, are you going to answer the question of should hospitals and healthcare professionals be compelled by law to provide services and care to those who cannot pay for it?
Or are you going to just hide behind stupid talking points all night.
Maybe if you email your party leader he will send you an email with the right talking points so you can answer the question
BTW, do organ doners families pay for their loved ones organs after they pass? Or do the hospitals and doctors harvest the service for free?
That's not an answer. You can't count on charities to always have the money to do the right thing. How do you save this guy's life that has no insurance? Please, share with us the conservative solution.
So, in essence what you are saying is the guy should die if charities do not have enough money to pay for peoples' insurance bills. That's not really a substantive solution. Looks more like a cop out to me.
Actually it's a moral question best left up to the mother and I'm not so sure a man who skirted the 'is a puppy more valuable than 1 million embryos' question really the best one to be making decisions for her.
they just told Starbucks they are not allowed to stop someone from using their bath rooms.yes hospitals and healthcare professionals should care for sick people period. Money isn't the issue. There are ways to recover costs. Just are. There are many charitable organizations who help with people today. so please!
So, what you are saying is that you are ok with the government forcing private individuals and companies to provides goods and services that the one receiving them cannot pay for.
I do not know what you do for a living, but would you be ok if the government forced your industry to do that and told you "well, there are lots of charities, go ask them for money".
Would you be ok with the government forced restaurants to serve anyone that came in asking for the food but could not pay and told them to go ask the charities to pay them back?
How about a landlord, should they be forced to provide a place to live to those who cannot pay and they too can go ask charities for their money back?
the government does in my industry. We have to manufacture per many guidelines set by both industry and government. what industry doesn't have to?yes hospitals and healthcare professionals should care for sick people period. Money isn't the issue. There are ways to recover costs. Just are. There are many charitable organizations who help with people today. so please!
So, what you are saying is that you are ok with the government forcing private individuals and companies to provides goods and services that the one receiving them cannot pay for.
I do not know what you do for a living, but would you be ok if the government forced your industry to do that and told you "well, there are lots of charities, go ask them for money".
Would you be ok with the government forced restaurants to serve anyone that came in asking for the food but could not pay and told them to go ask the charities to pay them back?
How about a landlord, should they be forced to provide a place to live to those who cannot pay and they too can go ask charities for their money back?
/----/ Why didn't they move him to another hospital?A Tragic Case of Modern Bioethics: Denying Life-Sustaining Treatment to a Patient Who Wanted to Live
A Texas man was taken off life support despite his objections and the objections of his family according to this article. It was all done because a hospital ethics committee decided to do it.
And the ethics committee cannot be questioned in any way, nor can we know who they are and these people need no qualifications.
Scary stuff
What kind of Orwellian World do we live in when a Hospital ETHICS Committee decides to wack one of its own patients over the objections of the patient and his family? Sounds like they should be calling it the UNETHICAL Committee.
