Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 5
27
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Raist
 


Wouldn't it have been less hypocritical to say "It was god's will?"
edit on 24-1-2013 by HairlessApe because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


So wait.....because I do not believe someone should go against their beliefs I hate Catholics?

The problem I have is hypocrisy. Yes it might be their lawyers doing the talking but that is the problem they are letting their lawyers talk for them. For anyone to sit back and not even want to give their employees birthcontrol and then turn around and allow their lawyers to say the fetuses are not people so they do not have to pay is hypocritical.

What was it Jesus said about lawyers again?

Here you go plenty of translations for you.
bible.cc...

In this case they should have abided by their beliefs and paid a settlement. Instead they are pushing their beliefs aside and hiding behind a law they want changed. They are having their cake and eating it too. The law is good enough when it protects them but not when they want it changed.

But of course because I want people to stand by their beliefs I hate Catholics. Continue as you were.

Raist



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by HairlessApe
 


What would have been less hypocritical would have been for them to settle on a payment and not hide behind the law.

I am not attacking their faith, I am attacking the hypocrisy.

Raist



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Raist
 

Dear Raist,

Forgive me for not being clear, but I didn't accuse you or anyone of hating Catholics. I simply said that I couldn't think of a better reason for some of these posts, and wanted someone to provide me with that better reason. I have no idea what your feelings towards Catholics are, and did not mean to imply that I did. Maybe you do hate Catholics, maybe you don't.

The problem I have is hypocrisy.
I don't see it. The Church (as a whole, there are always nutty individuals) always follows the law of the land they are in. Their lawyers have told them that, under the laws of the land, they are not obligated to pay, so they decide not to. There is no hypocrisy there.

You are saying, Ok, they have no legal obligation to pay, but they have to pay or they are big phonies. What other individual or organization does that apply to? When your accountant tells you that you don't have to pay taxes this year, are you a phony for not sending something in to help the goverment? The court says "Under the law, you have no obligation to pay." Why aren't they entitled to accept that decision?


For anyone to sit back and not even want to give their employees birthcontrol and then turn around and allow their lawyers to say the fetuses are not people so they do not have to pay is hypocritical.
They have no objection to their employees having birth control or abortions, they just don't want to have to pay for it. I believe in freedom of travel, but you're not going to get me to make your car payments. No hypocrisy.

In this case they should have abided by their beliefs and paid a settlement.
Do you really believe there was no attempt at a settlement? The guy suing wants to fight it out in court, under the court rules, so that's what the hospital is doing. No problem, no hypocrisy.


Instead they are pushing their beliefs aside and hiding behind a law they want changed. They are having their cake and eating it too. The law is good enough when it protects them but not when they want it changed.
All of us have laws that we want changed, but until they are we play by the existing rules. That's what the hospital is doing, that's what they should be doing.

Do you want separation of Church and State? If you do, that must at least mean separation of Church laws from State laws. You're advocating the use of Church laws (the foetus is a human) in a State law setting(the foetus is not a human). I just don't see it. It seems that you're the one whose ideas are not consistent.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 12:24 AM
link   
Interesting story OP. I tend to agree with your take too. This is the highest form of total hypocrisy. They are obviously interested only in being right in a legal sense and not at all concerned about being correct to the Church or to the God they are supposed to be dedicated to.

I expect the right before correct garbage out of a for-profit conventional business but ..umm.. The Church? Hiding behind legal technicalities to call a fetus a non-person in the end? They actually make this argument with a straight face? For shame on them. Just as I'd recent remarked I wouldn't want to be too close to Cardinal Mahony when he someday meets St. Peter....this shows the problem is more systemic and certainly above any individuals.

The Church used to be a place and among the few left with at least the presentation of unwavering and consistent morality and adherence to principle. I suppose we ought to look for 4 real wild looking guys on horses here before long. What a shame to see the Church fall so low as to support this maneuvering over the threat of losing dollars.

Even there apparently, money trumps all else.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 

Well, we do disagree on this one... What fun would the world be if everyone agreed on everything eh?


The problem I see here can be summed up in two words, in answering some of what I'd noticed you posted while I was typing.

Salvation Issue.

In the Catholic Church that USED to mean something. Still does to every Catholic I personally know or am related to in family. It means legal technicalities don't work and don't apply to God. Intent and meaning is what determines good or bad works. I agree the Church has and should follow the laws of their host nation. Indeed. That doesn't mean that have to hide behind them though, they simply should not break them. They didn't just use this to their benefit. They rolled up in it like an electric blanket on a cold winter night.

It's kinda disturbing really. I never thought I'd see the Church support representatives of their interests making an argument like this.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 

Dear Wrabbit2000,

Thanks, and have a star. If I've lost you, then I know I'm going the wrong way. Let me try another approach.

Let's say the Church goes to the judge and says "We believe the foetus is a baby and should be treated as such." What does the judge do? My bet is that he would repeat Lincoln's riddle: "How many legs does a dog have if you call one of them a tail? Four, it doesn't matter what you call it, it's still a leg."

The judge would have to say in effect: "The law says it's not a baby, that's clear. The Church's religious beliefs say it is a baby. Therefore, I will ignore the law and follow the Church's teachings." The judge would get a 72-hour mental health hold, at least.

Or, try another approach. Let's say that during pre-trial negotiations (and they did exist, take my word for it) the Church said "We believe $ X is a fair settlement. That's all we can afford and all we will pay you." The opposing lawyer said "Nuts to that, we can get $ 4X at trial, see you there." Isn't it then the fault of the guy suing if he loses? He said "no" to the settlement in hopes of getting more under a different set of rules. He picked it, now under those rules, he may lose. The Church had nothing to do with his decision, he made the call to turn down the offer and go to trial. Why not blame him for being greedy?

Or, this approach. If the Church has a legal obligation to pay because it believes a foetus is a baby, and the courts will accept that, don't they also have a legal obligation under the Good Samaritan laws to protect "babies" that are in danger in abortion clinics? Even if it means going into the clinics to rescue them? Then don't they have the obligation to arrest those who are committing a crime in their presence (infanticide)?

And if all that doesn't persuade you, you're a tough audience. Tell me where I'm going wrong, or, at least, debunk my examples.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 

Well, you made very good points, no doubt. The thing is, we're talking on two different levels here to be frank. In any sense of a business, you're 100% right and in general terms, I may have grown up in the Sue Me state, but I moved to the Show Me State and the literal buckle of the Bible Belt. The idea of suing a person's way to justice or using the civil court system as a dash for cash is repulsive to me. There are two things though that make the issue here stand out in a class all it's own ...and the fact it doesn't seem to anymore is actually the biggest problem.

First, it's not any business...and again, I honestly do say that given a business, you've made the case perfectly. However, this is representative of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. To their teachings, they aren't headed by the Pope. They're headed by God and he's just the guy relaying the messages. The Salvation thing cannot be overemphasized and I don't even have to mention this to my mother the next time I talk to her to know she'll be horrified as a Catholic herself. It's just... unbelievable.

They screwed up...Two fetuses died as a result of it. Possible viable babies if given a chance. 28 weeks is older than some have survived before. A tragedy was caused in clear accident. Making that right OUGHT to be a no brainer for the Church.

So given the fact this is the Church and direct representatives of their interests, I'd really ask what this ever got to court for at all? If he seemed a big greedy? Well... How would you or I be with a fair to valid belief that our two Children died before delivery because of a pure screw up? Negligent. Personally, I'd be inconsolable, I imagine.

Was arguing this worth the trip to Hell though? This isn't figurative or a derogatory slang. It's a real physical/spiritual place to a devout Catholic and it's a place some ...many actually.. *WILL* go, as they see it. If one goes by Church doctrine? This argument bought some people tickets I don't think the Confessional can cancel. That's why it's so surprising.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Ah I see, sorry I guess I miss read your post.

What I am saying with the hypocrisy thing is that yes they should have paid a settlement. I cannot say that there was or was not an attempt for one as I did not see it in the article. However, I believe there might not have been. I think they simply contacted their lawyers and let them handle the situation. For me this goes against their beliefs. I see it as them hiding behind a law they despise simply because it will save them.

Sure there are laws we would all like to see changed. At the same time Jesus said to obey the laws of man as long as they did not break the laws of God. While they might not have willingly or intentionally broke Gods law they are now saying that Gods law is wrong by hiding behind the law of man.

As for the separation of church and state sure that is great and I am a Christian or at least work to be one. Still I see this as they are trumping their beliefs over money. The biggest problem is that they are letting lawyers speak for them, and it is making them look bad if they do not speak against what the lawyers are saying. If they believe that a fetus is a person they should not be letting their lawyers say differently. That is the hypocrisy I see.

Edit to add: I forgot about the birthcontrol bit. What I was saying with not wanting their employees have birthcontrol is that they did not want to pay for it through insurance. Medications are expensive but so is child birth and care and insurance on that child. All I am saying is they will not let their employees get BC paid for by insruance. If I were to use your analogy though I have to ask do you want any medications to be paid for by insurance?


Raist
edit on 1/25/13 by Raist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I have to say your post certainly conveys my thoughts. I see them saying two different things as it fits their needs and desires. They might not be saying that fetuses are not people, it might be their lawyers. Regardless they are allowing their lawyers to speak for them, speaking a message they do not believe.

I certainly do not want someone speaking for me that is not saying what I would say.

Raist



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


I know this one was not to me and certainly Wrabbit is much better with words than I am.

I will admit that in the legal sense of it all you are 100% right there is no doubt about that. There very well could have been talks before this made its way to trial as well.

The issue though is that no matter what the law is they are not making a statement that they do not believe as the law does. They are not speaking out against their lawyers who are saying that fetuses are not people. This is where i am seeing the hypocrisy. They are hiding behind mans laws, and not standing strong with their beliefs.

With everything that is taking place the very least they could do is make a statment that followed this story saying that they believe that the fetuses are people. Taht is not the case, they sit and let lawyers speak for them. Jesus was not happy with the lawyers as I recall. All laws aside all they have to do is stand against what is being said in their name.

As far as laws go you are correct. I even pointed out several posts back that CO does not recognize a fetus as a person. The shooter James Holmes did not face the extra charge he could have because the unborn child that died was not a person in the eyes of the state.

I am pretty sure the laws are the same in my own state Missouri. If a child is born after a certain time you have to name, and burry or cremate them. Yet you are not given a birth or death certificate because they were not a person. It is crazy and painful, yet it happens. I still scratch my head as to why things are as they are.

You make a great arguement, and you are right in all the eyes of the law. However, there is more to this that only the hospital can fix. It would certainly change my views on the idea of hypocrisy if they stood against those speaking for them.

Raist



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by charles1952
 


So wait.....because I do not believe someone should go against their beliefs I hate Catholics?

The problem I have is hypocrisy. Yes it might be their lawyers doing the talking but that is the problem they are letting their lawyers talk for them. For anyone to sit back and not even want to give their employees birthcontrol and then turn around and allow their lawyers to say the fetuses are not people so they do not have to pay is hypocritical.


The Church argues morally speaking the fetus is human. The layers argue legally speaking they are not. It has nothing to do with what the Church believes, it has to do with what the law says. I am the first to point out Catholic hypocrisy, this isn't it.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 04:27 AM
link   
A human fetus is a HUMAN fetus. It's not a dog or a cat.

However, you can be jailed for killing a cat but not for murdering tens of thousands of little 'human beings'.

Are we sick or what?.....No let me answer that... We are sick.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by pacifier2012
 



A human fetus is a HUMAN fetus.


No. Not really at all.

The human part doesn't factor in until sentience.

And that doesn't start at conception.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 06:21 AM
link   
LOL I love how they claim fetuses are people when they want to stop abortion, but when it comes to saving their own asses in a lawsuit they will go full hypocrite and play the legal technicality card.

I can't believe nobody has bombed the Vatican yet. Fingers crossed for 2013.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Morningglory
 


I never much trusted Colorado.

People need to realize how biased this article is. The Catholic lawyers are not happy they are arguing this in court, but they are just being lawyers - trying to get a law changed.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xaphan
LOL I love how they claim fetuses are people when they want to stop abortion, but when it comes to saving their own asses in a lawsuit they will go full hypocrite and play the legal technicality card.

I can't believe nobody has bombed the Vatican yet. Fingers crossed for 2013.


I know you have trouble grasping concepts, but they are trying to get a law changed. They are not happy about the way they have to fight this war, but it is the current system. Our system has a good premise, but we got messed up somewhere along the way. Needs to be fixed.

You sound like a terrorist. With more and more people like you showing up in the world, we better not ban guns. The most effective way to stop an attack is to start shooting back. Many of us are waking up to that so don't even think about it.

Don't want to be called a terrorist? Don't talk about bombing the Vatican.
.

BTW I never called you a terrorist, just letting you know what you sound like.
edit on 25-1-2013 by NarrowGate because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by pacifier2012
 



A human fetus is a HUMAN fetus.


No. Not really at all.

The human part doesn't factor in until sentience.

And that doesn't start at conception.


Is potential, or kinetic, energy considered energy?

Define sentience; I will play this game and work off of your false pretenses if you can do that for me.
edit on 25-1-2013 by NarrowGate because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by jojomomto3
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


yes seriously you seem to have not a clue regarding "normal" hospital procedure. I have worked in a small community hospital in ob for the last 10+ years. If you had any clue you would know that it is procedure to do an emergency crash section on a dying woman with fetuses over 24 weeks. In layman's terms that means a very good chance of survival. I personally have seen it done.


I've attended at several. You mean to tell me that it is SOP for the ER Doc to do a crash C-section at your institution? Really?

How many massive PEs have you seen with total cardiopulmonary collapse have you seen in pregnancy have you seen with any sort of good outcome. Even a tertiary care center with 24/7 in house coverage would have been hard pressed to save anyone in this case much less a rural institution with staff on telephone call.

And you are calling me clueless? Really?

Methinks that you are not familiar with the physiology of what was going on in this case.
edit on 25-1-2013 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by HairlessApe
 


What would have been less hypocritical would have been for them to settle on a payment and not hide behind the law.

I am not attacking their faith, I am attacking the hypocrisy.

Raist


Have you ever thought they just want it to gain attention in the media, and try to change the law that has murdered around 50 million innocent souls - many of them via dismemberment?





new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join