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

reply to post by Raist

Originally posted by Raist
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.

Perfectly said! On one hand, they believe life begins at conception, so, those fetuses were "persons" but they are "using" the law to defend themselves and say that the fetuses were NOT people in this situation. So the church is clearly being hypocritical. (It's also no surprise that a church is being hypocritical - it happens all the time.)

However, I think I agree with charles1952 (for once) that they shouldn't have to pay... LEGALLY. Their religious beliefs become irrelevant in the legal field. The law doesn't (and can't) hold your personal beliefs against a person. (An aside - The law CAN use a person's religious beliefs in the believer's favor, because of the first amendment, but that's another situation.)

An analogy:

Let's say I hold a personal belief (contrary to the law) that people should be allowed to drive as fast as they want. One day, I'm going 75 on the freeway - legal speed - and there's an accident and the children in the other car die. The family sues me because they think I was going too fast. My defense is that I was going the legal speed. At this point, it doesn't matter WHAT my personal beliefs are. The LAW took over when they decided to sue. My personal beliefs don't mean squat (and neither do theirs). I am under no LEGAL obligation to do anything because I was abiding by the law.

Now, am I under some MORAL obligation because of my personal beliefs about speeding? That's the discussion here, as I see it. And I would feel SOME obligation to do SOMETHING, whether I was speeding or not, but it would be disconnected from the law and not under a legal order. It would be VERY wrong for the law to force me to pay a settlement because of my BELIEFS about speeding.

Very interesting discussion!

.

reply to post by Raist


Wow that's like saying the elderly are no people!!

reply to post by NarrowGate

Upset Catholic detected.

if life begins at conception, using antibacterial products is genocide.

7 months...

Brain activity, intentional movement, sensation.
Yep..its a person.

I often come across here as pro-abortion...and I am, within the first trimester when there is no person there. I am not pro-choice though. once a fetus moves into brain activity and a developed central nervous system, it is a person..it is having thoughts, memories, sensations..it should be protected (and lets be honest, if there wasn't an abortion before that time the choice was already made anyhow)

at 7 months, it is definitely a person in the same way a newborn is a person. Abortions at this stage should be and are outlawed unless it is endangering the physical life of the mother in question..otherwise oh well...

This malpractice suit should indeed qualify this as a person.

Originally posted by NarrowGate
Define sentience; I will play this game and work off of your false pretenses if you can do that for me.[

Thought.

After considering it. I think this case may do more for coming up with a compromise between the pro choice and anti abortion crowd than politicians and rallys have done.


Its clear we need to define in terms everyone can at least understand when a person becomes a person. I think my principled stance of thought and functioning brain/nervous system is the best qualifier (no thought, no person) if only for legal understandings...because I do believe there is no difference between a baby the day after it is born verses the day before.

When the nurse listened for fetal heartbeats, there were none. And when the doctor ASKED the dad if he wanted to take the babies, he didn't have an answer. The woman had a clogged artery and died of a massive heart attack. Her babies died with her. She weighed over 400 lbs. Maybe the husband should be suing his dead wife...

More details of the case...

Lori was suffering a cardiac arrest and had stopped breathing due to a pulmonary embolism caused by a blood clot that traveled from her leg to her lungs. Two of the risk factors for the deadly condition are pregnancy and obesity, and Lori was experiencing both.

For the next hour, Jeremy stood by as hospital staff frantically tried to bring his wife back to life. After helping to hoist Lori, who at seven months pregnant weighed more than 400 pounds, onto a bed, Jeremy melted into the background and was eventually escorted to an adjacent room, where someone brought him juice and cookies. "I just become a wallflower," Jeremy says.

At some point that afternoon, he was handed a phone to speak to Staples, who never ended up coming to the hospital. "He said, 'Well, what do you want to do? Take the babies? Take the babies?'" Jeremy remembers. "I kept responding, 'I'm not a doctor!'"

A nurse listened for fetal heartbeats, according to depositions taken later. When she didn't hear any, the doctors figured the babies were dead and decided against doing a perimortem Cesarean section, an emergency procedure that can save mothers and babies. Lori's unborn sons stayed with her. Eventually, all three were pronounced dead.

rubbish... life starts at the moment of conception..

Originally posted by Xaphan
reply to post by NarrowGate

 

Upset Catholic detected.

nearly 50 million souls murdered cnsnews.com...

yes upset is one word for it.

you are not upset about this?

Originally posted by Malcher

Originally posted by RandyBragg
Its actually a win win for the church, and as much as people really want the church to lose they should think twice.
If the church wins then the state kind of overturns the ruling that unborn people are in fact people and just gives future anti-abortion legislation that much easier.

It wont make any difference.

Look at this example:

One day someone physically attacks another person. The person they attack has a belief in total pacifism even if someone attacks him. He uses force to thwart the attack and in the process the other person sues him. He can say "you are a pacifist" as a defense, but what does the law say? So if that were his defense it would not be a good one even if the person himself still declares himself to be a pacifist anyway. For that matter he cannot even take it upon himself to decide he was wrong to protect himself based on a belief. I am not in the law field in any way but fairly certain the above is accurate.

Horrible analogy and i think you missed what i said entirely.
Depending on what the supreme court does with this case it could change law for the state.
If the church loses, that means that the state recognizes that unborn children are people too and that gives the pro-life crowd some serious grounds for future pro-life legal matters.

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by NarrowGate
Define sentience; I will play this game and work off of your false pretenses if you can do that for me.[

Thought.

OK, so thought only counts if it has already been thought? Is what you are about to think in 5 seconds thought or does it not qualify and therefore not need to be protected? Do you think the dimension of time will have the final word, or God?

Had the murder not occurred, there would have been thought. A whole lot of thought, actually.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
After considering it. I think this case may do more for coming up with a compromise between the pro choice and anti abortion crowd than politicians and rallys have done.


Its clear we need to define in terms everyone can at least understand when a person becomes a person. I think my principled stance of thought and functioning brain/nervous system is the best qualifier (no thought, no person) if only for legal understandings...because I do believe there is no difference between a baby the day after it is born verses the day before.

Do you really think there is all that big of a difference between before you were conceived and now? Had your mother aborted you, I would not be able to have this discussion with you. So if your mother had an abortion, would you have considered this justifiable?

Originally posted by NarrowGate

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by NarrowGate
Define sentience; I will play this game and work off of your false pretenses if you can do that for me.[

Thought.

OK, so thought only counts if it has already been thought? Is what you are about to think in 5 seconds thought or does it not qualify and therefore not need to be protected? Do you think the dimension of time will have the final word, or God?

Had the murder not occurred, there would have been thought. A whole lot of thought, actually.

Sperm has the potential of one day being thought with a bit of guidance and support.

What may be is not what is. Things that could one day be should not be protected. Such thinking would ban all forms of contraception and masturbation.

As far as god, interdimensional father figures, cloud men, etc...I am about as worried about such things as I am worried about leprecauns giving me the stink eye overall..but in this case, I stand on principle. I have no issues with removing a 2-3 week old growth as much as I have no issue with stopping life support on someone brain dead...its the same thing.

however, I do understand the potential for life in a fetus, and such decisions should not come often nor be made easily...as kids/people are great. I am a fan of em...however unloved or unwanted kids tend to do nobody favors...from harsh lives, higher criminal rate, etc. If you make it illegal for a person to remove something early after wisely deciding they are unable, unwilling, or incapable of raising a child, then you will only bring forth dismay into the world for no purpose.

If a deity questions my stance, I have no problem with my stances. My stance may be incorrect..a persons "soul" (if there is one) may start at conception, or may not even be around until a year after birth...I am going with what makes us different than a plant or amoeba given no further knowledge about supernatural affairs.

Thought...not potential of thought one day, or thoughts that used to be but are no longer..just current thought.


My only gray area here are cryonic storage of people/heads. That is a very gray area actually as there is no current thought, however, tossing them into the ground and letting them rot would remove their potential for reanimation/thought...but I think the establishment of former thought qualifies them for consideration as a person still.
still struggling with this issue actually.

Sperm has the potential of one day being thought with a bit of guidance and support.

That is different but I will run with it for now.

What may be is not what is. Things that could one day be should not be protected. Such thinking would ban all forms of contraception and masturbation.

Interesting. It just so happens it is sin to use contraception or masturbate.

As far as god, interdimensional father figures, cloud men, etc...I am about as worried about such things as I am worried about leprecauns giving me the stink eye overall..but in this case, I stand on principle. I have no issues with removing a 2-3 week old growth as much as I have no issue with stopping life support on someone brain dead...its the same thing.

Interesting. You are dodging the topic at hand, but you have already found logic in not using contraception and not masturbating. That is, if you value life. You just don't like the idea of it. Overpopulation does not have to be a problem either, but that is another topic. God is real, and does love us.

however, I do understand the potential for life in a fetus, and such decisions should not come often nor be made easily...as kids/people are great. I am a fan of em...however unloved or unwanted kids tend to do nobody favors...from harsh lives, higher criminal rate, etc. If you make it illegal for a person to remove something early after wisely deciding they are unable, unwilling, or incapable of raising a child, then you will only bring forth dismay into the world for no purpose.

I have known people that grew up the way you described, some were even very close to me. I assure you, they do not want to murder you or be murdered. They are happy they were not aborted. Stick to the topic at hand, crime rate can be blamed on bad policy just as much as it can on the kids you describe.

If a deity questions my stance, I have no problem with my stances. My stance may be incorrect..a persons "soul" (if there is one) may start at conception, or may not even be around until a year after birth...I am going with what makes us different than a plant or amoeba given no further knowledge about supernatural affairs.

God knows you and all you will do in the first trimester. I guess you do value the dimension of time more than you value God. Science.....how wrongly we apply it.

Thought...not potential of thought one day, or thoughts that used to be but are no longer..just current thought.

So had your mother aborted you, you would say this was justifiable?

My only gray area here are cryonic storage of people/heads. That is a very gray area actually as there is no current thought, however, tossing them into the ground and letting them rot would remove their potential for reanimation/thought...but I think the establishment of former thought qualifies them for consideration as a person still.
still struggling with this issue actually.

Irrelevant to the topic at hand. God will resurrect all of us one day to judge us. I know that doesn't mean much to you, but it is the truth. An Eternity of bliss awaits, and guess what - you will probably not be limited by time. We have a bit of evidence of that, but you would have to believe to look for it. Did I mention this life is not meant to be fun and is a test? 80% of the world is suffering, and our country has murdered about 50 million infants. When put in a world such as this, what do you do? Do you go along with the hereditary prejudices?

reply to post by NarrowGate


Yes that thought has crossed my mind after other posters have brought it up. If that is the case it is an underhander and dirty way to do it and it lacks honesty. Which of these methods do you think Jesus would aprove of? Everything we do shines a light on who we are.


Raist

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by NarrowGate

 

Yes that thought has crossed my mind after other posters have brought it up. If that is the case it is an underhander and dirty way to do it and it lacks honesty. Which of these methods do you think Jesus would aprove of? Everything we do shines a light on who we are.


Raist

Simply false. We are ALL sinners. Catholic included. Jesus does not approve of this massacre that has been since roe vs wade.

The Church is very big, and lawyers will be lawyers. To deny us a fair playing ground because of the way the system works is to deny your descendants happiness.

Everything we do does not shine a light on who we are. Appearances of both people and situations can be VERY deceiving.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


That is basically the root of what I am trying to get at. I guess I lack in trying to convey that point, because trying to find the exact wording is strange. It is strange because it involves two laws one of which commands us on Earth the other of which is commanded by a higher power. I am not going to get into debates in this thread with anyone (not pointing out you but those who would like to try) about if there is or is not a God. I will state though they have their moral obligations that they are not meeting. It is the moral obligations that is bothering me in this.


For what it is worth people die every day in hospitals, children adults and even still birth, it just happens we cannot work magic so people die. I am not saying that for sure they could have saved any of them, I am not saying they did not try.

The issue is they are letting someone speak for them about values that is not their own. Sure they are 100% within the law when it comes to the fetuses not being people. There is nothing in the law there that says they would have to pay. In wrongful death of the wife they might have to shell out some cash though.


The problem is the lawyers here are saying one thing while their beliefs are another. Even if the hospital was saying this whole time the fetuses were people they would not have to pay. What would end the hypocrisy on the hospital is to just denouce what the lawyers are saying. If you are letting someone speak for you they better be speaking what you would say or you are responsible for their words unless you speak out against them.

I know our world is messed up and there is lying and cheating going on all over, in fact it runs the country. It would be nice though from time to time to see someone stand by their convictions. If you preach it all the time preach it all the time by speaking against those who are speaking for you. If you do not your convictions are not strong enough and you fail in your beliefs.

Raist

reply to post by Raist


So what do you think the Church should do? Just give them the money and have no chance of setting a precedent to help end infanticide ?

What exactly are you saying? That we should not be able to change evil laws because we would have to work within the evil laws themselves to do so?

Or do you feel there was a better pro-life legal route?

eta: or do you just have something against the Church?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Good information. Thanks for the link.

It seems the family was a bit unhealthy and the father failed to respond about saving his own children. In the case of the situation much of the blame can be laid on the father for that. At the same time we can say that he was in shock from what was taking place and the doctor should have just tried to save the children understanding they had a better chance than the wife.

Even though they were not hearing a heartbeat of the children there is a chance they could have still been saved. Logically I think they should have tried to save the children and faced the after math of the endings then. The doctor gave the father the option, but in the medical field at times like that you cannot rely on family as shock kicks in. Someone in the room has to do the thinking, it should not be the person that is in shock.

Raist