Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 7
27
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Raist
 


I'm a bit confused about this case. Is the hospital claiming that they are not responsible for the death of twins, because, legally, they aren't protected under the law, whereas, if the twins were protected under the law, the hospital WOULD be liable for malpractice?

As a Catholic institution, their mandate would include the sanctity of unborn life, and, therefore, require an effort to save the life of the unborn, correct? So, if their doctors and nurses did everything they could to ensure their oath and mandate, but failed, the hospital is not guilty of malpractice, right?

So, it seems to me, that logic would follow that, the Catholic hospital is, admittedly, guilty of malpractice, under their own mandate and oaths, but because of secular law, that they openly disagree with, they will gladly and purposefully use this secular opinion to protect them against their guilt and abate any financial obligation that would otherwise be imposed, should they be found guilty by their own standards.

In my opinion, this is hypocrisy.




posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by NarrowGate
 


Yes we are all sinners, anyone who thinks they are not is only fooling themself. That aside though if the church is doing something under a false pretense it is dirty and underhanded. Be straight forward, do not hide your intention, and be honest.

If they are trying to change the law by losing this case they are doing so under false pretense. Doing something under false pretense is the same as lying and cheating. Jesus of course does not condone killing I have defended the faith on that when it comes to what people have "done in the name of God" on here for years. Just because they claim to be of God and use His name when commiting an act does not mean they are of God. Man often lets his own judgement get in the way.

If you are doing something and you are not upfront and honest about it you are lying and cheating. Which makes what you are doing underhanded. They are not being honest in this case. I also wonder if their lawyers care or not as they are looking for the win one way or another. The hospital though should be saying we do not agree with what they are saying and try to change the law as they always have.

It is about honesty not winning at any cost.

Raist



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


What is the best legal route they could have taken for pro-life legal action?

People keep calling "hypocrites!" but have not offered an alternative legal route they could have taken to help save millions of lives from being massacred all over again cnsnews.com... ?



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Raist
 



Originally posted by Raist
It is the moral obligations that is bothering me in this.


That's why we always hear that "you can't legislate morality". Each individual has their own morals. It would bother me, morally, if I had an abortion. I believe life begins at conception. I would not choose to have an abortion. But those are MY morals. And I have no right to thrust them on others. And I do not judge others who have an abortion. My sister had one and I helped a friend who took the "morning after pill" to facilitate hers. Because it was HER body, HER choice.

I am 100% pro-choice, because each person's morals are their own. It's between them and their "God". I'm not crazy about people using their morals to judge and/or to make laws enforcing their morals on everyone. Just for full disclosure, I'm an atheist.



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.


Hence the separation of church and state. Sometimes these two "laws" don't mesh. A lawsuit involves only ONE law. The law of the land. Religious law is irrelevant and cannot overturn secular law. I would support the church using religious law and paying a settlement, but not as ordered by our secular courts. (That's what Sharia law does - Muslims in the US can use Sharia law AS LONG AS it doesn't conflict with secular law. That's why I have posted supporting Sharia law in the US.)



The problem is the lawyers here are saying one thing while their beliefs are another.


Are the lawyers Catholic? Besides, even their personal beliefs are irrelevant when it comes to a LAWsuit. Because being a hypocrite isn't illegal.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by NarrowGate
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?
edit on 25-1-2013 by NarrowGate because: (no reason given)


Are you suggesting that the hospital deliberately neglected these twins, and sacrificed them because they could, under secular law, to promote a pro-life movement to change the secular law?

Bizarre!

The only reason the hospital, and thus the Catholic Church, is using this argument is because they can, under secular law, as a defense against their negligence to abide by their own mandate to protect unborn life.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Raist
 


When it comes to cnsnews.com... - that many dead?

Excuse these Catholic lawyers if they are willing to be "underhanded" to save lives. I am too.

I agree with what you are saying, but the cost of not doing anything and everything we can within the law is too great.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by NarrowGate
 


If you were to ever check my post even in this thread you would see I have nothing against the church, it is not relivent to anything I have said.

I am not saying we cannot change laws we see as evil, I am saying we should do it in a honest and straight forward manner. If we work to change the law by using a law we see as evil we are doing so in an underhanded way. We are no longer being honest and holding to our faith.

I am saying you do not change the law of fetuses being seen as people by saying they are not people and agreeing with the current law in hopes that you lose the case. We are not to win by any means possible, we are to win by holding to our faith.

Raist



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


No I am not suggesting that show where I suggested that. The lives have already been lost, the Church is going to do everything it can to save the next 50 million.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by NarrowGate
 


If you were to ever check my post even in this thread you would see I have nothing against the church, it is not relivent to anything I have said.

I am not saying we cannot change laws we see as evil, I am saying we should do it in a honest and straight forward manner. If we work to change the law by using a law we see as evil we are doing so in an underhanded way. We are no longer being honest and holding to our faith.

I am saying you do not change the law of fetuses being seen as people by saying they are not people and agreeing with the current law in hopes that you lose the case. We are not to win by any means possible, we are to win by holding to our faith.

Raist


So if someone is shooting at me and I don't tell them I have a gun too before they start shooting, am I not being true to my Faith because of deception? Should I be upfront and let them know they have to shoot me before I shoot them? But I don't even want to have a shoot out in the first place.


eta: If a school shooter asks you if there are any children left in your classroom, is it permissible to lie to them? Or is that not upfront and therefore dishonest? This is far more serious than one classroom of kids. It is, so far, about 50 million and rising every day.
edit on 25-1-2013 by NarrowGate because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


That is how I am seeing it.

Lets say for instance though that some of the former posters are right and they are looking to change the law by losing.

If that is the case they are then lying by saying they do not think the fetuses were not people and it goes against their faith. If they are using a law they disagree with to change said law they are working in an underhanded way and not remaining honest. It is hypocritical what they are doing if this is the case.

Lets say now that they are simply letting lawyers speak for them on the case.

If this is so they should be standing right beside the lawyers saying we do not agree and the fetuses were people. Even if they pay nothing at least come forward and say what you think, stop letting others say things for you that you do not believe.


In the case of malpractice they are likely to pay for something one way or another. Because while they children were unborn they were 7 months along. That is more than enough to survive. It seems from a link posted on the page before this one the doctor asked the father if he wanted him to go in after the children. That is something that should have been done without asking. The father likely in shock could not give a logical answer. The same link also said there was no heartbeat for the twins found, yet there is still a chance they could have been saved.


I just do not think, and another poster back in the early parts of this thread confirmed it, that the hospital is well set up to take on emergancy birth. People die, children die and there are still births everyday all over. I am not saying it does not happen, but it seems this hospital might have let some stuff slip through their fingers.

Raist



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by NarrowGate
reply to post by windword
 


No I am not suggesting that show where I suggested that. The lives have already been lost, the Church is going to do everything it can to save the next 50 million.


How are they going to do that? By holding up these dead twins that they neglected to assist, and claiming that abortion is murder? Do they seek to do it by denying woman reproductive choices when it comes to contraceptives, the morning after pill and abortion, and forcing women to give birth to unwanted babies?

From your own link:


Surprisingly, Guttmacher estimates that Catholic women account for more than 31 percent of all abortions performed in the United States while 18 percent of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as born-again Christians or evangelicals. Both religious groups preach against terminating pregnancies.
cnsnews.com...


So nearly 50% of abortions performed since Roe v Wade, were done on women from groups that oppose their own right to choice. Hypocrisy abounds!



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I agree with you, same as Charles. Legally they are 100% safe it seems. Well at least in the terms of fetuses not being people, the malpractice might be different I am sure we are missing many details there.

As for morality I know we cannot legislate that. I am not really asking that we do. I hope that is not how it sounded. Legally though even if the hospital came out stating the lawyers are wrong and fetuses are people they would still win as the judge would say he cannot rule based on their beliefs.

It would be nice though for them to say the lawyers are wrong, we believe the fetuses are people. If that were the case they would still win by law and not be seen as hypocritical.

Raist



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by NarrowGate
 


Sorry I think the underhanded route is wrong. I do not think it fits into the faith. I can forgive them but forgetting the stuff is a bit harder. Even Jesus know those who would betray Him and say the did not know Him. We are also told that if we die saying we do not know Him He will not know us. We cannot go through life using the ways of the world to change the world. If we want it changed we have to be a beacon of light that draws the world in. Lying to get what we want is not the way to be a beacon and draw the world in.

Raist



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by NarrowGate
 


If someone pulls a gun you can pull yours without letting them know ahead of time you have a gun. That argument does not really fit this though. We were told to buy swords. Defending yourself and your family is not what this is about.

As for the other question even if asked there is likely no answer as the teacher would be in shock or dead and a shooter would just go check anyway. It also does not fit into this argument because even if the teacher lied or told the truth no law that goes against your faith would change.

I think my other post to you above this one best desribes what I am getting at.

Lying and ageeing with the world to get what we want is not how you cause the world to come to you. You are being just like the world, and we are told not to be like the world. I am not saying we never make mistakes, but we are not supposed to knowingly be like the world.

Raist



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by NarrowGate
 


As for the other question even if asked there is likely no answer as the teacher would be in shock or dead and a shooter would just go check anyway. It also does not fit into this argument because even if the teacher lied or told the truth no law that goes against your faith would change.
Raist


Really?

www.onenewspage.com...

This certainly meets the requirements for Baptism by Blood would you agree?

The point is about saving lives. It is justifiable to lie to save lives, although I would confess it just to be certain
.
edit on 25-1-2013 by NarrowGate because: (no reason given)


And just to be clear how many lives cnsnews.com...
edit on 25-1-2013 by NarrowGate because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by NarrowGate
 


Sorry I think the underhanded route is wrong. I do not think it fits into the faith. I can forgive them but forgetting the stuff is a bit harder. Even Jesus know those who would betray Him and say the did not know Him. We are also told that if we die saying we do not know Him He will not know us. We cannot go through life using the ways of the world to change the world. If we want it changed we have to be a beacon of light that draws the world in. Lying to get what we want is not the way to be a beacon and draw the world in.

Raist


In almost every other circumstance I would agree.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by NarrowGate
 


Okay but that still is not the same. She gave her life for the children. Yes she lied, but she was not saying something that normally would go against her faith. In faith we can lie and give our life to save another.

In faith though you should not go against what you preach daily in hopes of losing in order to change things to you benifit. You cannot bring the world in with a lie, only the truth can bring the world in. In the end if this is what they are doing it will turn around and bite them you can bet on it and it will only hurt their cause.

As an example lets say that I think using P2P is okay to share and spread music. However, say the presidents daughter gets caught and I chose to make an example of her, knowing that it will help my cause in the end, by saying that downloading and sharing music is illegal and should stay that way.

In the end the law changes because no one wants to see the presidents daughter go to jail. I won by losing, however when people find out I love to downlaod music how many do you think will stand by me in the end knowing I lied to them to get my way?

This is not how we should change it if it needs changed. People will look at their words and know they lied, they will then believe most everything else they say is a lie and no one will come to Christ. This is about saving souls right? Are not the souls of the living adults not as important as children? Would you trust someone who has lied to you to get their way?

I am not saying I am perfect, I am far from it I mess up daily. It is a hard struggle, and it is never ending. But I know in my heart this is not how to get this changed. This is one instance where being dishonest will do far more harm than it will good. In the end the law will not change, it might get modified but abortion will stil be there. The only thing that will change and for the worse if the peoples outlook on the church and this hospital.

They need to stand up and denounce what the lawyers are saying. They will still win the case but they need to hold firm to their beliefs. If they do not, they are doing more harm than good.

Raist



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by NarrowGate
 


I guess we must agree to disagree then.

In this case I think there is more harm to be had than good. If nothing else this case will help to bring people to a closer agreement and maybe limit the term of abortions, but it will not end them. They are wrong for not stating their beliefs despite what the law and lawyers are saying. They are not helping.


Raist



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Raist
 


Why do you think they are not stating their beliefs? That little bit of money does not mean much to the Church considering the size of Her. What is very important is fighting this legal battle.

By default, they have and will continue to speak out against the law. For now, they have to work within the realm of the law to enact change. However, this is not a decision from the Church just that hospital.

The article just happens to be biased. However, it looks like the Church is doing damage control www.huffingtonpost.com...

It would appear they are in fact looking to set a precedent, and therefore are not commenting and just investigating.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by NarrowGate
 


You said it yourself. They are not saying anything just investigating it.

The hospital needs to say publicly right behind the lawyers that they do not agree. That the fetuses were people.

Even saying that publicly they would still win the case as the law dictates. The judge cannot use their belifs to weigh in judgement or he will be yanked off his seat faster than he could blink.

Even though if the church jumps out there and says they do not agree the hospital is still not doing it. The hospital represents the church, the lawyers are represnting the hospital. No one is speaking against what the lawyers are saying. If they are trying to set new standards as the article says they are doing it in a decitful manner. All they would need to argue is that by the law of man fetuses are not people, but by our law they are. However they are dictated by the law of man on Earth so that despite their beliefs the law of man says that they are well within the boundries of practice.

Instead they are simply using the law as it suits them without saying anything else.

Raist





new topics




 
27
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join