It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 8
27
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Raist
 


The hospital already made it's position clear. They are against abortion, and believe the fetus to be a person.

Now they are citing the law, where it says the fetus's are not people.

What do you think their motivation is? Simply the money? It is a drop in the ocean.




posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by NarrowGate
 


Only saying it once causes it to get lost. They need to be continously saying it.

Admitedly at first I thought it was money and that still might be a part of it. I do however think that many posters have been right and their thought changed my initial thought. I not think it is about changing the laws in their loss. If that is the case they can simply speak their plan. After all just saying their plan will not change the judges ruling it cannot. The law is written the judge has to rule by that law.

I just do not think they are being honest in the case. If they were giving interviews and saying this is what we believe yet this is what the law says. It would be find. If they were saying we believe this, the law says this and our loss will be our win that would be fine also. But they are not doing that either.

The only thing I have seen the hospital say on the matter is I have seen their creed, which goes against what they are arguing. Again just having a greed while arguing the opposite does not work, you need to be speaking up as well.

They are dropping the ball on this in many ways. Wait and see if this does not do more harm in the end than good.

Raist



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Raist
 


I am also very interested to see how this plays out. For the record, they didn't "just say it once" they live it both at that hospital and in the Church.

Maybe they are dropping the ball who knows? Let us pray the Holy Spirit fixes any errors that might have been made by this hospital.

One thing is certain, this is the worst massacre in US history and it is being swept under the rug. Here is a link to put this in perspective www.wnd.com... .

To quote one of my daughters favorite sayings when something bad happens "This is terrible." Good thing she is here to say it.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by NarrowGate
 


I am not sure I can agree they are living it. If they were we would be hearing they do not agree with the lawyers. Just trying to fix it all other times and having it in a creed is not living it if in this case they are not speaki.g against those who speak for them.


Living it is living every day, every word, not just as we see fit. Yes by law they are right, but they are not speaking against those speaking for them.

Raist



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by NarrowGate
 


I am not sure I can agree they are living it. If they were we would be hearing they do not agree with the lawyers. Just trying to fix it all other times and having it in a creed is not living it if in this case they are not speaki.g against those who speak for them.


Living it is living every day, every word, not just as we see fit. Yes by law they are right, but they are not speaking against those speaking for them.

Raist


They don't have to come out and say it. That's only obvious.


It's just a legal battle, and you know the death toll. Since the lawsuit is pending, I can see why they haven't said anything. Maybe they will get lucky and get a Catholic-hating judge.


If they say they are intending to lose the lawsuit, it will make it hard to set a precedent I would think.

What should they do, fire the lawyers and hire others? Others who will tell them if they want to end abortion they better play Devil's Advocate in this one.

Otherwise, the Bishops would have had a bit more to say about it I would imagine.
edit on 25-1-2013 by NarrowGate because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
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.




Thank you for posting that. Star from me to you. It was a horrible situation for sure, but I don't think that the outcome would have been any better regardless what was done. When you have someone coming in already in cardiovascular failure, undergoing CPR, there is not much anyone can do and the end is already determined..



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 01:58 AM
link   
I wish I could keep up with all the comments, but I just haven't been on here enough lately.

Do I understand that the charge of hypocrisy is that the church is saying one thing in court and a different thing in it's religious teachings?

Let me tell you a true story. I know a fellow who is a member in my secret society. He talks about his wife occasionaly, actually more than the average of the fellows I know. I can't count the number of times he has said "My wife is the most gorgeous woman in the state. On top of that, she is the best person I've ever known."

Naturally, I asked him if he was serious and believed what he said. He got a little huffy and said of course he did.

I had a chance to attend a dinner with him and his wife and I was anxious to see her in public at a moderately formal affair. He led me to his wife. Her hair was an apparently random mix of colors from light blonde to dark brown. Her face was pleasant, but nothing special. I would estimate her weight at 300 pounds. She spoke a little less than normal, because of her shyness, she said. She had graduated from high school, but that's where she stopped. She had no interest in current affairs, and seemed mildly racially prejudiced.

I spoke with my friend later, and the topic of his wife came up. He asked " Wasn't she beautiful? And a great person, too?" I asked him what he would do if he was a judge in the Miss America contest. Would he give his wife the crown over all of the other contestants? I asked him to think about it and answer truthfully. He said "Well, Miss America? I guess I really couldn't. That's kind of different. But I still think she's the most beautiful woman in the world."

Is he being a hypocrite?

Another thought. Women who support the "right to choose" say that an abortion is not murder, because the foetus isn't a human being with rights (or full rights). When they are punched in the stomach by a boyfriend who wants to cause an abortion, and the foetus dies, is the woman a hypocrite for going to the police and helping them bring murder charges against the boyfriend?

Don't different situations call for different definitions?



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Raist
 



Originally posted by Raist
I am not sure I can agree they are living it. If they were we would be hearing they do not agree with the lawyers.


Exactly. They are NOT living it. They are hiding behind secular law to protect themselves. And if they let those babies die to make a political point, that's even WORSE! They have NO business in my body and they will NOT gain legal control of it, no matter how many babies they let die to prove their sick point.

If they really cared about children, they would have done everything they could to save the lives of the babies and they would have, according to God's law, admitted their guilt and done some kind of penance to reimbursement the father WITHOUT the courts getting involved.

Finally, if the Catholic Church cared so much about children, they wouldn't continue to allow the MONSTERS who lead the Catholic services (priests) to sexually abuse children under the protection of the Church.

This church and the Catholic church in general are often extremely hypocritical. (As are most religious organizations these days) They make me wish there was a God. Because he would be eager to exact some of the vengeance he's famous for...



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Raist
 



Originally posted by Raist
I am not sure I can agree they are living it. If they were we would be hearing they do not agree with the lawyers.


Exactly. They are NOT living it. They are hiding behind secular law to protect themselves. And if they let those babies die to make a political point, that's even WORSE! They have NO business in my body and they will NOT gain legal control of it, no matter how many babies they let die to prove their sick point.


If you disagree with the way the legal battle is being fought fine, but why would you slander Heretic?

Provide evidence they *let* babies die to prove a point. You can not, and they did not.

How are they *hiding* behind the law? The money is a drop of water in the ocean to them do you really think this is about the money??

What legal route should they have taken if they want to end abortion? Those babies are already dead, but how about we don't kill another 50 million? I don't see this as hypocritical.
edit on 26-1-2013 by NarrowGate because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Raist
 



Originally posted by Raist
I am not sure I can agree they are living it. If they were we would be hearing they do not agree with the lawyers.



Finally, if the Catholic Church cared so much about children, they wouldn't continue to allow the MONSTERS who lead the Catholic services (priests) to sexually abuse children under the protection of the Church.


Ok Heretic, name an organization that is as old and big as the Church that has had less pedophiles than the Church?

There are more pedophiles that are cops and teachers than priests. So we can't trust our children with teachers and police?

Past that, the Church did not try to hide anything. Maybe a few evil men who infiltrated the Church, but not the Church. Your slanderous comments mean zero. The only reason you heard so much about it is because it is so shocking it happened in the Church.

And finally, provide evidence the Church is protecting pedophiles.
edit on 26-1-2013 by NarrowGate because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Raist
 



Originally posted by Raist
I am not sure I can agree they are living it. If they were we would be hearing they do not agree with the lawyers.


If they really cared about children, they would have done everything they could to save the lives of the babies and they would have, according to God's law, admitted their guilt and done some kind of penance to reimbursement the father WITHOUT the courts getting involved.



We are trying to end abortion (50 million dead....), and it appears this hospital is taking a shot at getting a precedent set.

How could they have avoided getting courts involved? What pro-life legal argument do you suggest?



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by NarrowGate
 



prec·e·dent (prs-dnt) n. 1. a. An act or instance that may be used as an example in dealing with subsequent similar instances. b. Law A judicial decision that may be used as a standard in subsequent similar cases:


What precedent are they trying to set? They are claiming a secular defense to the charge of malpractice. How is that setting a precedent?

They will either win or loose. There is no precedent to set!

Either they are guilty of malpractice, or they're not, based on current secular law. They aren't pleading anything that would set a new precedent, they're relying on secular law, as it stands, to save their financial butts.

This case isn't about changing the existing law, it reinforces the existing law.

As far as the "Church" is concerned, the way they are treating this case, it's about money and nothing else. Certainly, in this instance, the church is "throwing the baby out with the bath water". as it's defense.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Good morning Charles,

I don't think your friend is being hypocritical at all. In my opinion, his opinion of beauty is a more in depth definition than those that are used to name who would be "Miss America" this year.

Miss America is a representative of outward beauty and poise, from afar. We put her on a pedestal, but never really know her, as an individual. She becomes a mouth piece and spokesperson that advertises "The American Female image." While, in this man's mind, his wife is the most beautiful woman in the world to him because of the way he sees himself reflected in her heart.



Another thought. Women who support the "right to choose" say that an abortion is not murder, because the foetus isn't a human being with rights (or full rights). When they are punched in the stomach by a boyfriend who wants to cause an abortion, and the foetus dies, is the woman a hypocrite for going to the police and helping them bring murder charges against the boyfriend? Don't different situations call for different definitions?


The question here is an issue of choice, again. It is the woman's choice, her decision to make about her body and her life. It isn't her boyfriends decision to make. When he kicks her in her stomach in order to cause an abortion, he is asserting his will over her body, and taking her choice away from her.

Choice is a two way street. Coercion in order to usurp a woman's choice, one way or the other, whether it be an attempt to legally impose restrictions to deny her right to choose an abortion, or a violent kick in stomach, to force an abortion, it is still violation of the woman's right to sovereignty over her reproductive choices. In my humble opinion.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by NarrowGate
 



Originally posted by NarrowGate
Provide evidence they *let* babies die to prove a point. You can not, and they did not.


I said IF they did. You said they did not. Can YOU provide proof of your statement? No.



How are they *hiding* behind the law?


If you don't understand that or how they are being hypocritical by now, there is no way I can explain it to you.



What legal route should they have taken if they want to end abortion?


None. They CAN'T end abortion. They can work to make it illegal but they're not going to end it. If they think abortion is wrong, they should NOT have one and stop trying to force their religious beliefs on everyone.

reply to post by NarrowGate
 



Originally posted by NarrowGate
Ok Heretic, name an organization that is as old and big as the Church that has had less pedophiles than the Church?


Why? I'm not making any claim about pedophiles in other professions.



There are more pedophiles that are cops and teachers than priests.


Please provide proof.




And finally, provide evidence the Church is protecting pedophiles.


Pedophile Priest Protected by Church
Pope Benedict Prodects Accused Pedophile Bishops

Catholic Church - Child Sexual Abuse Cover Up

Are you serious?

reply to post by NarrowGate
 



Originally posted by NarrowGate
We are trying to end abortion


Already addressed. You CAN'T end abortion. And you don't have the right to force people to behave according to YOUR religion or ANY religion. You should stop and get right with God and let HIM handle the people who supposedly go against his word. You should stop judging people as evil sinners and mind your own house and your own business. Stay out of politics.



How could they have avoided getting courts involved?


They couldn't. I made no claim otherwise. Since the father sued them, the law IS involved.



What pro-life legal argument do you suggest?


I am pro-choice and I believe in freedom. There IS no rational pro-life legal argument. The slavery of women is not legal. We have autonomy and guardianship of our bodies.

.
edit on 1/26/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


From your own source


Bishop O'Connell did not return phone calls from ABCNews.com seeking comment, but church officials say he and other bishops have been punished appropriately. "You cannot put on clerical attire, and you cannot service in a public way in ministry," said Austin, Texas Bishop Gregory Aymond, chair of the U.S. Bishop's Committee on Protection of Children and Young People. "That is a very, very significant consequence, and I would say a significant penalty," said Bishop Aymond, who conceded the accused bishops maintain their title. "Priests and bishops remain priests and bishops forever, regardless of what happens to them or what they do," said Bishop Aymond.


Sounds like the cops need to prove the case(s), and are failing. The Church does not let accused pedophiles continue to serve in public ministry, according to your own biased source.
Maybe you should ask why the police are not spending more resources looking into these cases?



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Raist
 



Originally posted by Raist
I am not sure I can agree they are living it. If they were we would be hearing they do not agree with the lawyers.


Exactly. They are NOT living it. They are hiding behind secular law to protect themselves. And if they let those babies die to make a political point, that's even WORSE! They have NO business in my body and they will NOT gain legal control of it, no matter how many babies they let die to prove their sick point.

If they really cared about children, they would have done everything they could to save the lives of the babies and they would have, according to God's law, admitted their guilt and done some kind of penance to reimbursement the father WITHOUT the courts getting involved.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by NarrowGate
 





I said IF they did. You said they did not. Can YOU provide proof of your statement? No.


I don't have to mr. accuser.



None. They CAN'T end abortion. They can work to make it illegal but they're not going to end it. If they think abortion is wrong, they should NOT have one and stop trying to force their religious beliefs on everyone.

50 million dead. We get a fair fight in this one, like it or not.


Originally posted by NarrowGate
Ok Heretic, name an organization that is as old and big as the Church that has had less pedophiles than the Church?





And finally, provide evidence the Church is protecting pedophiles.




Pedophile Priest Protected by Church Pope Benedict Prodects Accused Pedophile Bishops Catholic Church - Child Sexual Abuse Cover Up Are you serious?


As far as I can see, your own sources state that the Church is not protecting them, and that the police are not doing a good enough job investigating. It would appear that while they maintain their title, they are no longer allowed to serve..... On top of that, it is profitable to accuse the Church of pedophilia. While many cases may be genuine, many may not be. The police should be doing more, not the Church. Unless the taxpayers want to pay the Church to go after pedophiles that is.


Originally posted by NarrowGate
We are trying to end abortion





Already addressed. You CAN'T end abortion. And you don't have the right to force people to behave according to YOUR religion or ANY religion. You should stop and get right with God and let HIM handle the people who supposedly go against his word. You should stop judging people as evil sinners and mind your own house and your own business. Stay out of politics.


We are all sinners, so what are you talking about judging? 50 million babies murdered cnsnews.com... But I guess since some Bishops have been accused of pedophilia the Church should shut up about all those babies getting murdered every day....

I said:


How could they have avoided getting courts involved?


You said:


They couldn't. I made no claim otherwise. Since the father sued them, the law IS involved.


Yes you did, as I provided.

I said:


What pro-life legal argument do you suggest?


You said:


I am pro-choice and I believe in freedom. There IS no rational pro-life legal argument. The slavery of women is not legal. We have autonomy and guardianship of our bodies.


You support the largest, and most disgustingly vile massacre this country has ever seen. 50 million dead. We are done. Keep running your mouth, but the Church does not protect pedophiles.

edit on 26-1-2013 by NarrowGate because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 11:42 AM
link   
More from your own sources


At a news conference Wednesday afternoon, Law apologized for what he characterized as mistakes in judgment, saying he had relied on the judgments of doctors in their psychological evaluations of Geoghan after he underwent treatment. "In retrospect, mistakes were made," the cardinal said, "The policy was flawed. I made a mistake in assigning John Geoghan. I have regretted that assignment. I have attempted to learn from that mistake."


So, it looks like he was cleared by psychologists and it also looks like he was never prosecuted for 30 years. Sounds like the psychologists and prosecutors could have handled this better.

Do you really think there is a conspiracy in the Church to molest children?

edit on 26-1-2013 by NarrowGate because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by NarrowGate
 





50 million babies murdered cnsnews.com...


You keep saying this, over and over, as if, by using the word "murder" and citing an erroneous statistic you can somehow elicit and emotional response from your opponents. It won't work.

According to the church, all hormonal contraception and IUD's, also cause abortions. So your statistics are, in reality, way, way off, if your consider all the fertilized eggs that are "murdered" through contraception every month. You do know that the church's stance, in wanting to qualify all unborn life with personage from conception, would outlaw these contraceptive methods?

So, looking at it from your stand point, the 50 million would be lives you would like to have saved, then add the millions of abortions caused by birth control every single month, and you're looking at hundreds of millions forced births, and the biological slavery of every woman of child bearing age in the USA, and any other county the law is able to effect.

When did biology become a god? When did the overthrow of biological outcomes become a sin?

Why is the Bible silent on any condemnation of abortion, when we know that women and their midwives were using natural herbs and other remedies to abort since the beginning of time?

When your "God" gave mankind dominion over the beasts of the field and commanded man to subdue the earth, do you think he meant to eliminate the dominion over our own "beastly" bodies from that command?



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NarrowGate
 





50 million babies murdered cnsnews.com...


You keep saying this, over and over, as if, by using the word "murder" and citing an erroneous statistic you can somehow elicit and emotional response from your opponents. It won't work.

According to the church, all hormonal contraception and IUD's, also cause abortions. So your statistics are, in reality, way, way off, if your consider all the fertilized eggs that are "murdered" through contraception every month. You do know that the church's stance, in wanting to qualify all unborn life with personage from conception, would outlaw these contraceptive methods?

So, looking at it from your stand point, the 50 million would be lives you would like to have saved, then add the millions of abortions caused by birth control every single month, and you're looking at hundreds of millions forced births, and the biological slavery of every woman of child bearing age in the USA, and any other county the law is able to effect.

When did biology become a god? When did the overthrow of biological outcomes become a sin?

Why is the Bible silent on any condemnation of abortion, when we know that women and their midwives were using natural herbs and other remedies to abort since the beginning of time?

When your "God" gave mankind dominion over the beasts of the field and commanded man to subdue the earth, do you think he meant to eliminate the dominion over our own "beastly" bodies from that command?


The Bible is clear on this, but that is irrelevant. This is part of the Natural Law written into us.The statistics are not off, you just never looked into them. As far as biological slavery goes.... 50 million babies dead. No emotion? Have fun with that.

Those statistics do not include contraception IUD etc...

What is "Forced birth"? You can abstain from sex (gasp, what a concept). Just because we have allowed sexuality to prevail does not mean we should murder living babies via dismemberment (aka abortion).

eta: explain to me how this is not murder and how the statistics are off.
edit on 26-1-2013 by NarrowGate because: (no reason given)


eta: sorry you are right, it is more like 117 million www.lifenews.com... . The statistics were off. over 50 million is only correct if you count the direct abortions.
edit on 26-1-2013 by NarrowGate because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
27
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join