US Catholic Church Does About Face on Abortion
- Thread starter tay
- Start date
But you are sitting in judgement as if they do
You're leaning on the Church's stance on abortion to justify why they should voluntarily assume full responsibility and compensate this family for a tragedy that was entirely out of their control.
The RCC are standing by their position - I don't know what's so tough about this issue for you.
Ahhh, I see.... So, by your logic, anyone that is pregnant should go out of their way to take every (and any) emergency to this particular hospital regardless of their affiliation with the hospital, Church, individual physicians or proximity to the location so they can cash-in on the hospital-lotto in case something tragic happens to them?
All they need to do is accuse them of being hypocrites and tell them controller who to make the cheque out to.
Again - yes they are... You just don't like the notion that they have upheld their moral convictions AND been absolved in the State Courts as well.
Kind of a double whammy against those that have a illogical hate for the RCC
The same reason that you're not Catholic, but seem to believe that your opinions are justification to change the tenets of the RCC
Are you RCC?.. What the hell makes you think that your expectations carry any weight?
You have unilaterally determined that the hospital is responsible for the wrongful death, when in fact it was an EMERGENCY situation that showed-up on their doorstep.... They hospital didn't solicit the EMERGENCY to come to their facility, nor did they cause the event in the first place.
Exactly - right along with the ability to have the existing laws applied equally to everyone
Nice to see that you have the capacity to act as judge, jury and executioner
Talk about being a hypocrite..... How much was the family charged for the visit to emergency?... And good thing they do have money to construct community hospitals to accept the public for healthcare.
Good to see that you've upheld your practice of tasteless commentary... Your consistency is laudable
They are not holding their position of life begins at conception. If they were they would go into the court and stipulate that the fetus was a person and deserves to have all the rights and protections the law affords. Instead, because it means they cannot be held liable or culpable, they accept the state's position that it was not a person. That is hypocrisy of the highest form but I expect nothing less from the RCC.
Sure they are - their insurance company that is on the hook for the lawsuit is claiming otherwise
Your entire position is founded on your hate for the RCC and you're more than prepared to twist your logic into knots in order to justify a subjective expectation that is magically held to a higher standard than the rest of society.
Hell, you've already assessed blame on the RCC and are demanding payment... Really man - grow a pair
You're assuming it would be found a wrongful death in court even if they were considered people. Just because hubby viewed things one way as his wife very quickly died in front of him, doesn't mean that from a hospital's standpoint, they were actually in the wrong.
Good point! Seeing how that this is fact (we don't need a trial or anything inconvenient like that) and that it was malicious - the State should alter it's definition of 'person' just for this one case and compound the charges with the additional murder of the unborn child.
hell, the father would absolutely support the notion that although his son/daughter were unborn that they were still a person; therefore, he would be a hypocrite if he didn't fess up to the additional murder charge.
WOW.......
The story isin't whether the lawsuit is substantive or not it's that once again the Catholic Church's credibility is once again on view for all to ponder..
these guys are shameless
Gosh. They sure are sorry now. And they will never use that argument again, going forward, having successfully used the argument already just to try to win a lawsuit. Isn't that convenient?
And all of this—all of it—goes back to the Church's insistence that life begins with your very first hell-worthy dirty thought and must be protected at all costs, despite all consequences, including, of course, the consequence of dead women, whose lives are not nearly as valuable as the "life" of an unborn fetus. In just the past year, the Church has called upon its faithful followers to march, to starve themselves, to go to jail, to even take up arms—all to protect those fetuses.
No exceptions. None.
Not even if the fetus is already dead inside the womb.
Not even if the fetus is going to kill the actual living woman carrying it.
No goddamned exceptions EVER.
Well, except for one: when it's going to cost the Church money....................
It was a startling assertion that seemed an about-face from church doctrine: A Catholic hospital arguing in a Colorado court that twin fetuses that died in its care were not, under state law, human beings.
When the two-year-old court filing surfaced last month, it triggered an avalanche of criticism — because the legal argument seemed to plainly clash with the church's centuries-old stance that life begins at conception.
But it is also now fueling an already raging debate in Colorado and beyond about whether fetuses should have legal rights and, if so, what kind.
On Monday, the hospital and the state's bishops released a statement acknowledging it was "morally wrong" to make the legal argument.
News of the wrongful death lawsuit came as Colorado lawmakers weigh how far they should go in penalizing acts that harm a fetus, and some worry that the case could diminish the Catholic Church's credibility in advocating more rights for the unborn.
Miguel De La Torre, a professor at the Iliff School of Theology in Denver, noted that the church often argues for laws recognizing a fetus as a human being.
"If that legislation was to come up again, how could the Catholic Church argue we should protect the rights of a fetus?" he said.
more
APNewsBreak: Catholic Hospital acknowledges error
The story isin't whether the lawsuit is substantive or not it's that once again the Catholic Church's credibility is once again on view for all to ponder..
these guys are shameless
Gosh. They sure are sorry now. And they will never use that argument again, going forward, having successfully used the argument already just to try to win a lawsuit. Isn't that convenient?
And all of this—all of it—goes back to the Church's insistence that life begins with your very first hell-worthy dirty thought and must be protected at all costs, despite all consequences, including, of course, the consequence of dead women, whose lives are not nearly as valuable as the "life" of an unborn fetus. In just the past year, the Church has called upon its faithful followers to march, to starve themselves, to go to jail, to even take up arms—all to protect those fetuses.
No exceptions. None.
Not even if the fetus is already dead inside the womb.
Not even if the fetus is going to kill the actual living woman carrying it.
No goddamned exceptions EVER.
Well, except for one: when it's going to cost the Church money....................
It was a startling assertion that seemed an about-face from church doctrine: A Catholic hospital arguing in a Colorado court that twin fetuses that died in its care were not, under state law, human beings.
When the two-year-old court filing surfaced last month, it triggered an avalanche of criticism — because the legal argument seemed to plainly clash with the church's centuries-old stance that life begins at conception.
But it is also now fueling an already raging debate in Colorado and beyond about whether fetuses should have legal rights and, if so, what kind.
On Monday, the hospital and the state's bishops released a statement acknowledging it was "morally wrong" to make the legal argument.
News of the wrongful death lawsuit came as Colorado lawmakers weigh how far they should go in penalizing acts that harm a fetus, and some worry that the case could diminish the Catholic Church's credibility in advocating more rights for the unborn.
Miguel De La Torre, a professor at the Iliff School of Theology in Denver, noted that the church often argues for laws recognizing a fetus as a human being.
"If that legislation was to come up again, how could the Catholic Church argue we should protect the rights of a fetus?" he said.
more
APNewsBreak: Catholic Hospital acknowledges error
Okay, that's it. I guess I have to use pictures.
This is a hospital
This is a Church.
This is the Vatican.
The Vatican runs these:
But The Vatican do not run these, even if they own them.
Get it?
This is a hospital
This is a Church.
This is the Vatican.
The Vatican runs these:
But The Vatican do not run these, even if they own them.
Get it?
I don't know if you are referring to me as a toll, or why you would but along with Petros pictures you both don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of hypocrisy.
I will play along and agree the hospitals have nothing to do with the Catholic Church.
But the Catholic Chiurch's represenatives have said the the fetus is not a person which goes against everything they have stated up until this case.
That shouldn't be too hard to grasp as a different stance on anything they have ever said on the subject..........
PS; I have been busy working 14 hour days and travelling but as of today I am back at a normal pace. Thanks for asking.......
Considering the hospital (owned by the church) is run on catholic principles and does not perform abortion because of the premise 'life begins at conception' for them to argue the fetus is not a person to save money in a wrongful death suit is hypocrisy, plain & simple. Do you get that part Petros?
I understand the concept just fine; especially as it relates the notion that you believe that your perspective on this magically trumps all else.
Gosh, how big of you... But as per your following comments, it looks like the value of your 'agreement' is worthless
The RCC never said that - their insurance company did.
You getting this at all here or is your blind ideological bent preventing you from seeing the facts here?
See above... With that in mind, I agree that it isn't hard to grasp
That's great - working hard AND smart can easily cut down the amount of time toiling
Captain: For some....reading comprehension doesn't improve with age....you are arguing with a couple of five year olds.....and I'm being generous...
DaS, the RCC and their hospital have the option to tell the insurance co. to piss off and make a settlement on their own for the wrongful death of a person based on their position that the fetus IS a person. To me that would be them reinforcing their position that life begins at conception and that the fetus has all the rights of a person. I may not agree with that position but I could respect them standing up for what they believe in if they were to do that which would be rare for me....to offer the RCC any respect. Their choice to allow the insurance co. to pursue the legal defense that is contradictory to their position on the subject is hypocrisy, to be generous.
I'm not sure why you wish to put down people with a different opinion than yours (like me), I have not posted anything demeaning or degrading to you or about you so I would expect the same in return.
FYI: I am 40+ years past 5 years old.
Did I mention you by name sonny?????
But since you seem to recognise yourself in my post.....
Age and common sense don't follow parallel lines ....a theory that you keep proving over and over.
But since you seem to recognise yourself in my post.....
Age and common sense don't follow parallel lines ....a theory that you keep proving over and over.
The hospital didn't cause the lady's heart attack, nor did they beg this emergency to come through their doors.
Quite frankly, abortion has zero to do with this issue, except to ideologues like tay that posted the OP.
You are right they didn't cause the heart attack or ask for the case. You are also right that it is not about abortion. What it is about is if their inaction caused the death of the fetus. If that is true then, according to their 'catholic principles' they operate under, it is the wrongful death of a person because a fetus is a person. Either they stand by that principle or they don't. From this case it appears they only stand by that principle when it won't cost them a sh*tload of money. If there was no way to save the fetus then it is not wrongful death. The issue of hypocrisy comes into play because the the RCC and their hospital are allowing the insurance co. to use the defense that the fetus is not a person. A legitimate and good defense under Colorado law but totally against what the RCC preaches as gospel and against the principles the hospital operates under.
I gather that nobody bothered to read the WHOLE story here.
The local Bishop dropped the hammer on the hospital about this. They claim that their attorney put in that argument, without their knowledge. The Bishop ordered them to withdraw that contention, and they have agreed to do so.
And, since when is ONE HOSPITAL representative of the entire Catholic Church in all of the United States of America?
Just another Catholic bashing thread!
The local Bishop dropped the hammer on the hospital about this. They claim that their attorney put in that argument, without their knowledge. The Bishop ordered them to withdraw that contention, and they have agreed to do so.
And, since when is ONE HOSPITAL representative of the entire Catholic Church in all of the United States of America?
Just another Catholic bashing thread!
Thanks for updating the story Medic. That news must have come out after this thread started. I am glad to hear they are actually standing by their principle even though I disagree with the position. Kudos to the bishop and the RCC for standing up for their belief. I now have to happily rescind my comments about hypocrisy on this issue.