• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

My view is that in the USofA Catholic affiliated hospitals are corporations first and religious institutions second. This court case seems to make that crystal clear. The Mother Church expects the faithful to obey church doctrine over secular law- the use of secular approved birth control is a glaring example, yet their corporation hospitals are free to hide behind secular law instead of it's own teachings. this can't help the Church's argument against obeying the law of the land in 'Obamacare'.

But we should have already known this after the pedophile drama. The Catholic Church hid behind secular law to avoid the monetary judgments.

Now when it comes to who does harm to a fetus and any penalties involved-

It depends on who did the harm and why, the woman/couple deciding to abort the fetus is one thing. Anyone else is violating the mother/couples rights. It may sound callous to the ardent pro-lifer but in many ways until viability the fetus is property.

If I get a vase from Great Uncle Floyd and decide to break it, no biggie. Now if my brother, in a fit of rage, breaks the vase- well once he gets out of the hospital he will be charged in criminal court and sued in civil court.

See how that works?
 
My view is that in the USofA Catholic affiliated hospitals are corporations first and religious institutions second. This court case seems to make that crystal clear. The Mother Church expects the faithful to obey church doctrine over secular law- the use of secular approved birth control is a glaring example, yet their corporation hospitals are free to hide behind secular law instead of it's own teachings. this can't help the Church's argument against obeying the law of the land in 'Obamacare'.

But we should have already known this after the pedophile drama. The Catholic Church hid behind secular law to avoid the monetary judgments.

Now when it comes to who does harm to a fetus and any penalties involved-

It depends on who did the harm and why, the woman/couple deciding to abort the fetus is one thing. Anyone else is violating the mother/couples rights. It may sound callous to the ardent pro-lifer but in many ways until viability the fetus is property.

If I get a vase from Great Uncle Floyd and decide to break it, no biggie. Now if my brother, in a fit of rage, breaks the vase- well once he gets out of the hospital he will be charged in criminal court and sued in civil court.

See how that works?

I imagine most of the people having issue grasping the rather obvious concept at play here are simply using this story to exercise some other grudge against the catholic church, or religion in general.

It really isn't difficult guys. Just think about how your views on things like marijuana change the likelihood of the state prosecuting you for such a crime
 
Unfortunately this is one for instance in a long narrative where "Catholic" Institutions are not following Catholic Teaching. It doesn't mean the teaching isn't sound. It means that the people who identify themselves as Catholics are not adhering to the teachings. Catholic Health unfortunately has a long track record of not adhering to Church doctrine. They aren't the only ones, and unfortunate for the Catholic Church -- its limp-wristed responses to these Institutions and groups who openly contradict doctrine will only further tarnish its image and cause more people to turn from the faith.

Responding as a "pro-lifer" a fetus is a life however if the "law" dictates that it isn't than legally the organization cannot be considered culpable under the law. This doesn't mean they aren't culpable. Law is nothing but sophistry in the first place. To me it seems that hypocrisy is meeting hypocrisy on even terms. However to change the law to suit a individual's fancy at this juncture would destroy completely the illusion that the law is concrete. It will show that law is merely a kite which sways back and forth on the wind of personal opinion.

No this is a situation in which an individual is using stupid law and logic against those who apply it.

One doesn't have to agree with a law to use it as defense.

Abortion doctors murder babies violating their oath of "do no harm" and they get away with it by declaring the "fetus" isn't a viable form of life... That apparently is the official stance in law - hence a viable defense.

This is nothing more than a case of "whats good for you is good for me" or "the same laws that apply to you apply to me."

One can't argue that abortions should be legal then turn around and claim the opposite when it suits their desires in litigation.
 
I imagine most of the people having issue grasping the rather obvious concept at play here are simply using this story to exercise some other grudge against the catholic church, or religion in general.

It really isn't difficult guys. Just think about how your views on things like marijuana change the likelihood of the state prosecuting you for such a crime

Not marijuana use, more like DUI and you hit a pregnant mother, she lived, the fetus died. Let's try and keep it on the same playing field.
 
you're also not a doctor who is "on call"

That is irrelevant.

People miss calls all the time. Missing a call (or a page in this case) is NOT malpractice.

This is one a the rare times intent needs to be proved in litigation.

As far as the defense - it seems the hospital/doctor is saying "well you're the ones saying a fetus isn't viable until the child is birthed so practice what you preach."
 
No this is a situation in which an individual is using stupid law and logic against those who apply it.

One doesn't have to agree with a law to use it as defense.

Abortion doctors murder babies violating their oath of "do no harm" and they get away with it by declaring the "fetus" isn't a viable form of life... That apparently is the official stance in law - hence a viable defense.

This is nothing more than a case of "whats good for you is good for me" or "the same laws that apply to you apply to me."

One can't argue that abortions should be legal then turn around and claim the opposite when it suits their desires in litigation.

Translation: "It's ok for the church to go AGAINST it's principles to protect itself from a lawsuit, but damnit if someone wants the church to go against its principle to provide birth control because that's against freedom of religion".

Gimme a break. This hospital is the pure definition of hypocrisy in regards to so called "religious principle".
 
Not marijuana use, more like DUI and you hit a pregnant mother, she lived, the fetus died. Let's try and keep it on the same playing field.


The same principle applies: your personal views don't shape the actual law. If you want to use a more emotional based example to challenge that, then fine. But you will need to explain to use how the individual being held liable for the actions will shape how the law is applied, due to his beliefs.

Simply injecting the emotional based example doesn't accomplish this

thx ...
 
Last edited:
Translation: "It's ok for the church to go AGAINST it's principles to protect itself from a lawsuit, but damnit if someone wants the church to go against its principle to provide birth control because that's against freedom of religion".

Gimme a break. This hospital is the pure definition of hypocrisy in regards to so called "religious principle".

The same can be said by those of society (and currant law) who believe in abortion.

You believe abortion is right and your argument is that life isn't viable until the child is birthed, however in this situation the children were viable?

Both sides are talking out of both sides of their mouths in this case, however the pro-choice crowed gave the doctor his defense and you cant blame him for using it.

Not to mention I don't even see how religion plays into this whatsoever. The doctor merely worked for a hospital funded by Christians. That doesn't make him Christian. Conviction has absolutely nothing to do with working at a hospital with "St." before it's name.
 
Last edited:
yes, because the same expectations of being "on call" exist for all professions.

The world is an imperfect place and people are not perfect - they miss pages and calls.

A better question to ask is how many lives has that doctor saved?

People aren't perfect - not even doctors or pagers or cell phones for that matter.
 
The world is an imperfect place and people are not perfect - they miss pages and calls.

yes, nick, they do, but doctors have a professional and contractual obligation while "on call". The pizza boy does not ...


A better question to ask is how many lives has that doctor saved?

it's completely irrelevant to the case, so no, it isn't


People aren't perfect - not even doctors or pagers or cell phones for that matter.

and that is why we have trials where the defendant gets to defend himself
 
yes, because the same expectations of being "on call" exist for all professions.


Also, delivering babies is routine for doctors. For all that doctor knew he was going to be delivering a baby which is not a big deal at all to doctors considering the nurses do 90% of the work and doctors come in at the last minute to birth the child. Hell these days doctors are so busy they recommend c-sections just to get the process done with as fast as possible.
 
The same principle applies: your personal views don't shape the actual law. If you want to use a more emotional based example to challenge that, then fine. But you will need to explain to use how the individual being held libale for the actions will shape how the law is applied, due to his beliefs.

Simply injecting the emotional based example doesn't accomplish this

thx ...

Not more 'emotional', more in line with the issue at hand. I didn't use 'death of an innocent' or other emotional speak. But there is a very bad decision made that affected others,(your pot smoker isn't that), and the consequences.

Sometimes a trivial comparison is just as bad as an 'emotional' one.
 
A couple of years ago St. Joseph's (Catholic) Hospital in Phoenix faced an emergency situation where the life of the mother who was 11 weeks pregnant was in immediate danger. Physicians saved the life of the mother and terminated the pregnancy. A Roman Catholic Bishop, Thomas Olmstead, in Phoenix ended St. Joseph's affiliation with the Roman Catholic Church and ex-communicated the hospital administrator, a Roman Catholic nun. Now we just call it Joe's Hospital.

Unfortunately, Olmstead, then did it again to another hospital in Mesa. Fortunately for Phoenix, the Vatican is reported to be in the process of promoting the ambitious Bishop to a position in Rome.

In the meantime, in the Bishop's diocese a church refuses to pay for interpreters for deaf Catholics while at the same time it continues to build and expand to the tune of millions of dollars.

This goes back to November 2009, when a woman who was 11 weeks pregnant went to St. Joe's with pulmonary hypertension, which limits the ability of the heart and lungs to function properly. Hormones produced by the uterus during pregnancy seriously exacerbate the dangerous condition. The medical staff believed the young woman was close to death. In order to save her life, doctors terminated the pregnancy.

Olmstead said the surgery was an abortion and threatened to pull the hospital's Catholic affiliation if it did not comply with conditions to ensure that it is adhering to the church's teachings.

The nun who was part of the decision to perform the procedure, Sister Margaret McBride, had already been excommunicated.
 
Not more 'emotional', more in line with the issue at hand.


Nope, my example illustrated my point perfectly. the only difference with yours is that you can't explain how it supports your position and that it makes an emotional appeal.

I didn't use 'death of an innocent' or other emotional speak. But there is a very bad decision made that affected others,(your pot smoker isn't that), and the consequences.

the principle I was illustrating wasn't about harm. It was about laws not being dictated by our personal beliefs. The law applies to everyone equally, regardless of how they view it, and your example does nothing to challenge that besides throwing a dead baby into the mix

hence, the emotional appeal, and your lack of ability to explain how it undermines my original argument ...
 
yes, nick, they do, but doctors have a professional and contractual obligation while "on call". The pizza boy does not ...




it's completely irrelevant to the case, so no, it isn't




and that is why we have trials where the defendant gets to defend himself

Your point is moot.... You're trying to say the doctor is a perfect person and lapsed on perfection. I'm saying doctors aren't perfect people and perfection is an impossible quality to expect.

Also, the Hippocratic Oath is "do no harm" not "do not miss a page or phone call."
 
Your point is moot.... You're trying to say the doctor is a perfect person and lapsed on perfection. I'm saying doctors aren't perfect people and perfection is an impossible quality to expect.

Also, the Hippocratic Oath is "do no harm" not "do not miss a page or phone call."

1) never asserted anything about anyone being perfect

2) claiming something as moot is not the same as it actually being so
 
1) never asserted anything about anyone being perfect

2) claiming something as moot is not the same as it actually being so

Well you're implying the doctor is in the wrong for missing a page.

Sorry to tell you that child birth isn't an "emergency" it's routine. Unfortunately this woman was not in labor (which I assume everyone thought she was in labor) and she died of something not related to her pregnancy (or not considering it was her aorta).

It's a sad story, but I'm not going to blame the doctor.
 
Well you're implying the doctor is in the wrong for missing a page.

No I am pointing out that your example "of all people" doesn't apply here because of the well recognized professonal demands of a doctor ...
 
The doctor merely worked for a hospital funded by Christians. That doesn't make him Christian. Conviction has absolutely nothing to do with working at a hospital with "St." before it's name.

And the workers are not Christian in many cases, but they have to follow the POLICIES of the hospital, aka church. Otherwise there wouldn't be a big deal about the hospitals providing birth control to workers that aren't Christian. Can't have it both ways.
 
rut rohhh!
This cant be good for the business of religion.
I mean, you use the defense of "those fetuses are not persons with legal rights"?


Maybe a "pro-lifer" would like to make an excuse for this.

This should be good.




In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses aren’t people | The Colorado Independent


I would expect a pro-abortionist/pro-choicer to have this mentality, but not a catholic hospital considering the catholic churches stand on abortion.
 
And the workers are not Christian in many cases, but they have to follow the POLICIES of the hospital, aka church. Otherwise there wouldn't be a big deal about the hospitals providing birth control to workers that aren't Christian. Can't have it both ways.

You're absolutely wrong with everything you just said - as a matter of fact you just made all that up via speculation.

None of these hospitals are guided by the Catholic church nor are these hospitals faith based.

Furthermore, they're funded via individual contribution not by the church itself (although donations do come from the church occasionally).
 
No I am pointing out that your example "of all people" doesn't apply here because of the well recognized professonal demands of a doctor ...

So in short you expect doctors to be perfect? because that is what you're implying without actually saying it.
 
I would expect a pro-abortionist/pro-choicer to have this mentality, but not a catholic hospital considering the catholic churches stand on abortion.

and i would expect a church and their legal representation would defend on their principle seeing how they think they are exempt from laws that they do not like.

When there's a law that you dont like: use a law that goes against your church teachings becasue that's your only option.



or


When there's a law that you dont like, use the bible for your defense and argue that it goes against the churches teachings and that it violates Freedom from religion (you know, just like how the church is suing the fed for Obamacare.

Pick one of the above to fight for your cause :lamo
 
Back
Top Bottom