Catholics argue that fetuses are people—unless it costs the Church money

Just another example of the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church, but a pretty bad one.

According to The Colorado Independent, Lori Stodghill, a 31-year-old woman, pregnant for 7 months with twins, went to St. Thomas More Hospital in Cañon City, Colorado, feeling ill. She promptly had a massive heart attack induced by a blood clot.  The obstetrician was paged, but didn’t answer.  Stodghill died and so did her twins.

Stodghill’s husband sued the hospital on the grounds of wrongful death, arguing that a Caesarian section could have saved the twins even if the mother died.

Now comes the hypocrisy, for the hospital is supposed to abide by Catholic directives:

The lead defendant in the case is Catholic Health Initiatives, the Englewood-based nonprofit that runs St. Thomas More Hospital as well as roughly 170 other health facilities in 17 states. Last year, the hospital chain reported national assets of $15 billion. The organization’s mission, according to its promotional literature, is to “nurture the healing ministry of the Church” and to be guided by “fidelity to the Gospel.” Toward those ends, Catholic Health facilities seek to follow the Ethical and Religious Directives of the Catholic Church authored by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Those rules have stirred controversy for decades, mainly for forbidding non-natural birth control and abortions. “Catholic health care ministry witnesses to the sanctity of life ‘from the moment of conception until death,’” the directives state. “The Church’s defense of life encompasses the unborn.”

Yes, fetuses are people, unless the Church gets sued for letting fetuses die. My emphasis in the story below:

But when it came to mounting a defense in the Stodghill case, Catholic Health’s lawyers effectively turned the Church directives on their head. Catholic organizations have for decades fought to change federal and state laws that fail to protect “unborn persons,” and Catholic Health’s lawyers in this case had the chance to set precedent bolstering anti-abortion legal arguments. Instead, they are arguing state law protects doctors from liability concerning unborn fetuses on grounds that those fetuses are not persons with legal rights.

As Jason Langley, an attorney with Denver-based Kennedy Childs, argued in one of the briefs he filed for the defense, the court “should not overturn the long-standing rule in Colorado that the term ‘person,’ as is used in the Wrongful Death Act, encompasses only individuals born alive. Colorado state courts define ‘person’ under the Act to include only those born alive. Therefore Plaintiffs cannot maintain wrongful death claims based on two unborn fetuses.”

Well, Catholic Church, make up your mind.  Are fetuses people with rights or not? I guess it depends on whether the Church stands to lose money when they make the call.

Naturally, Catholic Health Initiatives had no comment on the case.

 

 

83 Comments

  1. mordacious1
    Posted January 23, 2013 at 4:54 pm | Permalink

    You know what the answer will be: “While the Church regards every fetus as a person, this matter has been turned over to a private law firm who is handling the situation in legal terms and we defer to them to comment on the case”. The hypocrisy is so thick, you can cut it with a knife.

  2. Diane G.
    Posted January 23, 2013 at 5:10 pm | Permalink

    Could they get any more disgusting?

    • Frank
      Posted January 23, 2013 at 8:35 pm | Permalink

      Well, we could add to the disgust by noting that the hospital was named for a zealot (More) who eagerly advocated death and torture for infidels in the time before his own execution by Henry VIII. More was especially keen to punish those who dared to read the forbidden English translation (by Tindale?) of the Bible. A Man for All Seasons, indeed.

    • Posted January 23, 2013 at 8:39 pm | Permalink

      Agreed, Diane G. Just when we begin to think they can’t stoop any lower, they set a new precedent for ‘low’

    • salahhe
      Posted January 24, 2013 at 12:32 am | Permalink

      Oh yes, a lot more disgusting, if we let them.

    • Mark
      Posted January 24, 2013 at 11:55 am | Permalink

      Predictably disgusting and disgustingly predictable.

  3. marksolock
    Posted January 23, 2013 at 5:22 pm | Permalink

    Reblogged this on Mark Solock Blog.

  4. Posted January 23, 2013 at 5:35 pm | Permalink

    With behavior like this, why does anyone believe that what the Catholic Church says is in any way important?

  5. Posted January 23, 2013 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

    So the Catholic Church cannot really lose, or has some sort of win either way.

    If they “win” by using the argument that foetuses are not people, they don’t have to pay a penalty, and can use the excuse that this was a matter argued by the malpractice insurance lawyer, and not the church.

    If they “lose” by the courts stating that the foetuses are people, then the church has a legal precedent that supports their argument that foetuses really are people.

    You know the old saying: When you have lemons, you make legal precedent.

    • salahhe
      Posted January 24, 2013 at 12:36 am | Permalink

      I believe they might loose without fetuses being declared real people. I mean, they are not real people, and neither is my penis but if I loose my penis from medical negligence, the court will murder that doctor.
      Also, abortion is illegal after the first 3 months so there might be something there anyway.

      • mordacious1
        Posted January 24, 2013 at 1:14 am | Permalink

        While less common, some states allow abortions up to the 21st week and up to the 24th in rare situations. It’s not correct to say that all abortions are illegal after the first 3 months gestation.

        • HaggisForBrains
          Posted January 24, 2013 at 3:02 am | Permalink

          pregnant for 7 months with twins

          .
          Salahhe’s point is still valid.

          • mordacious1
            Posted January 24, 2013 at 10:45 am | Permalink

            Agreed. I was just being pedantic. I try to curb it, but it pops out occasionally.

            • HaggisForBrains
              Posted January 24, 2013 at 11:15 am | Permalink

              Oh, I so understand that! You must try not to let it pop out, lest you are arrested for paedophilia, rather than pedantophilia :-).

              • gr8hands
                Posted January 24, 2013 at 12:21 pm | Permalink

                HaggisForBrains, I must now use that word: pedantophilia

                Thank you!

            • Diane G.
              Posted January 24, 2013 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

              I, for one, felt that statement needed to be corrected.

              Didn’t want to sound like a pedant, though.
              :D

  6. abrotherhoodofman
    Posted January 23, 2013 at 6:16 pm | Permalink

    William Lane Craig responds:
    i
    Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.”

    • Darth Dog
      Posted January 23, 2013 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

      As much as WLC talks about how “those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy”, I’ll bet he looks before he crosses the street.

    • yngveb
      Posted January 23, 2013 at 11:44 pm | Permalink

      Under the morality of WLC we should murder every infant so that they could go to heaven instantly. If they are sinless we would be doing them a huge favour.

      (Never mind that WLC cannot demonstrate that what he says is true in any way, shape, or form.)

    • darrelle
      Posted January 24, 2013 at 5:57 am | Permalink

      Loved this since I first heard it from him. I’ve always wanted to ask him how he knows that people who have died were happy to do so. I propose an experiment with WLC as the subject to determine if his behavior under threat of imminent death could reasonably be described as happy.

      • Jim Jones
        Posted January 25, 2013 at 4:00 pm | Permalink

        Better still, don’t just threaten death!

  7. Gasper Sciacca
    Posted January 23, 2013 at 6:30 pm | Permalink

    . . . the Catholic Church never excommunicated a single Nazi, but in 2010 it excommunicated nun Margaret McBride for allowing an abortion that was necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman suffering from pulmonary hypertension.
    —Victor J Stenger

    • mordacious1
      Posted January 23, 2013 at 7:24 pm | Permalink

      I thought Goebbels or one of the other head Nazis was excommunicated for marrying a Protestant (not for murdering millions of people, mind you).

      • Posted January 23, 2013 at 8:43 pm | Permalink

        That’s a point that Christopher Hitchens made to some effect in one his debates, can’t remember which one.

  8. Posted January 23, 2013 at 6:46 pm | Permalink

    From what I understand, CHI is not a part of the Catholic Church, nor does the Church seem to have any direct control over what they do. If you look at their board, there is not a single official of the Catholic Church on it. Not even a priest. The closest connection there seems to be is that they say they follow Church teachings and there are some religious orders who “sponsor” CHI.

    And then there is the legal firm, which they have no control over whatsoever.

    On what grounds then can you say that the “Catholic Church” is responsible for this? I’ve seen sloppy criticisms of the Church before, but this is among the sloppier ones.

    Can I lay every act of scientific misconduct by scientists or scientific organizations at the feet of “science”?

    • mordacious1
      Posted January 23, 2013 at 7:34 pm | Permalink

      “And then there is the legal firm, which they have no control over whatsoever”.

      I win with comment #1, you should work for Catholic PR.

      Wasn’t a nun fired from a Catholic Hospital because she allowed an abortion to save the mother? This was done by a local Bishop.

      Oh here it is:

      http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126985072

      She was excommunicated (if she was a Nazi, she’d still have her job)

      • Posted January 23, 2013 at 10:22 pm | Permalink

        “you should work for Catholic PR.” Why not just assert that I actually DO work for Catholic PR? You have just as much evidence for that as you do that CHI acts officially for the Church.

        Most Catholic hospitals have some oversight from the Church because local bishops serve on their board. As far as I know, this is not the case with CHI. Do you have some evidence that they do–or does simple innuendo pass for you as proof?

        • abrotherhoodofman
          Posted January 23, 2013 at 10:49 pm | Permalink

          The closest connection there seems to be is that they say they follow Church teachings and there are some religious orders who “sponsor” CHI.”

          It sounds like “God” is responsible for this tragedy. As you state, they are only following His teachings. And last time I checked, “God” is the CEO and Chairman of the Board for ALL Christian institutions.

          Nevermind the fact that “God” could have prevented this whole thing with a wave of His mighty hand, amirite? This Catholic “God” strikes me as an incompetent pile of horse dung.

          • Posted January 24, 2013 at 12:41 am | Permalink

            This what counts as reasoning in atheist circles? The Nazi’s claimed the authority of Darwin for their eugenics programs. So I guess Darwin shares the blame, huh?

            • Bender
              Posted January 24, 2013 at 1:20 am | Permalink

              “The Nazi’s claimed the authority of Darwin for their eugenics programs.”

              Citation, please.

            • Ludo
              Posted January 24, 2013 at 2:51 am | Permalink

              The Nazi’s never claimed the authority of Darwin for anything. On the contrary, Darwin was quite unpopular in Adolf Hitler’s (catholic!) eyes. See:
              http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2006/10/04/surprise-hitler-banned-darwin-instead-of-embracing-evolution/

            • Posted January 24, 2013 at 3:58 am | Permalink

              Darwin wasn’t god. If you wish to make your god all powerful and all knowing, then it’s a necessary consequence that he/she/it is ultimately responsible for everything. Theological attempts to wriggle out of this have been weak, to say the least.

          • chris16
            Posted January 26, 2013 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

            The mother who weighted over 400 lbs had lots to do with her medical condition. Why wasn’t she hospitiaized for monitoring as a high risk pregnency? When she died she had a two year old she was only 31. She didn’t plan her preganancies for a successful delivery. But, planning preganancies is also a No, No. in the eyes of the holy roman catholic church. Plenty of blame for everyone.

        • mordacious1
          Posted January 24, 2013 at 1:34 am | Permalink

          Did you read what Prof. Coyne posted?

          ” The organization’s mission, according to its promotional literature, is to “nurture the healing ministry of the Church” and to be guided by “fidelity to the Gospel.” Toward those ends, Catholic Health facilities seek to follow the Ethical and Religious Directives of the Catholic Church authored by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops”.

          That seems pretty straight forward to me.

        • Zeromus
          Posted January 24, 2013 at 1:48 am | Permalink

          Well I’ve read through their web page, it just states they provide faith-based healing. Also that they were founded by nuns, but doesn’t say they still have nuns. And it does say they have Church sponsors, but doesn’t go into specifics.

        • Notagod
          Posted January 24, 2013 at 8:21 am | Permalink

          So you figure Catolicker Health Institute wants to have their catholic brand on the billboard just like any other greedy damned god corporation?

          I wonder who legally owns the building? Does the Catolicker collect any rent? What is the price of having Catolicker in the name? Does the Catolicker ever do anything besides raping babies without branding it?

          • Diane G.
            Posted January 24, 2013 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

            Might be time to trot out this link, again. “Catholic” hospitals are more public financed than is widely believed.

            http://atheists.org/content/question-atheists-hospitals

            • Jim Jones
              Posted January 25, 2013 at 4:02 pm | Permalink

              ISTR that the money the RCC puts into these hospitals is a tiny fraction of the total, however they still get to bully everyone else.

    • morkindie
      Posted January 24, 2013 at 9:40 am | Permalink

      I think it is pretty naive to suggest that they have on control over the law firm.

      If they feel that they are being misrepresented, they could certainly fire Jason Langley and Denver-based Kennedy Childs couldn’t they?

      They can afford any lawyer they want.

      “The lead defendant in the case is Catholic Health Initiatives, the Englewood-based nonprofit that runs St. Thomas More Hospital as well as roughly 170 other health facilities in 17 states. Last year, the hospital chain reported national assets of $15 billion. The organization’s mission, according to its promotional literature, is to “nurture the healing ministry of the Church” and to be guided by “fidelity to the Gospel.” Toward those ends, Catholic Health facilities seek to follow the Ethical and Religious Directives of the Catholic Church authored by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.”

      • morkindie
        Posted January 24, 2013 at 9:51 am | Permalink

        When will the pope declare his support for the plaintiffs, and reject the CHI’s defense as against Catholic teaching?

        Until that happens, I lay the blame at the feet of the Catholic Church.

        The CHI is clearly following church rules as best as they can. If any of those Catholic Hospitals under their control started performing abortions, their Catholic funding would dry up quickly.

      • gr8hands
        Posted January 24, 2013 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

        If their law firm did not follow their wishes, they could be sued for malpractice.

  9. Miles_Teg
    Posted January 23, 2013 at 7:05 pm | Permalink

    Oh come on! Foetuses aren’t people so why should the church roll over and pay up? I agree the RC Church have been hypocritical in the past but this is just a pragmatic decision that the courts should and almost certainly will uphold.

    • microraptor
      Posted January 23, 2013 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

      The Church is being hypocritical now, because they’re reversing their still in place claim that fetuses are people in order to avoid being held liable. If they don’t want to accept that responsibility, they shouldn’t argue that everyone else should have to.

      • Miles_Teg
        Posted January 23, 2013 at 8:33 pm | Permalink

        The Supremes have ruled on the matter and the RC Church didn’t get what they wanted. You can kick them all you want as far as I am concerned but the law is the law, no matter what you on the one hand or the RCs on the other want. It is established law that foetuses don’t have the same rights as people. That law applies to pro lifers as well as pro choice people. This case is just ambulance chasing.

        • darrelle
          Posted January 24, 2013 at 6:14 am | Permalink

          The issue taken by the OP and other commentors is not about the case. It is about the blatant hypocrisy of catholics regarding an issue that they frequently, loudly, use to proclaim superior morality while simultaneously performing immoral acts, and use as an excuse to constrain the rights of woman.

        • lamacher
          Posted January 24, 2013 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

          These were not foetuses, they were seven months into development – perfectly capable these days of survival without ill effects. This is killing of viable infants.

    • H.H.
      Posted January 23, 2013 at 8:20 pm | Permalink

      Foetuses aren’t people so why should the church roll over and pay up?

      Because they’ve been screaming for decades that fetuses are people. If they don’t pay up, can we take that as an admission they no longer believe it themselves?

      • Miles_Teg
        Posted January 23, 2013 at 8:38 pm | Permalink

        [post removed for derogatory language. I've left the comments below so people can see what NOT to do. Miles Teg will apologize to the forum and promise not to use such language again, or he won't post here—ever.]

        • Posted January 24, 2013 at 5:48 am | Permalink

          ‘The MIcks’?

          • steeve
            Posted January 25, 2013 at 4:22 am | Permalink

            Means Irish in a derogatory way — I think Miles is missing the point of the arguments about hypocrisy being made here. I am being generous to Miles assuming s/he does not understand the history of the hypocrisy — but maybe Miles does and is being purposefully obtuse. Who knows?

        • darrelle
          Posted January 24, 2013 at 6:35 am | Permalink

          I am not sure if you are missing the point on purpose or not, but it is real simple.

          If the hospital were to faithfully abide by their proclaimed beliefs they would have paid the husband. In which case the husband would not have sued. In which case there would not have been a case to be determined by Colorado and US law.

          The hospital chose not to. They chose to fight it presumably, since they would be incompetent otherwise, knowing what their legal teams defense would be based on. And that that defense is directly opposed to their strongly proclaimed beliefs, which they bludgeon everyone else over the head with quite frequently.

          In any case, the law, and whatever the outcome of the legal case may be has no bearing on the hypocrisy displayed by the self proclaimed upstanding catholics running the hospital. And that is the point. The issue people here are commenting on is not the legal aspects of the situation. The issue is the hypocritical behavior displayed by catholics who proclaim that they are dedicated to following the beliefs and rules of the catholic church.

          • gr8hands
            Posted January 24, 2013 at 12:30 pm | Permalink

            Exactly. +1 for cogency.

          • Miles_Teg
            Posted January 24, 2013 at 6:21 pm | Permalink

            Okay, imagine for the sake of argument that you are a devout Catholic, are strongly pro-life, and believe life begins at conception.

            You get drunk one day, drive your car, run a red light and have a collision. The female driver of the other vehicle is only slightly injured but due to the shock of the accident miscarries her seven month pregnancy.

            In addition to drunk driving and runnng the red light should you also be charged with the manslaughter of the two foetuses? Would you feel guilty about the two lives lost?
            Some Catholics, indeed many people, might feel guilty and wish to be punished. YMMV.

            I’d also like to point out that the woman in Colorado does not appear to have called 911, from what I’ve read. She waited till her husband got home who then drove her to the hospital. She weighed 400 pounds. I think that’s a major contributing factor, don’t you? And at what stage do you stop thinking about her life and start worring about the twins? A Caesarian may have nixed any chance of saving her life.

            I’m not a Catholic so I have no interest in defending them per se. They have a lot to answer for, especially in the case of the Indian woman in Ireland. But this is not one of those cases. It’s all about point scoring, the need to make someone pay, anyone, and ambulance chasers. This case just confirms my view that Americans have an unhealthy obsession with the legal system.

            • mordacious1
              Posted January 25, 2013 at 11:31 am | Permalink

              Oh, my pedantophillia is rearing its ugly head again but, a miscarriage is the spontaneous loss of a fetus before the 20th week of pregnancy.

  10. Golkarian
    Posted January 23, 2013 at 7:05 pm | Permalink

    Don’t most late-term pro-choice arguments rest on the idea that while the fetus might be alive at some point just before birth, you can’t force someone to say, give up a kidney to save a life? So in this instance the mother wanted the children live, and even if she didn’t they could have been removed without killing them, it therefore seems that the doctor’s actions, in this case, were not only hypocritical but wrong, whatever your views on abortion.

    • mordacious1
      Posted January 24, 2013 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

      I don’t think the doctor’s actions were wrong, since the gist of the lawsuit is that the on-call doctor didn’t answer his/her page (not answering his/her page was negligent, but the doctor did not make a decision whether to C-section or not because he/she was AWOL). The hypocrisy comes from defending that negligence by saying the fetuses were not yet people, so no wrongful death.

  11. Posted January 23, 2013 at 7:30 pm | Permalink

    Just wait for Bill Donohue’s bloviating opinion.

  12. Sam Salerno
    Posted January 23, 2013 at 8:37 pm | Permalink

    Imagine that. The Catholic church contradicting itself.

  13. morkindie
    Posted January 23, 2013 at 10:13 pm | Permalink

    Here is the route to the nearest hospital, 31.5 miles away. On New years day.?.?
    Google maps says 37 minutes.

    If they made a desperate race to the next hospital, instead of even going to St. Thomas.

    ” His patient died at the hospital less than an hour after she arrived and her twins died in her womb”

    Who was this Saint Thomas?

    “Thomas the Apostle, also called Doubting Thomas or Didymus (meaning “Twin,” as does “Thomas” in Aramaic)”

    “seven-months pregnant with twin boys”

    Please, someone tell me they see the irony.

    https: //maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&f=d&daddr=Parkview-Pueblo+West+Emergency,+899+E+Industrial+Blvd,+Pueblo+West,+CO+81007&geocode=CTPZKlyqVgy2FWnhSAIddm7C-SHVUnpcuKkh7Q&gl=US&hl=en-US

    http: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_the_Apostle

    • morkindie
      Posted January 23, 2013 at 10:22 pm | Permalink

      It seems to me that they are only concerned with life from the point of conception until the moment it becomes an issue of money.

      If she were only 3 months pregnant, they would have moved heaven and earth to save those two fetuses.

      • morkindie
        Posted January 23, 2013 at 10:44 pm | Permalink

        OK I get it.
        They are talking about “wrongful death”.

        Their definition of life is based on Colorado State Law.
        Which ever Law supports their Church.

        • morkindie
          Posted January 23, 2013 at 10:48 pm | Permalink

          “…the debate looking to underline the apparent hypocrisy of Catholic Health’s defense.”

          It’s only just now become apparent?

  14. Steve In Oakland
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 1:36 am | Permalink

    My friend Pat, a “disgruntled ex-nun,” says the Catholic Church worships real estate. And money. http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/a-hidden-property-empire-grown-with-mussolinis-millions/article4337210.ece

  15. MadScientist
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 3:40 am | Permalink

    If they’re viable (will live without machines + drugs), should they still be referred to as ‘fetus’?

    • Posted January 24, 2013 at 11:08 am | Permalink

      Yes. Fetus is the stage of development between ~10 weeks and birth. Viability in this context also doesn’t mean “without machines and drugs”, it just means “without the mother”.

      • gr8hands
        Posted January 24, 2013 at 12:33 pm | Permalink

        Most of those “viable” fetuses do not survive even with extraordinary efforts taken for them.

        • lamacher
          Posted January 24, 2013 at 2:24 pm | Permalink

          Not so. At 7 months, chances are very good. I have a grandson born at 6.5 months who did not require intubation, did well in his isolette, is now 6, with a nickname of ‘chickenhawk’.

  16. Caiomhin
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 4:52 am | Permalink

    So are you saying that Catholics have your blessing to break the secular law if it conflicts with their morality?

    I expect there will be prayers in public school any time now!

    • Posted January 24, 2013 at 12:13 pm | Permalink

      What are you talking about? In what way has Jerry suggested that the doctor(s) should have broken secular law?

      A C-section, that is, delivering the babies would’ve at least saved the babies.

      The medical issue is negligence. The issue Jerry highlights is that the Catholic institution will go along with the definition of “person” not extending to fetuses to avoid paying $$$.

      Your comment makes no sense.

  17. jose
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 5:25 am | Permalink

    Unbelievable.

  18. darrelle
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 5:50 am | Permalink

    Despicable. Or, in other words, precisely what one would expect from the catholic church.

  19. Posted January 24, 2013 at 8:12 am | Permalink

    Sickening. A C-Section should have been performed, and the legal position is hypocritical and unjust and immoral, in this case. The twins likely would have had a chance at survival. About half the number of twins are delivered early, followed by incubation support, etc. to allow their little organs to further develop.

    Let’s not forget the pregnant woman who was allowed to die recently in Ireland, because she was denied a life-saving abortion, all because of the doctors’ ‘scruples’ and the need to follow the letter of a very flawed law. Pathetic.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/11/14/ireland-abortion-death.html

    (Dr. C posted on this before.)

    • Posted January 24, 2013 at 12:15 pm | Permalink

      Indeed. 7 months is barely even considered micro-premie.

      Where was that doctor?

      • Posted January 24, 2013 at 12:16 pm | Permalink

        I should clarify: barely considered micro-premie in the more developed direction.

  20. Posted January 24, 2013 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

    Don’t be a fool. There is no hypocrisy here, only desired interpretations non-reflective of reality. Just because a hospital is labeled “Catholic” does not mean it operates in adherence to Catholic teaching. How many times have there been conflicts between bishops and universities and hospitals? Also, one must take into account that lawyers must use laws to make a case. If the law currently does not acknowledge a fetus as a person, then a lawyer must adhere to that interpretation even if his/her client believes otherwise. You assume that the Church is the one who is speaking on behalf of the hospital, she is not. Lawyers are speaking on behalf the hospital.

    • whyevolutionistrue
      Posted January 24, 2013 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

      You’re new here, so maybe you don’t know the rules about calling other comments (or your host) names. So apologize for calling either me or other commenters “fools,” or you’ll never post here again.

      • steeve
        Posted January 25, 2013 at 4:41 am | Permalink

        Jerry:
        I think as I just posted further up that “Mick” is a derogatory term for “Irish” in the same tone as the derogatory terms for other races, religions, or countries of origin that might pop into someone’s head, that I think you and no poster here would usually allow. This was used by Miles_Teg further up in the comments, and Arlene Hunt questioned the meaning in response.

        This is NOT a defence of anyone’s language here. I fully agree with your policy.

        • whyevolutionistrue
          Posted January 25, 2013 at 5:33 am | Permalink

          I didn’t see that (I have trouble reading all the comments these days!). I’ve taken the post out and Teg has been asked to apologize before he posts further.

          • steeve
            Posted January 25, 2013 at 2:26 pm | Permalink

            Thanks — and I don’t expect you to be able to read all posts — which is why I responded where I thought you probably would see my post. I am only about 1/8 Irish by the way – which is not what prompmpted my post — but I do love the Irish accent!!

    • FormerCatholic
      Posted January 24, 2013 at 9:40 pm | Permalink

      Not so fast.
      Who hires the lawyer (who is only a paid gun) or a pro bono. Who can decide to go along with that defence? Hint: the client.
      Who is the client? Who is okay with this position?
      The client in this case, made an INFORMED choice about their options. The lawyer does not go to battle without giving his client an informed choice.
      What is your choice now? Continue to defend the Church on this matter, or realize the implications of it.

  21. Ludo
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 4:51 pm | Permalink

    Another example of the dubious moral standards in Catholic hospitals:
    http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-politicians-fight-catholic-church-power-over-public-institutions-a-879

  22. Posted January 26, 2013 at 12:58 pm | Permalink

    CNN has posted a blurb on this:

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/26/us/colorado-fetus-lawsuit/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

    I have to wonder if WEIT or other sites have brought the contradiction in the Catholic hospital’s position to the attention of CNN reporters. The husband lost his wife and unborn children but has lost his lawsuit claiming the children were “living people” subject to wrongful death. He is now being sued by the hospital to recoup legal costs, but he is appealing the decision and obviously would like to see the state of Colorado declare the children “living persons”. Not much chance of that I think, but it is interesting to watch the Catholic Church squirm and equivocate.


5 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. [...] We're already aware of the hypocrisy of the church, but here's another example of it. Reply With Quote [...]

  2. [...] Catholics argue that fetuses are people – unless it costs the Church money (whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com) [...]

  3. [...] Catholics argue that fetuses are people – unless it costs the Church money (whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com) [...]

  4. [...] Catholics argue that fetuses are people – unless it costs the Church money (whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com) [...]

  5. [...] Why Evolution Is True y Fabio [...]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 27,077 other followers

%d bloggers like this: