- Joined
- Mar 20, 2012
- Messages
- 22,707
- Reaction score
- 9,469
- Location
- okla-freakin-homa
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
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?
You're being delusional. The bible isn't a doctrine of authority in court.
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.
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
you're also not a doctor who is "on call"
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.
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.
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".
That is irrelevant.
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.
yes, because the same expectations of being "on call" exist for all professions.
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 ...
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
I would expect a pro-abortionist/pro-choicer to have this mentality, but not a catholic hospital considering the catholic churches stand on abortion.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
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.
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 ...
I would expect a pro-abortionist/pro-choicer to have this mentality, but not a catholic hospital considering the catholic churches stand on abortion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?