Every sperm is sacred? Depends on who's being sued.

[Tricky]

Yep, those Catholics are mostly right-to-lifers, and prone to argue that even a fetus is a human. Most of the time. But when one of their hospitals are on the wrong end of a wrongful death lawsuit, they are likely to change their tune. What could cause this sudden change in position? Money? As they say in the Catholic Church on Friday nights, "Bingo!"

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.

For that matter, they don't believe alter boys should have many legal rights either.

 

[Jon.]

To be fair, it seems to me that they could simply be saying "You don't agree with us that fetuses are persons? Fine, then you can't hold us liable for wrongfully killing them [in the same way you would if they had been born alive]!" I mean, it's not like we skeptics ever try to turn an opponent's argument against them, do we?

 

[Mister Earl]

It's always about the numbers. And I always like to tell them, "If you're that worried about the numbers, you should be more worried about numbers five."

 

[Horatius]

To be fair, it seems to me that they could simply be saying "You don't agree with us that fetuses are persons? Fine, then you can't hold us liable for wrongfully killing them [in the same way you would if they had been born alive]!" I mean, it's not like we skeptics ever try to turn an opponent's argument against them, do we?

Well, it is win-win for them. If they win the case, they don't have to pay up, and if they lose, they have a huge propaganda tool they can use in the abortion debate.

 

[Toontown]

I have no idea where they get the idea that sperm or a fetus is sacrosanct. The Bible grants parents the right to kill their children, and to sell them into slavery.

 

[The Norseman]

I have no idea where they get the idea that sperm or a fetus is sacrosanct. The Bible grants parents the right to kill their children, and to sell them into slavery.

Of course. How else would they have the kids to sell off if they'd been terminated as fetuses?

Think of the children!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

the hospital chain reported national assets of $15 billion.

I wonder if they cover their own malpractice? If not, the legal fight may be part of the malpractice policy. My malpractice gives the insurer the right to fight or settle, it's not up to me.

But seriously, how these godly hypocrites can live with themselves?

 

[Craig4]

Where they stand seems to be determined by where they sit.

 

[Dog Breakfast]

To be fair, it seems to me that they could simply be saying "You don't agree with us that fetuses are persons? Fine, then you can't hold us liable for wrongfully killing them [in the same way you would if they had been born alive]!" I mean, it's not like we skeptics ever try to turn an opponent's argument against them, do we?

I don't know which is worse, opportunistic hypocrisy or using the death of three people to make some kind of sarcastic 'I told you so'-style point.

 

[Aepervius]

Yep, those Catholics are mostly right-to-lifers, and prone to argue that even a fetus is a human. Most of the time. But when one of their hospitals are on the wrong end of a wrongful death lawsuit, they are likely to change their tune. What could cause this sudden change in position? Money? As they say in the Catholic Church on Friday nights, "Bingo!"



For that matter, they don't believe alter boys should have many legal rights either.

In a fair world a judge would "fine fetus aren't person. Now we will look retroactivly in ALL your files to see if you privilegied the life of the fetus over that of the mother refusing an abortion and make you pay retroactively for having privlegied a non-person over a person".

 

[Pixel42]

In countries where abortion is legal there is always a limit beyond which it is not allowed except in very rare cases, e.g. where the mother's life is at risk or the fetus has died. So there's a recognition that there is a point when the developing embryo becomes a person with rights, even amongst those who support abortion. Surely whatever that limit is locally should be used in this case too, to determine whether the hospital's incompetence is actionable. 7 months is well beyond the normal legal limit for abortion.

 

[Multivac]

Surprised nobody has posted this yet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk

 

[Darat]

To be fair, it seems to me that they could simply be saying "You don't agree with us that fetuses are persons? Fine, then you can't hold us liable for wrongfully killing them [in the same way you would if they had been born alive]!" I mean, it's not like we skeptics ever try to turn an opponent's argument against them, do we?

Understand that you were being a bit tongue in cheek but the RCC is (according to them) based on absolutes; it is beyond hypocrisy for them to argue in such a way, the word for it (in their terms) is sinful.

But as the RCC has demonstrated by its actions for a long time - money trumps theology.

 

[Darat]

I don't know which is worse, opportunistic hypocrisy or using the death of three people to make some kind of sarcastic 'I told you so'-style point.

Really? You sincerely think one "sarcastic" post by one person on a little internet Forum could be worse than an organisation that will ignore one of its non-negotiable absolutes to avoid paying compensation for a failure of that organisation?

Can you explain the value system that even puts the two actions in the same book never mind on the same page?

 

[thaiboxerken]

This is just more evidence that the church is an evil organization.

 

[Baffled]

Really? You sincerely think one "sarcastic" post by one person on a little internet Forum could be worse than an organisation that will ignore one of its non-negotiable absolutes to avoid paying compensation for a failure of that organisation?

Can you explain the value system that even puts the two actions in the same book never mind on the same page?

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/catholicism-for-dummies-cheat-sheet.html

 

[AvalonXQ]

So how many different threads on this are we going to have?

Assuming it's CHI's decision and not the malpractice carrier's, it's certainly hypocritical of them in reference to their Catholic affiliation.

However, from a legal point of view, there's nothing unreasonable about arguing that under settled Colorado law the unborn can't qualify as persons under the Wrongful Death Act. This is a distinct from any consideration as to fetuses as persons for common law or Constitutional rights. And it would be remiss of any lawyer not to make this argument if it were dispositive for her client.

 

[Dog Breakfast]

Really? You sincerely think one "sarcastic" post by one person on a little internet Forum could be worse than an organisation that will ignore one of its non-negotiable absolutes to avoid paying compensation for a failure of that organisation?

Can you explain the value system that even puts the two actions in the same book never mind on the same page?

What I meant to say is, I don't know what would make the lawyers for this hospital look worse, forgetting their convictions for cash, or saying, "Oh, so fesuses aren't people huh? O-kaaaay, if you say so... but now we'll use your own law to make you wish you had never made it." I didn't mean to say Jon. was being sarcastic.

 

[Jon.]

Assuming it's CHI's decision and not the malpractice carrier's, it's certainly hypocritical of them in reference to their Catholic affiliation.

This is an excellent point, previously made by Skeptic Ginger. While the defense would be in the name of the hospital, it may well be conducted by an insurance company. Presumably, the insurance company has no qualms about making the argument, and their view should not necessarily be imparted to their insured.

However, from a legal point of view, there's nothing unreasonable about arguing that under settled Colorado law the unborn can't qualify as persons under the Wrongful Death Act. This is a distinct from any consideration as to fetuses as persons for common law or Constitutional rights. And it would be remiss of any lawyer not to make this argument if it were dispositive for her client.

Correction: It would be remiss (possibly to the point of professional negligence) for a lawyer not to suggest this argument to his or her client. The client, however, has the final say about what arguments are used; presumably, a client for whom some issues are bigger than money might not wish to have certain defenses advanced. Again, though, it depends on who the client is - if it's the insurer, it makes the decisions, not the hospital or the church.

 

[Darat]

What I meant to say is, I don't know what would make the lawyers for this hospital look worse, forgetting their convictions for cash, or saying, "Oh, so fesuses aren't people huh? O-kaaaay, if you say so... but now we'll use your own law to make you wish you had never made it." I didn't mean to say Jon. was being sarcastic.

Ah right, I had got hold of the sticky end of the stick!