Since Roe v. Wade..there has been debate ad naseum over when "life" begins. Roe v. Wade essentially holds that society must balance the rights of a fetus to the rights of a mother once the fetus is determined to be viable.

Roe v. Wade recognizes that viability cannot occur before 12 weeks so the rights of the woman's privacy are absolute  when it comes to a decision to terminate pregnancy.
 After 12 weeks..if I understand it correctly...it becomes a state issue where states are allowed to set their own rules.

This has caused much debate between those who are anti-abortion and those who are pro-choice. Religion has played an enormous role in this debate..with many anti-abortion supporters invoking the Church's rights..and "God's will".

However..it appears that the Catholic Church doesn't always practice what they preach. In 2006, Lori Stodghill , 28 weeks pregnant with twins..went to St. Thomas More Hospital suffering..it turns out..from cardiac arrest. No attempt was made on behalf of the hospital staff to deliver her twins before she died..resulting in their death. Her husband sued the hospital for wrongful death of his wife as well as the twin boys who died with her. The Catholic Church argued that he could not sue for wrongful death of the twin boys since they were not "people" until they were born.

Now..the Catholic Church definition of when life personhood starts goes way beyond science's. No one knows better than I that a baby born at 28 weeks is without question..viable. My son was born at 28 weeks. 

While I respect everyone's beliefs and perspectives on the issues..this should serve to remind everyone why religious beliefs should not be the thing on which we base society's laws. Yes..they should inform..but not be the basis.

It's kind of hard to take anything the Catholic Church might say on when personhood begins when they themselves argued that it begins only after birth. I guess their definition of personhood is fluid..depending on how much it may cost them.

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

I'd love to hear from the loudmouth conservatives who called Obama a liar based on the DOJ's defense of Obamacare as a tax.

I take it they feel the entire Catholic Church - especially the Pope - are a bunch of lying hypocrite scum, immoral murderers to boot.

Well what am I saying ?! THat's where their logic from slamming Obama would lead them if applied here. Of course they won't say that!

 

(They're honest like that)

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

 
Haha..I fully expect some kind of spurious argument from them...it seems to be their specialty...!

The Catholic Church is morally absolutist when it comes to women's reproductive rights--they don't have any. But it picks and chooses its moral stance when it gets hauled into court to defend itself in a wrongful death action. That is inconsistent, plain and simple. It is also morally indefensible.

Legally they may be on solid ground with their arguments, but morally and ethically they are circling the drain of credibility.

Most will sell out their beliefs when it comes to the almighty buck. The Catholic church is no different.

Mixing Obama and the Catholic Church is like trying to mix tequila with Yaegermeister, they don't mix, and never should be done.

Two evil entities that have no right getting involved in a Womans right to chose.

The chruch should stay out of it, as should the governemnt!  Especially Obama!

 

This post has been removed.

Hypocrites? Weak.

The Catholic church, especially the pope, are also mass murderers. Just look at what their lawyers are arguing in court!

Simple case of the church's liability insurance attorneys getting out in front of church doctrine.  The insurer will use what ever legal and procedural strategies it has to protect its bottom line, this wasn't a Pope call as its not the church's money that is at risk here.

An attorneys job is to act on behalf of it's client in this case the insurance compnay; morals and ethics be damned, it's about the law.

This post has been removed.

...

In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

Right. And the DOJ defending Obamacare as a tax did not make Obama a hypocrite.

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

Well the attorneys made the church look like hypocrites just like they made Obama look like one; perception vs. reality how close they are depends on which side you're on.

In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

Lawyers are not permitted to take positions or make arguments that their clients do not wish them to take/make. So that means that someone in the Catholic hospital hierarchy signed off on the argument that the twins did not constitute "human lives." That anyone in a high-level position at a Catholic hospital would agree to that is the issue here and its hypocritical.

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

I tend to think the Church has been far more adamant on when life begins than Obama ever was about the "tax / not tax" business. After all, the penalty - necessarily a tax - was in the mix from the beginning.

To think of all the people the church has demonized over the abortion issue....

 

 

 

As Username points out, a client can prohibit his attorney from making a specific arguemnt, and he can insist the attorney include it.

There's the "moffett" rule in Mass., which applies this to appeals. If you think an argument is complete and utter nonsense, but your client insists you make it, you must include a that section in yoru brief and in fact flag it as a "moffett argument".

 

 

 

 

Obviously, the church here is more interested in money than it is in principle. I'm not scandalized because, well, I've read history. So I'm not going to jump up and down and make a big deal about it....    

I just feel let down by all the people who were so upset over the DOJ 'it's a tax' defense.... 

 

 

 

Also note: In this case, it seems very likely the church has a perfectly viable other defense: If someone is suffering from cardiac arrest and you try to simultaneously revive them (especially if it requires surgery) and deliver babies (c-section ??), you're going to seriously reduce the chances of survival.

Is it even physically feasible to, say, shock someone with paddles (causing them to bounce around) as someone else is trying to cut out the babies?

But if you focus on the cardiac arrest, you increase the chances of everyone living.

Christ, BDC, just delete the entire forum and get it over with!

In response to miscricket's comment:

 

Since Roe v. Wade..there has been debate ad naseum over when "life" begins. Roe v. Wade essentially holds that society must balance the rights of a fetus to the rights of a mother once the fetus is determined to be viable.

Roe v. Wade recognizes that viability cannot occur before 12 weeks so the rights of the woman's privacy are absolute  when it comes to a decision to terminate pregnancy.
 After 12 weeks..if I understand it correctly...it becomes a state issue where states are allowed to set their own rules.

This has caused much debate between those who are anti-abortion and those who are pro-choice. Religion has played an enormous role in this debate..with many anti-abortion supporters invoking the Church's rights..and "God's will".

However..it appears that the Catholic Church doesn't always practice what they preach. In 2006, Lori Stodghill , 28 weeks pregnant with twins..went to St. Thomas More Hospital suffering..it turns out..from cardiac arrest. No attempt was made on behalf of the hospital staff to deliver her twins before she died..resulting in their death. Her husband sued the hospital for wrongful death of his wife as well as the twin boys who died with her. The Catholic Church argued that he could not sue for wrongful death of the twin boys since they were not "people" until they were born.

Now..the Catholic Church definition of when life personhood starts goes way beyond science's. No one knows better than I that a baby born at 28 weeks is without question..viable. My son was born at 28 weeks. 

While I respect everyone's beliefs and perspectives on the issues..this should serve to remind everyone why religious beliefs should not be the thing on which we base society's laws. Yes..they should inform..but not be the basis.

It's kind of hard to take anything the Catholic Church might say on when personhood begins when they themselves argued that it begins only after birth. I guess their definition of personhood is fluid..depending on how much it may cost them.

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

 

This is why church and state should always be separate. Glad I'm not a Catholic anymore.....

 

 

 

This is not what the Catholic Church believes.  The poster miscricket would have us believe that a 55 bed hospital in Colorado is symbolic of the Catholic Church. 

A crazy church group is responsible for this disaster and Catholic Bishops are investigating.

Facts are that the Church has less and less control over hositals of which they ran years ago. Health care became too expensive years ago and the church has handed over control of many of their hospitals to businesses.

 

"No attempt was made on behalf of the hospital staff to deliver her twins before she died..resulting in their death."

above by Miscricket

The policy on this by the Catholic Church is to save the baby before the mother when complications come up.  This policy angers many groups, so there is no pleasing everyone. The Catholic Church is clear on this matter, so when a tragedy like this happens, there is usually a nut who will rush to blogs to blame the Church.

Amazing how the Cathoilic Church's position can change on time to fit the situation.  They band to together so that they don't pay for contraception, but have no control in situations where they might get sued.

How about the Catholic church put as effort at protecting it's so called flock as they do in protecting their bank accounts?

As if the Attorney's would make an argument without the complete blessing on the leadership of the hospital.  They let 2 little babies die in the womb and then have the nerve to say they weren't people. 

In response to miscricket's comment:

"Since Roe v. Wade..there has been debate ad naseum over when "life" begins."

From a scientific point of view, life begins at conception.  

Are we un-ringing the bell on science now?

 

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

Obama had it both ways, arguing in one case it wasn't a tax, in another, arguing that it is a tax.

Such Orwellian logic is the hobgoblin of the left.

Re-readingthe articel, I am drawn to this conclusion:   idon't know why people look for support for their positions on abortion in the faults of others.