Catholic Hospital declares Fetus "Not Human"

[Ban]

Kaworu 17

Boudica Celtic Queen

Kaworu 17

Boudica Celtic Queen

blah blah blah the first post

Did anyone actually say that or is your title sensationalist propaganda?

Oh sorry. I forgot reading isn't fundamental for you.

And I forgot that telling the truth isn't fundamental to you.

The lawyer for Catholic Health Initiatives made the argument that "[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."

One might think they would be an estoppel issue here, but I guess not.

[Panwick]

Boudica Celtic Queen

St Thomas More Hospital in Colorado is fighting, and currently beating, a lawsuit brought by a man whose wife and unborn 7 month old twins died due to non-care they received when she was brought in by ambulance dying. The obstetrician never responded to the emergency page to come to the hospital even though he was on call and staff would not perform the necessary c-section that could have saved all three lives. Instead, the woman died and so did the twins. At 7 months they are considered viable as they can survive outside the womb and although staff detected no heartbeats, an emergency c-section could have saved them.

It is truly hypocritical especially knowing that Catholic hospitals have fired nurses for saving the life of the mother because they "took the baby's life" along with all their other stances on human reproduction. They are a sad excuse for an organization.

Church Hypocrisy

So they just let a woman and two potential newborn infants die to prove that abortion should be illegal?

Well. I'm going to go knife myself to death. Bye, everyone.

[The Stories Never Told]

False Dichotomy

ChiyoSuzaku

They MIGHT have saved them. There was never a guarantee, just the speculation that trying would have given them a chance. And I believe the reports said that they believed they could have saved the children, not the mother.

But the reason they are doing it, is to prove a point. Instead of taking the usual approach of advocating their belief, they are testing to what extent we truly believe that a fetus is expendable. If they lose this case, they are actually winning because that is the law saying that those two fetuses were indeed people.

At the expense of treating human lives as expendable to achieve a point, which is anathema. If you believe that every life is sacred, then you should act on it first, and speak on it second.

If you believe that human lives are to be spent as desperadoes to your cause, then your freaking cause better not be "every life is sacred."

Unfortunately, ChiyoSazuka is correct.

By taking a deplorable position on a controversial case, the Church is bound to lose. However, to them, this is exactly what they want. It's indirectly an abortion aimed case, which we all know how they feel about such things. By setting themselves up to lose from their point (which is that a fetus is not a 'human being'), they are indirectly winning from the husband's side (which is that those twins were indeed people).

As to how an organization could treat life so tragically, I suggest history.

[Aporeia]

The Stories Never Told

False Dichotomy

ChiyoSuzaku

They MIGHT have saved them. There was never a guarantee, just the speculation that trying would have given them a chance. And I believe the reports said that they believed they could have saved the children, not the mother.

But the reason they are doing it, is to prove a point. Instead of taking the usual approach of advocating their belief, they are testing to what extent we truly believe that a fetus is expendable. If they lose this case, they are actually winning because that is the law saying that those two fetuses were indeed people.

At the expense of treating human lives as expendable to achieve a point, which is anathema. If you believe that every life is sacred, then you should act on it first, and speak on it second.

If you believe that human lives are to be spent as desperadoes to your cause, then your freaking cause better not be "every life is sacred."

Unfortunately, ChiyoSazuka is correct.

By taking a deplorable position on a controversial case, the Church is bound to lose. However, to them, this is exactly what they want. It's indirectly an abortion aimed case, which we all know how they feel about such things. By setting themselves up to lose from their point (which is that a fetus is not a 'human being'), they are indirectly winning from the husband's side (which is that those twins were indeed people).

As to how an organization could treat life so tragically, I suggest history.

I'm well aware of the hypocrisy of the catholic church throughout history. I'm not unsure about "oh how could they do this?" The short answer is that they aren't practitioners of their own beliefs, and they obviously aren't practitioners of the hippocratic oath.

[The Stories Never Told]

False Dichotomy

The Stories Never Told

False Dichotomy

ChiyoSuzaku

They MIGHT have saved them. There was never a guarantee, just the speculation that trying would have given them a chance. And I believe the reports said that they believed they could have saved the children, not the mother.

But the reason they are doing it, is to prove a point. Instead of taking the usual approach of advocating their belief, they are testing to what extent we truly believe that a fetus is expendable. If they lose this case, they are actually winning because that is the law saying that those two fetuses were indeed people.

At the expense of treating human lives as expendable to achieve a point, which is anathema. If you believe that every life is sacred, then you should act on it first, and speak on it second.

If you believe that human lives are to be spent as desperadoes to your cause, then your freaking cause better not be "every life is sacred."

Unfortunately, ChiyoSazuka is correct.

By taking a deplorable position on a controversial case, the Church is bound to lose. However, to them, this is exactly what they want. It's indirectly an abortion aimed case, which we all know how they feel about such things. By setting themselves up to lose from their point (which is that a fetus is not a 'human being'), they are indirectly winning from the husband's side (which is that those twins were indeed people).

As to how an organization could treat life so tragically, I suggest history.

I'm well aware of the hypocrisy of the catholic church throughout history. I'm not unsure about "oh how could they do this?" The short answer is that they aren't practitioners of their own beliefs, and they obviously aren't practitioners of the hippocratic oath.

Right. Right. Okay, then. Everything's in agreement, then? Good.

[Aporeia]

The Stories Never Told

False Dichotomy

The Stories Never Told

False Dichotomy

ChiyoSuzaku

They MIGHT have saved them. There was never a guarantee, just the speculation that trying would have given them a chance. And I believe the reports said that they believed they could have saved the children, not the mother.

But the reason they are doing it, is to prove a point. Instead of taking the usual approach of advocating their belief, they are testing to what extent we truly believe that a fetus is expendable. If they lose this case, they are actually winning because that is the law saying that those two fetuses were indeed people.

At the expense of treating human lives as expendable to achieve a point, which is anathema. If you believe that every life is sacred, then you should act on it first, and speak on it second.

If you believe that human lives are to be spent as desperadoes to your cause, then your freaking cause better not be "every life is sacred."

Unfortunately, ChiyoSazuka is correct.

By taking a deplorable position on a controversial case, the Church is bound to lose. However, to them, this is exactly what they want. It's indirectly an abortion aimed case, which we all know how they feel about such things. By setting themselves up to lose from their point (which is that a fetus is not a 'human being'), they are indirectly winning from the husband's side (which is that those twins were indeed people).

As to how an organization could treat life so tragically, I suggest history.

I'm well aware of the hypocrisy of the catholic church throughout history. I'm not unsure about "oh how could they do this?" The short answer is that they aren't practitioners of their own beliefs, and they obviously aren't practitioners of the hippocratic oath.

Right. Right. Okay, then. Everything's in agreement, then? Good.

My reply wasn't confrontory, it was complimentary.

[Kaworu 17]

Ban

The lawyer for Catholic Health Initiatives made the argument that "[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."

One might think they would be an estoppel issue here, but I guess not.

Sicut cogitatus.

[Kaworu 17]

The Stories Never Told

As to how an organization could treat life so tragically, I suggest history.

>Strongly discouraged the practice of abandoning babies in Antiquity
>First to build hospitals in Europe
>World's largest charity
>Still has its history described myopically as if written by Umberto Eco.

[The Stories Never Told]

Kaworu 17

The Stories Never Told

As to how an organization could treat life so tragically, I suggest history.

>Strongly discouraged the practice of abandoning babies in Antiquity
>First to build hospitals in Europe
>World's largest charity
>Still has its history described myopically as if written by Umberto Eco.

-Manipulated holiday names to make it seem more likable for the Pagan masses, all for the goal of more members.
-Started the crusades for largely monetary and political reasons, contrary to what it claimed to be doing.
-Merciless humiliation and excommunication for those who have dared to raise a folly point against them.

[Kaworu 17]

The Stories Never Told

-Manipulated holiday names to make it seem more likable for the Pagan masses, all for the goal of more members.
-Started the crusades for largely monetary and political reasons, contrary to what it claimed to be doing.
-Merciless humiliation and excommunication for those who have dared to raise a folly point against them.

- Holiday names? How is CHRISTmass palatable to pagans?
- "started a war for political reasons" Wow, my mind is blown. Never thought about that.
- 500 years ago. Now that's just punishing the son for the sins of his great-great-great-great-great grandfather.

[Inscriven]

Though I'm not Christian, I think this whole thing is sensationalist bullshit that both side of the coin are trying to use to their political advantage.

CHI is not under the auspices of the Catholic Church. It's a private organization that claim to be run with a Catholic influence to it's ethical operating beliefs.

The lawyer who is making the defense argument is not a representative of the local Diosces or from the Vatican. He's a run of the mill lawyer, not a canon lawyer or an Apologist. He's probably not even catholic and is using what is available to defend his client using secular law as he is paid to do. So lambasting him because he's not upholding catholic morality is stupid.

None of this has to do with the Church, and everything to do with how that hospital was run.

Their OBs and docs failed to take action in the ways that they were expected to do, and/or not show up at all, the hospital had no plan B for when the on-call was not available, so there was nobody to really make the call and do the procedures there because nobody was qualified to do so, and to ignore the chain of command would have placed those nurses and other healthcare workers under serious legal trouble even though they tried to do the best under their circumstances.

It's a malpractice suit. Nothing more.

[Limonchiki]

1. I don't know that it's fair to call Catholic hospitals a "sad excuse for an organization" based on this incident. I do not know much about the general quality of their medical care or how ethically they tend to operate. I'm just saying, if this story is your reason for hating Catholic hospitals, it seems unfair, and if hating Catholicism is your reason for hating Catholic hospitals, that is just silly because they are hospitals and not parishes.

2. I agree that this is an inconsistent message. Catholic hospitals contradicting Church teaching does not create a contradiction in that teaching as they are not in any way part of the Church Hierarchy or representative of the Church except in name, but still, if they're going to carry the name "Catholic" they should probably act and speak in a manner consistent with whatever Rome says. If you say that life is sacred, it is not really respectable to temporarily abandon that position to save money in a legal battle.

3. Anyway, this is a legal issue mostly, not a religious one. Should the hospital be responsible? Probably, it seems like they didn't do their job. Should they be held responsible for the baby's death specifically? Maybe, if it can be proven very likely that it would have been saved had they done their job properly- that's for legal professionals and medical experts to determine. If the baby's death is their fault, should they take responsibility? Probably so, if they want to present a statement about the nature of human life consistent with Catholic teaching. Does their failure to take responsibility make the Catholic Church self-contradictory? No.

TLDR, people are free to disagree with or dislike the Catholic Church for any number of reasons, and are perhaps justified, but this incident is not what I'd call a good reason. It seems a little unsophisticated to take something that sounds kind of controversial but isn't really that important and use it as a "gotcha" example.

[Mordred Killian]

This comes down to a lack of morality. Where one gets their morality reflects their own beliefs and actions. This is at the source of this problem. One side might argue that we have the right over the life of another but isn't that self appointed superiority? Abortion clinics and such argue that a mother has the Right to murder her unborn child since it is her that is carrying it, justifying it with her not being ready or too young or unable to care for it. So we refuse life to someone just because they are an inconvenience? Would any of you like to be in such a situation? Every one has the right to live because no one has the authority to assign the right to take life and much less call it their right to do so.

This hospital, calling itself a Catholic hospital is clearly representing that faith and their inconsistency with that faith is just another blow to Catholics and in turn Christians all around the world. The Lord talks about the fate of those who harm a child. "it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and too be drowned in the depths of the sea" (Mathew 18:6). Choosing to say that these lives are not lives at all, or not even human doesn't change the fact that they are refusing them the opportunity at life.

Who are we to say, "He can't live" or " he can live"? Are you so able to give life yourself? No. So why try and take it away. To steal something given to them by someone else, that someone being God.

If this country so chooses to create it's own morals, like its has been so recently, what's to say we won't all become Nazi's or all become slaves? If there is nothing for us to keep upright and uphold, wouldn't we all just do as we please? The sad fact is that politicians, hospitals, church leaders, all calling themselves Americans, choose to disguise this campaign of total selfish indulgence and call it 'Freedom' and 'Rights' and 'Liberty'.

Who are we to become as a country if there is nothing for us to stand by and live our lives by every day? What would distinguish us from a tribe or a civilization? We are changing every day, under this new President who drives a change inconsistent with belief or with morals.

How can we weep over a child massacre when we allow 1.3 million children to be killed by their own mothers? How would you feel today if your mother told you she had truly wanted to abort you but didn't in the end?

This case with this hospital is just one grain of sand in a shore of wrongs going on in our country and it's causing this country to fail. If anyone has belief in our God, he can see but for those that don't there are endless proofs that I can give you as to why so many Americans are unhappy about why our country is moving in the wrong direction, whether it be because:

-the great effort to remove any and all restrictions on same-sex marriages, abortion, and embryotic stem cell research;

-the failure to protect ourselves from illegal immigration affecting us in a fiscal and physical way;

-the debt that will have our children and grandchildren enslaved by trillions of dollars.

-the government officials unwilling to recognize and speak about the war on terror;

-the government's will to deny the first amendment to Americans who are traveling overseas in order to prevent offending Islam extremists;

-and even the denial by many, even Christians, that this country was founded as a Christian nation.

Is anyone angry and tired with all of this? Can anyone see where were headed? Does anyone know the solution? Robert Jeffress knows and has written about it in Twilight's Last Gleaming. A book that I urge every American should read in order to get past the illusions set over us by the movies, music and tv to see what we actually want and what we need to do to get it.

[Lychee Bae]

video

[Fallpray]

You can't condemn the entire Catholic church body based on one bad incident. It's akin to boycotting education because one of the teachers is bad.

The way to go

Sue the hospital - And it is being done. Good

Sack the doctors or nurses responsible for the incident, or at least make them pay a heavy penalty.

This has nothing to do with religion, and is nothing more than a case of medical negligence.

Similar cases has happened in non Catholic hospitals. So I don't understand what you are driving at.