http://coloradoindependent.com/126808/i … ent-people
There is no denying that, based on the position of the catholic church, this legal strategy is completely indefensible. If all of the unborn (even newly fertilized eggs) are human beings, how could the catholic church ever argue the court:
"should not overturn [my emphasis] 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."
When push comes to shove, and we follow the money, perhaps the catholic church is even more pro-choice than most people who label themselves as such!
Hey Sooner. Howze it goin’?
“Monumental hypocrisy?” I hope you do not mind my saying your title is not only unnecessarily harsh but also totally inappropriate. Read the article and it is obvious the Church is not arguing that the twins were not persons. They are arguing Colorado State law says they are not persons. The court is being asked to address a legal issue and not a moral one. Colorado law, none the less, says the Wrongful Death Act only applies to individuals born alive. That is not the Church’s position that is the statute’s position. Apparently, this law does not cover the twins. As indicated in the article, briefs submitted on behalf of the Hospital deal with applicable state laws. Clearly, church doctrine is not even an issue in this case.
I thank you, Sooner, for sharing these events with us.
You are an intelligent man Quill, but sometimes your interpretation of events strikes me as strange.
The catholic church calls it murder to have an abortion, and also makes the outrageous claim that condom use is immoral.
To then hide behind Colorado law so you can avoid a giant lawsuit is, in fact, monumental hypocrisy. Your defense doesn't have any bearing at all on what I am claiming.
If they truly believe any and all abortions are murder, then why defend yourself in court based on a law you think justifies GENOCIDE (the way some pro-lifers describe abortion). It would be similar to saying, I am against the institution of slavery, but since I own a slave, and the law claims I can do so, I then use that very law I call abhorrent to defend my position. In effect, if the catholic church is right (which I don't think they are, but since they do, they cannot avoid this implication), they defended the basis of genocide for monetary purposes.
Furthermore, the catholic church does not, in public debates, claim a moral position separate from a legal one when it comes to abortion. It wants all abortions to be illegal, except maybe when the life of the mother is in question, but that is a big maybe for their particular point of view.
So, I hope this makes it clearer why this is monumental hypocrisy.
Thanks for your reply, Sooner. You have made it absolutely clear why this is a monumental hypocrisy but one that exists only in your own mind.
It would be monumental hypocrisy, however, if the church had argued before the court that the unborn fetuses were not "persons." The church recognizes the unborn as persons but the state law does not!
“To then hide behind Colorado law so you can avoid a giant lawsuit is, in fact, monumental hypocrisy.”
By reading the article you posted I determined that the church did not “hide” behind Colorado law. It is obvious after brushing away the negative tone of the content, the remaining facts indicate the case was dismissed because of legal shortcomings and not because of any church “hiding.”
Once more, Colorado state courts hold the Wrongful Death Act only applies to persons born alive. Church doctrine has absolutely no bearing on this legal definition. Are you with me so far? The case was dismissed because the law does not apply so long as the State of Colorado adheres to the existing definition of a “person.” So, the case will move to the State Supreme Court and then we both will learn the final legal decision.
I contend your interpretation of events would be quite strange if you do not agree with me when I say the case would NOT have been dismissed if the state law defined unborn fetuses as “persons.” As simple as simple gets. While the church defines an unborn as a “person,” the court can not make a decision based on the church’s definition. The plaintiff has a right to file another suit but not one based on the state’s Wrongful Death Act.
The essence of your argument is the church is hypocritical because the State of Colorado does not define an unborn fetus as a “person.” The church did not argue that the unborn fetuses were not “persons,” nor was the church hypocritical, when bringing the state’s definition to the attention of the court!
As I have said on other occasions, a sound argument sometimes needs clarification but it never needs repeating. You have my clarification. You are welcome to view this case as some form of hypocrisy but it would be foolish for anyone to presume your opinion is in anyway based upon the facts.
Have a great day tomorrow, Sooner, and enjoy your weekend as well.
BTW, considered for a moment, Sooner, the ramifications if the Colorado State Supreme Court was to decide the two unborn fetuses are legally “persons” and therefore have the right to collect damages from the hospital. The precedent could make abortions illegal in the State of Colorado.
"It would be monumental hypocrisy, however, if the church had argued before the court that the unborn fetuses were not "persons." The church recognizes the unborn as persons but the state law does not! "
This is simply false. That is exactly what they have argued in the past, and why I posted a link to the article to show the difference! I quoted this at the beginning of the forum, and linked it, but I will post it again here.
"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.”
I think there is some misunderstanding here, and I want to clarify it now. I do not fit the definition of what is commonly called pro-life, which is a completely inaccurate description of the people who hold the position to begin with, but I am using it for clarity purposes. I am pro-choice, up to the time of sentience, and possibly viability, depending on the circumstances in question. For example, if a fetus is partially sentient at 8 months, but has severe medical problems and couldn't live outside of the womb, I think an abortion could be justified in such a case.
In any event, my position on this issue is entirely irrelevant, because I am taking the conclusions the catholic church claims to believe in as my starting point, and then evaluating their actions based on their own criteria.
Now, you didn't respond at all to my slavery example, and after rereading my response, I don't think it was as clear as it could have been. I'm not going to use any hypotheticals this time, just the catholic church's own beliefs.
"The essence of your argument is the church is hypocritical because the State of Colorado does not define an unborn fetus as a “person.” The church did not argue that the unborn fetuses were not “persons,” nor was the church hypocritical, when bringing the state’s definition to the attention of the court!
This is not the essence of my argument. I'll try and lay it out again.
The catholic church defines a fetus (no matter what stage), as a "person", and considers any termination of that "person" to be murder. Maybe infanticide would be a more accurate characterization of how they view the number of dead "persons" as a result of the number of abortions performed at least since Roe v. Wade.
Additionally, like the article points out and is widely known by any casual observer of politics, the catholic church has actively opposed the decision of Roe v. Wade, and thinks it is a moral atrocity. Yet, in this instance when the hospital is being sued because Dr. Staples was allegedly negligent in his medical duties, they are suddenly deciding that they want to defend the Colorado law, which they said in the last breath was infanticide!
If I were to walk up to you, and tell you abortion was institutional infanticide, and I was a lawyer who had worked all my life to fight loose abortion laws, but then informed you a hospital I represent was being sued because of medical negligence that resulted in the death of two persons, and my legal strategy was to argue the twins are not actually "persons", thereby defending the existing law I had just portrayed as vile, a natural response would be to ask how that I had achieved such an impenetrable cognitive dissonance.
To reiterate, I am pro-choice, and I am only using the church's own criteria to point out their own hypocrisy. I am not arguing that the catholic church is right and the law should be changed. I hope I have at least elucidated my position that far.
"BTW, considered for a moment, Sooner, the ramifications if the Colorado State Supreme Court was to decide the two unborn fetuses are legally “persons” and therefore have the right to collect damages from the hospital. The precedent could make abortions illegal in the State of Colorado. "
I agree with this, and I am actively against it. I am simply asking for the church to exhibit a little bit of consistency, even when there is pecuniary consequences. This is just for intellectual honesty's sake.
by Claire Evans3 years ago
On various occasions I have been attacked because of my condemnation of the Vatican even by non believers! It is more severe than any other topic I bring up. Why is it so hard to accept that evil has...
by Justin Earick4 years ago
Sodom wasn't smited for homosexuality (false-idol worship, poor treatment of strangers and the poor, gang rape). Leviticus doesn't matter (old covenant, pork, lobster, tattoos, mixed fibers, period sex,...
by Sooner284 years ago
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/21/us/re … odayspaperWhy is this still allowed? If the Catholic Church ever had a doctrine that said African Americans, Asian Americans, or Hispanic Americans could not be...
by amymarie_55 years ago
I take birth control pills for medical reasons. I have PCOS. Without it, my hormones would be imbalanced and I'd be at risk for uterine cancer. There are many women like me. I find it disturbing that those...
by quietnessandtrust5 years ago
1st Timothy 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Why would the Apostle Paul need to explain that Adam was formed first and then...
by Grace Marguerite Williams3 years ago
Pope Benedict steadfastly maintained that gay marriage is an "assault" on family values and denigrates the "true" purpose of marriage which is to be between male and female with the purpose of...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.