Every sperm is sacred.....unless.....

While you congratulate yourself on repeating the same things over and over, dismissing any argument you don't want to hear, I think I'll just move on. My mistake.

LarryC wrote:

What's CHI's legal responsibility according to US law?

Some form of malpractice, for the on-call doctor not doing anything, resulting in there being no attempt made to save the unborn twins. If he could not have made it to the hospital himself, he at the very least should have given instructions over the phone. Instead he didn't even respond to the page.

LarryC wrote:

They're not just obeying the law by contesting the suit?

Correct, there is no legal obligation for them to contest the suit.

If there is no legal requirement to either contest or surrender, surely the defendants (CHI) are free to pursue whichever legal course they prefer?

Correct, and in this case they prefer the legal defense that fetuses are not persons.

As SpacePPoliceman and others have said (and you've ignored), the heart of the issue is that the Church is choosing to fight the case using a legal argument that is completely counter to the moral stance they're trying to have enshrined in law.

LouZiffer wrote:

The hospital calls itself a Catholic organization and benefits from Catholic funding because it operates according to Catholic standards. That doesn't mean the church operates the hospital. It's merely an affiliated organization. However, that affiliation can be severed by either party. That's where the findings of the bishops and the resulting opinion of the church count. I'm not a Catholic and have no dog in this fight, but I'm interested to see how this pans out.

From what I've been able to find, the Catholic Church has at least one person on their board, and several different congregations each have representatives as well, so it's more than just operating their business according to Catholic standards. The Church doesn't make every decision, but they are involved in making sure the hospital runs in accordance with the Church's teachings.

Stengah:

Some form of malpractice, for the on-call doctor not doing anything, resulting in there being no attempt made to save the unborn twins. If he could not have made it to the hospital himself, he at the very least should have given instructions over the phone. Instead he didn't even respond to the page.

I think we should leave that for the court to decide.

Correct, and in this case they prefer the legal defense that fetuses are not persons.
As SpacePPoliceman and others have said (and you've ignored), the heart of the issue is that the Church is choosing to fight the case using a legal argument that is completely counter to the moral stance they're trying to have enshrined in law.

I have NOT ignored that. I've repeatedly mentioned and explained why I think that there's no moral or legal contradiction in doing so. I'd do so now, except I'd just be repeating content.

Stengah wrote:

From what I've been able to find, the Catholic Church has at least one person on their board, and several different congregations each have representatives as well, so it's more than just operating their business according to Catholic standards. The Church doesn't make every decision, but they are involved in making sure the hospital runs in accordance with the Church's teachings.

That link explains a lot, Stengah. Thanks. So CHI is even more tightly bound to the church and church doctrine than its sponsored hospitals, and is considered an extension of the church in a couple of ways. With the lawyers operating on behalf of CHI, that puts the church even further in a position where it's expected to respond.

LarryC wrote:

There is no reason why CHI cannot mount this defense from either a legal or moral standpoint. It is consistent with what the Catholic Church says.

Since you responded directly to me, I'll make a single response as well: every time you repeat this statement, assume I've posted mostly the opposite (i.e. yes they have a legal standpoint, but that's the only point on which I agree with your statement here). That'll help me keep from cluttering up the thread too much.

I suppose it's possible that CHI could use the letter of the law to avoid a payout in this suit and then externally make what they feel is the morally appropriate restitution, consistent with Catholic Doctrine, for the death of the fetuses, if they feel that their doctor was at fault.

I would not hold my breath.

I agree with Mixolyde above.

The Hospital is a Legal Entity.

If the Hospital acknowledges a fault that doesn't exist under the law, they have none of the same protections that similar institutions do when the law matches what is morally right. There would be no insurance payout, since the hospital's insurance people will say - "we are not beholden to you, because "The Law" says there is no wrong doing(on the hospital's part) here.

The Hospital and its legal responsibilities should exist in this space.

Morally, the Church itself should step in and treat this as though two people died - accidentally or negligently, as the case may be. With the appropriate restitution made as it befits their moral standpoint.

I am not sure if you understand shadenfreude, oddity.

KingGorilla wrote:

I am not sure if you understand schadenfreude, oddity.

Missing a "c" there KG, but yes, catching the Catholic Church behaving badly is very pleasing.

Not until a few minutes ago... honestly.

But yes. Sometimes.

Not in the Honey-boo-boo sense but in the "Oooh, you did a bad thing and you're about to get what is coming to you." sense.

I don't think I'll be adopting that word for myself anytime soon.

I think the church should put it's money where its mouth is. I don't think that they should put other people's money where their mouth is. So I'm not sure how the word applies to my previous statement.

There's a good chance that they won't step up, but I hope that they will.

Larry, the general feeling here in the US would be that Catholics who operate a health care facility that operates under Catholic doctrine (ie, no abortions, no contraceptives for women, etc.) should not then benefit from legal positions taken in opposition to their moral beliefs, even if they are legally entitled to do so. The view is that acting in your own self-interest when that is against your moral positions, which are imposed on other people, is immoral.

A morally consistent stance would have the hospital offer to pay compensation for the deaths of the fetuses as if they were patients who had died, because it believes them to be people, and to admit culpability in the deaths of two people, because it believes that the truth is important. The use of a legal defense that denies the personhood of the fetuses invalidates any claim to the moral high ground on the part of the hospital, since it claims to be guided in it's actions by it's moral beliefs. It smacks of cowardice and bullying to the American ear - "We can tell you what to do, but we don't have to live by the same rules".

Robear wrote:

Larry, the general feeling here in the US would be that Catholics who operate a health care facility that operates under Catholic doctrine (ie, no abortions, no contraceptives for women, etc.) should not then benefit from legal positions taken in opposition to their moral beliefs, even if they are legally entitled to do so. The view is that acting in your own self-interest when that is against your moral positions, which are imposed on other people, is immoral.

A morally consistent stance would have the hospital offer to pay compensation for the deaths of the fetuses as if they were patients who had died, because it believes them to be people, and to admit culpability in the deaths of two people, because it believes that the truth is important. The use of a legal defense that denies the personhood of the fetuses invalidates any claim to the moral high ground on the part of the hospital, since it claims to be guided in it's actions by it's moral beliefs. It smacks of cowardice and bullying to the American ear - "We can tell you what to do, but we don't have to live by the same rules".

A friend of mine at work, who is generally conservative and religious said to me: "Those same people that are so up at arms about religious freedom and not having the US turned into a country governed by Islamic law, are the same people who generally say we're a Christian nation and have no problem implementing Leviticus into national law... all the while yelling when people say no to that that their religious freedoms are being trampled."

But yeah, thank you Robear, for saying what we've been saying this whole time in a much more elegant and refined way. You're a prince among men!

Also, what happened to your sig? I loved that quote!

I need a new quote for the new year, just have not settled on one yet.

Robear:

I understood that much, Robear. What I've been trying to point out is that people who have an axe to grind against the Catholic Church or who are skipping logical steps for other reasons, are asking the Catholic Church to uphold a moral stance they have not, to my knowledge, fought for (no, hold your keyboard, I'm not referring to that one). I've so far been failing rather spectacularly at explaining how this viewpoint makes sense.

oddity seems to get it, at least.

LarryC wrote:

Robear:

I understood that much, Robear. What I've been trying to point out is that people who have an axe to grind against the Catholic Church or who are skipping logical steps for other reasons, are asking the Catholic Church to uphold a moral stance they have not, to my knowledge, fought for (no, hold your keyboard, I'm not referring to that one). I've so far been failing rather spectacularly at explaining how this viewpoint makes sense.

oddity seems to get it, at least.

I think you're saying that the Church has never made an official ruling on the particular details of this particular situation, and therefore can't be inconsistent with previous doctrine. And that we in this thread, as armchair theology scholars, are assuming that the ruling should be one way, and the lawyers are arguing another. Thus hypocrisy.

I think there are a couple of problems with this view. But the chief one is that if you get detailed enough, every single event in the world is new and unruled upon. I mean, the church has never specifically said that guys named Brian Williams can't use condoms to prevent procreation. But I can assume they would if I asked them (No, I am not the newscaster, though I am pretty handsome and entertaining and modest). It seems like saying "this has never happened before, wait for the process memo" is kinda BS. Especially when "fetuses are people, too" is practically the 12th commandment.

Mixolyde:

Close, but not quite. I'm saying that the Church has its own laws and its own line of punishments for particular crimes, which it defines as sin. To admit to sin to the Church is not the same as admitting to legal liability. Two different authorities, different rules, different courts, different penal codes. So even if the Church admits that its agents have violated its rules, it's only obligated to punish them according to its own laws, since it doesn't govern legal courts and legislation. It only influences the latter, and only to the extent that every other large corporation protects its legal interests.

Short version: moral isn't legal and vice versa.

Moreover, governments in history and parts of the world also apply the rule of personhood uniquely to their time and situation, and this is also consistent. A serf is a different person from a king and killing one has punishment different from the other, though the internal logic is consistent. Killing the same class of person has a different corresponding penalty depending on circumstance. Murder 1 is not the same as homicide. That is not inconsistent.

A VERY simple view of the matter is that the Church views any fetal death the same as abortion, and that its moral guidelines are exactly the same as any state law in which it is pursuing influence on the legislature. With those assumptions in place, the Church is acting inconsistently with its stated ideals.

Larry, no matter how you twist and dance and rationalize, I do not believe your cognitive dissonance is persuasive to anyone but you.

Well, again, if anyone thinks that the Church will act externally to the legal proceedings and provide what they feel is a morally appropriate restitution, I would not hold my breath. It's not like they paid reparations for all of the sinning done in the name of the Crusades or anything.

Although, that period of history did give us the awesome Crusader Kings 2, which is pretty cool.

There may be a fair chance of it. So far as I know, murdering someone has a penalty of saying sorry (many things, but that's the only thing of relevance to the victim's survivors). Coercing its followers to pay money for transgressions according to its laws would be very state-like. The last time I know of that the Catholic Church had a more direct hand in judicial and executive proceedings was the Inquisition and no one remembers that fondly.

LarryC wrote:

There may be a fair chance of it. So far as I know, murdering someone has a penalty of saying sorry (many things, but that's the only thing of relevance to the victim's survivors). Coercing its followers to pay money for transgressions according to its laws would be very state-like. The last time I know of that the Catholic Church had a more direct hand in judicial and executive proceedings was the Inquisition and no one remembers that fondly.

Certainly no one expected it.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

This is not a case where they're just obeying the law--there is no legal requirement to contest suits brought against oneself. This is a case of using the law to attempt to shirk responsibility.

There may be a contractual requirement to do so should they want 3rd party malpractice insurance though.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:

This is not a case where they're just obeying the law--there is no legal requirement to contest suits brought against oneself. This is a case of using the law to attempt to shirk responsibility.

There may be a contractual requirement to do so should they want 3rd party malpractice insurance though.

Possible, and I'd give them most of a pass if that was the case. To be consistent in their position they would still need to provide some compensation out of court though.

SallyNasty wrote:
LarryC wrote:

There may be a fair chance of it. So far as I know, murdering someone has a penalty of saying sorry (many things, but that's the only thing of relevance to the victim's survivors). Coercing its followers to pay money for transgressions according to its laws would be very state-like. The last time I know of that the Catholic Church had a more direct hand in judicial and executive proceedings was the Inquisition and no one remembers that fondly.

Certainly no one expected it.

Especially in Spain.

Farscry wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:
LarryC wrote:

There may be a fair chance of it. So far as I know, murdering someone has a penalty of saying sorry (many things, but that's the only thing of relevance to the victim's survivors). Coercing its followers to pay money for transgressions according to its laws would be very state-like. The last time I know of that the Catholic Church had a more direct hand in judicial and executive proceedings was the Inquisition and no one remembers that fondly.

Certainly no one expected it.

Especially in Spain.

But those guys in Al-Andalus were all over it.

Farscry wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:
LarryC wrote:

There may be a fair chance of it. So far as I know, murdering someone has a penalty of saying sorry (many things, but that's the only thing of relevance to the victim's survivors). Coercing its followers to pay money for transgressions according to its laws would be very state-like. The last time I know of that the Catholic Church had a more direct hand in judicial and executive proceedings was the Inquisition and no one remembers that fondly.

Certainly no one expected it.

Especially in Spain.

or Jarrow.

Looks like the Hospital and Church finally crunched enough numbers to realize this was a losing proposition for them.

Ugh. Awful, awful, awful. Note also:

"Democrats later unveiled their own bill that would make it a crime to kill a fetus during a criminal act committed against a pregnant woman. That measure specifically states that the intent is to neither outlaw abortions nor give unborn children additional rights."

Same thing; much less logically consistent. There's no separation of institutions and practices to justify that.

Anything that leads to the absurd legal proposals we're seeing here is a loss for women's rights. But I can't say it is at all awful that the Catholic organizations noted here are being held to the moral positions they have so loudly and publicly advocated for in this country. I am also all for more publicity bungles for the church.

LarryC wrote:

Ugh. Awful, awful, awful. Note also:

"Democrats later unveiled their own bill that would make it a crime to kill a fetus during a criminal act committed against a pregnant woman. That measure specifically states that the intent is to neither outlaw abortions nor give unborn children additional rights."

Same thing; much less logically consistent. There's no separation of institutions and practices to justify that.

Depends, when it comes to the treatment of fetuses? Yes. When it comes to the treatment of women? Nooooot so much from my perspective.

A lot of people (myself included) support these laws because as a protection for pregnant women. It's to stop the targeting of pregnant women for murder by idiot boyfriends/ex's. The law is supposed to help women live happy and healthy lives by their own choices, much like making the choice to have an abortion when they are not medically, emotionally, or financially secure enough for a child in their lives. I would say two different political stances that both support women from perceived/demonstrated harm is actually not that bad in terms of hypocrisy. It's a view point thing.

That said, trying to point out Democrats as hypocritical here for making some flubs between the two while serving their constituents versus the Catholic Church making some flubs between the two while trying to cover their own arses is frankly a little pathetic.

I really don't like the "Everyone else does it" defense for anyone... but a weak secondary example of hypocrsy (and only from the point of view of the fetus, they did perfectly fine by women there) just strikes me as trying too hard to defend the indefensible for the Church.

I'm pointing out the double standard. The Church wasn't advocating for a change to the Wrongful Death Act, and even if they did, nothing they've said is contradictory. People find it so because they WANT to find it so, conveniently obscuring details and overlooking actual law and statements issued. You don't need to look far for the contradiction in that bit of Democrat action. It's self-enclosed. I don't see why this is pathetic, or why this is a "defense" of the Catholic Church.

The sex scandal coverups? Yeah, those were bad. You won't find me saying anything otherwise. This? It's not. It's just another incident that people who have axes to grind want to misrepresent so they can do their hatchet jobs.