Catholic hospital argues that a fetus is not a person - Page 3 - TigerDroppings.com

Posted byMessage
evil cockroach
LSU Fan
27.98N // 86.92E
Member since Nov 2007
5126 posts

re: Catholic hospital argues that a fetus is not a person


quote:

This is like claiming that the state says it is okay to speed because a couple of cops decide on their own not to enforce speed limits.
BOOM






Back to top
  Replies (0)
evil cockroach
LSU Fan
27.98N // 86.92E
Member since Nov 2007
5126 posts

re: Catholic hospital argues that a fetus is not a person


quote:

Who knows ... maybe the legal team just didn't consult the archdiocese ahead of time?
lol wut?







Back to top
  Replies (0)
NC_Tigah
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2003
52069 posts
 Online 

re: Catholic hospital argues that a fetus is not a person


quote:

CC is all smoke and mirrors.
or incense and reflection.

In the meantime, the millions and millions in dollars and services assisting the underprivileged say you're painfully sophomoric in your statement.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
Poodlebrain
LSU Fan
Way Right of Rex
Member since Jan 2004
15344 posts

re: Catholic hospital argues that a fetus is not a person


quote:

That's exactly what the church is doing. All of this sophistry about the lawyers doing their job by arguing the law is missing the point. If the Catholic hospital really believed that those unborn babies were human beings they would not be taking this stance in court.
Only one problem with your argument, the defendants in the case were two doctors and the hospital. The defense argument that an unborn child is not a person was necessary as a defense for the doctors, and the hospital could not realistically deny the co-defendants of a cause for summary judgement. LINK

So the arguments that the Catholic hospital relied on a legal position contrary to church doctrine is not 100% true. The Catholic hospital most certainly befefitted from the legal position, but the argument was made for parties who did not profess to follow church doctrine.






Back to top
  Replies (0)


Back to top