Catholic Hospital says Fetus is not a person

[BigRedBuster]

But, when they don't try to abide by their beliefs, they get criticized for being hypocritical. Basically, non religious people are so fast with the trigger to find any little criticism of religious people and organizations that literally it is in a no win situation.

 

A church doesn't believe in birth control so it tries to abide by it's beliefs and gets criticized as "not living in the real world".

 

A church believes a baby is a human being but when one lawyer uses a defense that goes against that then they are criticized for hypocrisy.

 

It is always framed as...."they are trying to impose their beliefs on others". Really? That argument is so tired.

 

The fact is, non religious people are extremely sensitive towards anything like this.

[sd'sker]

But, when they don't try to abide by their beliefs, they get criticized for being hypocritical. Basically, non religious people are so fast with the trigger to find any little criticism of religious people and organizations that literally it is in a no win situation.

 

A church doesn't believe in birth control so it tries to abide by it's beliefs and gets criticized as "not living in the real world".

 

A church believes a baby is a human being but when one lawyer uses a defense that goes against that then they are criticized for hypocrisy.

 

It is always framed as...."they are trying to impose their beliefs on others". Really? That argument is so tired.

 

The fact is, non religious people are extremely sensitive towards anything like this.

they are. i would argue that they are not being good catholics unless they were, as they are supposed to be stewards of their faith.

 

that is why the birth control thing was so controversial. but these are two separate issues. one is an employment issue. the other is a much deeper issue that the church appears to disagree with its own held beliefs. i kind of find it odd that you would compare the two instances. they are not alike.

[carlfense]

But, it is also hypocritical of those who hold this position (fetus' are not human beings) to use it to bash the Catholic faith.

Are there a lot of pro-choice people who think that no fetus, regardless of age, is a human being? I'm sure that there are some . . . but is that common? (I don't know much about the terms of the abortion debate . . . because I don't really care.)

 

 

 

My own opinion is that two cells joined together are not a human life but a 10 month old fetus is a human life (with a few notable exceptions). Somewhere between those points is a line . . .

[sd'sker]

My own opinion is that two cells joined together are not a human life but a 10 month old fetus is a human life (with a few notable exceptions). Somewhere between those points is a line . . .

that might just be a baby.

[C N Red]

But, when they don't try to abide by their beliefs, they get criticized for being hypocritical. Basically, non religious people are so fast with the trigger to find any little criticism of religious people and organizations that literally it is in a no win situation.

 

A church doesn't believe in birth control so it tries to abide by it's beliefs and gets criticized as "not living in the real world".

 

A church believes a baby is a human being but when one lawyer uses a defense that goes against that then they are criticized for hypocrisy.

 

It is always framed as...."they are trying to impose their beliefs on others". Really? That argument is so tired.

 

The fact is, non religious people are extremely sensitive towards anything like this.

Great posts Buster. Damned if ya do, damned if ya don't as far as many people are concerned. It amazes me how some people are so dead set on running down religion. I don't understand it. Are they afraid of religion, do they feel threatened by it? I always hear the old "they are trying to force their beliefs on others." I don't ever see this where I live or near where I live. I understand what Christians believe about not believing and getting to heaven etc. But I don't ever see anyone pushing that around any where I ever go. If you don't believe in God that's your choice. Do I think you are right? Not necessarily but I'm not going to bash you for it.

 

The whole health care thing about not paying for contraception/etc is a joke I feel. Why should an employer have to pay for something they don't believe in? It's their business, they own it, they enforce the rules they see fit. As long as they tell the employee what they will be and will not be entitled to before the employee accepts the job it should be fine. Going in, the employee knows what will be covered and what won't and they choose to work at that place or not.

[Junior]

But, it is also hypocritical of those who hold this position (fetus' are not human beings) to use it to bash the Catholic faith.

Are there a lot of pro-choice people who think that no fetus, regardless of age, is a human being? I'm sure that there are some . . . but is that common? (I don't know much about the terms of the abortion debate . . . because I don't really care.)

 

 

 

My own opinion is that two cells joined together are not a human life but a 10 month old fetus is a human life (with a few notable exceptions). Somewhere between those points is a line . . .

 

Agreed, I think the vast majority of pro-choice people see a dramatic difference between a 7 month old fetus and a 7 week old fetus.

[Junior]

But, when they don't try to abide by their beliefs, they get criticized for being hypocritical. Basically, non religious people are so fast with the trigger to find any little criticism of religious people and organizations that literally it is in a no win situation.

 

A church doesn't believe in birth control so it tries to abide by it's beliefs and gets criticized as "not living in the real world".

 

A church believes a baby is a human being but when one lawyer uses a defense that goes against that then they are criticized for hypocrisy.

 

It is always framed as...."they are trying to impose their beliefs on others". Really? That argument is so tired.

 

The fact is, non religious people are extremely sensitive towards anything like this.

 

The church wouldn't be criticized in this case at all if they said "You are right, we are liable for the loss of these two lives". They would probably be commended for taking a principled stand. That they are involved in a lawsuit where counsel on their behalf is trying to prevent liability by claiming a 7 month old fetus isn't alive... well, that really exposes them for what they are, a tax exempt, money making machine.

[carlfense]

My own opinion is that two cells joined together are not a human life but a 10 month old fetus is a human life (with a few notable exceptions). Somewhere between those points is a line . . .

that might just be a baby.

Depends on how late it is . . .

[sd'sker]

My own opinion is that two cells joined together are not a human life but a 10 month old fetus is a human life (with a few notable exceptions). Somewhere between those points is a line . . .

that might just be a baby.

Depends on how late it is . . .

the old post-mature birth. with claw marks on the uterus. some babies just are not ready to greet the world.

[carlfense]

My own opinion is that two cells joined together are not a human life but a 10 month old fetus is a human life (with a few notable exceptions). Somewhere between those points is a line . . .

that might just be a baby.

Depends on how late it is . . .

the old post-mature birth. with claw marks on the uterus. some babies just are not ready to greet the world.

I kind of felt that way this morning . . .

[sd'sker]

Damned if ya do, damned if ya don't as far as many people are concerned.

is that what it is called when you only choose what beliefs to abide by based on financial interests? the only common thread between the birth control issue and this lawsuit is that the church chose the cheaper value.

[BigRedBuster]

But, when they don't try to abide by their beliefs, they get criticized for being hypocritical. Basically, non religious people are so fast with the trigger to find any little criticism of religious people and organizations that literally it is in a no win situation.

 

A church doesn't believe in birth control so it tries to abide by it's beliefs and gets criticized as "not living in the real world".

 

A church believes a baby is a human being but when one lawyer uses a defense that goes against that then they are criticized for hypocrisy.

 

It is always framed as...."they are trying to impose their beliefs on others". Really? That argument is so tired.

 

The fact is, non religious people are extremely sensitive towards anything like this.

 

The church wouldn't be criticized in this case at all if they said "You are right, we are liable for the loss of these two lives". They would probably be commended for taking a principled stand. That they are involved in a lawsuit where counsel on their behalf is trying to prevent liability by claiming a 7 month old fetus isn't alive... well, that really exposes them for what they are, a tax exempt, money making machine.

 

 

And, the church wouldn't be criticized if it would just go along with society and pay for things it doesn't believe in.

 

Let's look at this another way.

 

True story, I used to work with a woman that had such bad food allergies that all she could eat was literally meat and potatoes. Honestly, I didn't believe her until I worked with her enough that I grew to believe her.

 

Anyway, let's say I am an animal rights activist, Vegan and member of PETA and am completely against any eating of animals. Now, let's say I own a company that has a cafeteria that all employees can eat for free. NOW, let's say the woman who I mentioned above comes to work for me. Should I be forced to provide meat in my cafeteria even though it goes against my beliefs? Or, should I be able to provide a cafeteria that abides by my beliefs in no animal products?

 

Would I be criticized for "forcing my beliefs on others in the media the same way the church tries to stick to it's beliefs in certain situations? Personally, I don't think so.

[carlfense]

But, when they don't try to abide by their beliefs, they get criticized for being hypocritical. Basically, non religious people are so fast with the trigger to find any little criticism of religious people and organizations that literally it is in a no win situation.

 

A church doesn't believe in birth control so it tries to abide by it's beliefs and gets criticized as "not living in the real world".

 

A church believes a baby is a human being but when one lawyer uses a defense that goes against that then they are criticized for hypocrisy.

 

It is always framed as...."they are trying to impose their beliefs on others". Really? That argument is so tired.

 

The fact is, non religious people are extremely sensitive towards anything like this.

 

The church wouldn't be criticized in this case at all if they said "You are right, we are liable for the loss of these two lives". They would probably be commended for taking a principled stand. That they are involved in a lawsuit where counsel on their behalf is trying to prevent liability by claiming a 7 month old fetus isn't alive... well, that really exposes them for what they are, a tax exempt, money making machine.

 

 

And, the church wouldn't be criticized if it would just go along with society and pay for things it doesn't believe in.

 

Let's look at this another way.

 

True story, I used to work with a woman that had such bad food allergies that all she could eat was literally meat and potatoes. Honestly, I didn't believe her until I worked with her enough that I grew to believe her.

 

Anyway, let's say I am an animal rights activist, Vegan and member of PETA and am completely against any eating of animals. Now, let's say I own a company that has a cafeteria that all employees can eat for free. NOW, let's say the woman who I mentioned above comes to work for me. Should I be forced to provide meat in my cafeteria even though it goes against my beliefs? Or, should I be able to provide a cafeteria that abides by my beliefs in no animal products?

 

Would I be criticized for "forcing my beliefs on others in the media the same way the church tries to stick to it's beliefs in certain situations? Personally, I don't think so.

Has this ever happened?

 

If not . . . it's probably a mistake to make assumptions about a hypothetical reaction to a hypothetical scenario.

[sd'sker]

the birth control mandate is a law that the church thinks it should be exempt for. it is a benefit guaranteed to women but the church believes that those women should do what they say, whether or not those women agree with those beliefs. that is forcing a belief on someone. not to mention, a lot of the entities are large hospitals barely affiliated with the church.

 

there is no law that a private business should have to provide a balanced cafeteria, let alone a cafeteria at all.

[BigRedBuster]

So, a church can practice it's beliefs as long as a law isn't written. And, it is perfectly fine if that law is written forcing the law maker's beliefs on a religion.