The Church, Abortion and A Wrongful Death Lawsuit against a Catholic Hospital

Every now and then (but more and more) you find a news story that forces your brain to do double back flips. Here's one I found, courtesy of Digital Journal:

Catholic hospital says 'a fetus is not a person'

A Catholic hospital embroiled in a lawsuit involving the death of twin fetuses is arguing that they should not be held responsible for the death of the unborn children because "a fetus is not a person".

(Click on the headline above to read the complete article. It's worth your time.) 

That such a thing can happen in the first place in any hospital in this day and age is, in itself, shocking and it's tragic. To lose your wife and your unborn twins in one moment? It's hard to imagine that kind of pain. The Denver Post gives us more details:

Jeremy Stodghill filed a wrongful-death lawsuit in District Court in Fremont County after his 31-year-old wife, Lori, seven months pregnant with twin boys, died of a blockage of the main artery of the lung at St. Thomas More Hospital in Cañon City on New Year's Day 2006.

Stodghill's lawyer argued that her obstetrician, Pelham Staples, never made it to the hospital — even though on call for emergencies — and there was no attempt by any medical personnel to save the Stodghills' sons by cesarian section. The unborn children died in the womb.

However, listen to the defense from the lawyer for the lead defendant in the case is Catholic Health Initiatives (CHI), operator of St. Thomas More hospital.The article quotes Jason Langley, attorney for CHI:

"[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."

In fact, from a legal point of view, Langely was quite right. In cases of wrongful death,, the courts, as a rule, do not award special rights to the unborn. (For the complicated reasons for this policy, follow the link.) One source observes: 

Opponents of the fetal wrongful death action add the argument that wrongful death statutes allow recovery only for the death of a "person," and that a fetus is not a person."

Nevertheless in the criminal courts, Colorado (as well as 38 other states) do have increased the criminal penalties for crimes involving pregnant women. They are called "fetal homicide laws." So the courts do give special limited considerations to death of the unborn fetuses. Apparently just not for wrongful death cases. 

In any case, from a moral and ethical view, I wonder how in the name of God the lawyer persuaded his defendants that his approach was suitable? 
That must have been some hard sell. 

Aaron Swartz: Thoughts on the Death of an Idealist

by Nomad

The tragic story of Aaron Swartz, and the events that led up to him taking his life,  got me thinking deep thoughts about the age we live in. 

When Stealing isn't

The digital age has clearly thrown many past concepts into disarray. Particularly when it comes to the definition property and the definition of ownership. No small matter because after all, property ownership is the basis of capitalism.
If ownership of property is a concept that has been turned on its head then so has the idea of stealing the property. 
Most people can understand the concept of stealing. 

You got it. 

I want it. 
I take it. 
Now you don’t got it.

As most of us know, stealing normally involves the taking of property that the thief has no right to. It also implies that the original owner is deprived of that property by the act of theft.

So when a top federal prosecutor in Massachusetts in charge of a computer hacking investigation blankly states that “stealing is stealing, whether it was done with a computer or with a crowbar” many people might completely agree. It sounds right. Stealing is stealing, except....

Yet, in the brave new world of the digital medium, (songs, books or images) can be copied endlessly and in seconds, and that copy is exactly the same as the original, without any damage to the original, is it theft or is it something else?

True, while no property is actually lost, its relative value may (or may not) have decreased when everybody has free access to it. 

If somebody broke into your home and made an illegal but perfectly exact copy of your prized Chinese vase, would it be stealing? Would damage to the owner be the same as if somebody had broke into your home and snatched- or smashed- that vase?

What happens if you had wanted to keep my original vase behind closed doors and only let your special friends view it? Or make people pay money to get a peek? Would it be so immoral to make a copy so that the rest of the world could appreciate it? 

According to law, it would qualify as outright theft. That’s the message that the film and music industry, (which has supposedly taken a bit hit from illegal digital copying), has spent millions of dollars in advertising to push: Copying is stealing. 

If you want to argue, you are condoning criminal activity. You are making Beyonce go hungry. Copying a film, they say, is equal to stealing a DVD from a store. You are spitting in the face of Nicholas Cage when you do it. For the industry, the issue is black and white. 

Many technophiles, however, would beg to disagree. 

Few could argue that duplicating somebody else's creation and selling it on the cheap is ethically wrong. True creative artists deserve compensation, after all. Additionally most of us can see the harm done to the actual value of the property if the robber then made millions of copies of the hypothetical vase and gave them away. 

And that is the main problem.

It wasn't a moral or ethical question at all. It's a question of profit-making, pure and simple.

That is what has the "haves" so very upset.

The Surprising Truth about Thomas Jefferson- The Anti-Christian Founding Father

by Nomad

Thomas Jefferson was one of the most interesting men that this nation has produced and yet, today, his lives and ideas are nearly forgotten. He was above all, a product of the Enlightened Age, and didn't have much patience with religion and especially the Christian one.

Bitter Infidel or Enlightened Intellectual?

Published in 1885, the old book, Notes on Thomas Jefferson, Citizen of Maryland, offers the historical researcher some impressive shocks, particularly when it comes to the subject of Jefferson’s religious beliefs. 
The approach of the book comes from an unusual angle. The book, written in support of Christian values, takes a dim view of the third president’s attitude.

Why is that important? The author’s evidence is not attempting to defend Jefferson but to indict him. Yet the information in the book reveals an unexpected side to Jefferson.. 

The book begins: 

For obvious reasons, whatever pertains to Thomas Jefferson possesses an interest for all Americans. 

As the principal author of the “Declaration of Independence,” the first secretary of state, the second vice president, and the third president of the United States, Thomas Jefferson has every right to the title of “Founding Father.”
Given the state of politics today, this founding father’s opinions might seem even more radical and controversial than they did in his own time. For good reason, historians have tended to gloss over this aspect of American history.

What the NRA Doesn’t Want You to Know: The Fallacy of Democracy and Gun-Ownership Rights

by Nomad

We have all heard it. The conventional wisdom states- or at least, implies, that private gun ownership is a protection against tyranny. 
It’s an idea that the NRA likes to propagate. People take it for granted that it must be true. 
Apparently, they'll tell you, our founding fathers believed as much. Why else did they include the second amendment if they didn't. It's easy for them to ignore the part that says:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Interestingly, however, despite the mentality that claims that democracy must be protected by citizens bearing automatic weapons, the evidence doesn’t support this link at all. In fact, our own actions in Iraq and in past nation-building, prove that we don’t really believe it ourselves.

Another Losing Battle: The GOP Takes Up Arms Against Obama's Gun Control Initiative

by Nomad

In the “it would be funny, if it were so embarrassing” files we see this latest entry about Obama's gun control initiative, announced yesterday. 
According to a Florida-based Conservative site, The Shark Tank:

Congressman Steve Stockman from Texas has taken aim against President Obama’s forthcoming executive orders that will further restrict gun rights by “eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House, and even filing articles of impeachment” against the President.

A statement like this doesn’t really surprise people anymore. Americans have come to expect this kind of toxic nonsense from Texas. Earlier this month, Stockman took up the NRA’s proposed solution to gun control ( more guns! for everybody!) by introducing a bill that would repeal mandatory “gun-free zones” around schools. 

It’s the usual GOP answer, pile a heap of insanity on top of the mountain of crazy already there and call it done.