Skip to main content

View Diary: Catholic bishops to 'review' position that fetuses aren't people after all (93 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  As for this (9+ / 0-)
    There is a huge and obnoxious logical error in this diary.  Just because some lawyer in some case tried to win by claiming the "Taco Bell" rule, as this diary called it, doesn't mean that that bogus argument means that the defense lawyer for this affiliated hospital speaks for the global church.  That's nuts.

    It's a rather clever and informed legalistic argument, but it's just not true.

    The church needs to decide what its position is.  Either businesses affiliated with it are arms of the church for purposes of the First Amendment (in which case this lawyer is speaking for the church) or those businesses are secular and subject to all the same rules other secular businesses are.  

    You want things both ways.  I say pick a friggin' position and stick to it.

    "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

    by FogCityJohn on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 04:53:27 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  My point went over your head. (0+ / 0-)

      I thought I was pretty clear.  I despair of explaining this to you.

      The sentences made by one lawyer (very possibly not a Catholic) in one brief defending one hospital are NOT the position of the global Catholic church.

      It is VERY intellectually dishonest and disingenuous (two separate concepts) to argue otherwise.

      But so are you doing, as is the diarist.  It's crap!

      These anti-Catholic diaries by Gray almost all have the same modus operandi:  read the news; find some apparently outrageous thing done by some individual connected to the Catholic church; and then write an overheated diary condemning the entire global church of more than one BILLION members.

      You have an ax to grind, so you have no problem with that; I think it's a sign of DKos drifting away from being the so-called "reality-based community."

      •  Actually, no. (0+ / 0-)

        Your point didn't go over my head, I simply found it unpersuasive.  (Two separate concepts)

        Kaili is simply using the same "logic" as the church itself, although she's obviously doing it in an ironic fashion.  The church wants to claim that anyone or anything even remotely connected with it deserves the same First Amendment protection from the supposedly oppressive acts of the Obama administration as the church itself does.  Thus, Catholic owners of secular businesses should have the right to refuse to provide women's health care because, well, they're Catholic, so their entirely secular business is just like the church.  See?

        In addition, this lawyer was speaking for a Catholic hospital and he was making formal representations in court on the hospital's behalf.  It makes no difference whether he is Catholic or not.  He is, by definition, not speaking for himself, but rather for his client.  So it is this Catholic hospital that's arguing that a fetus isn't a person.  I'm sure, however, that the same hospital would refuse to perform an abortion on religious grounds, since when it doesn't cost the hospital money, a fertilized egg suddenly becomes a person.

        "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

        by FogCityJohn on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 02:55:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (173)
  • Community (68)
  • Baltimore (50)
  • Civil Rights (42)
  • Bernie Sanders (39)
  • Culture (33)
  • Elections (26)
  • Economy (25)
  • Law (25)
  • Freddie Gray (23)
  • Hillary Clinton (22)
  • Labor (22)
  • Education (22)
  • Rescued (21)
  • Texas (21)
  • 2016 (21)
  • Racism (20)
  • Barack Obama (19)
  • Media (19)
  • Environment (19)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site