the Church of ClubDuirt has told you that religious leaders and politicians don't give two fucks about human cells and fetuses. they care about those two things .
at least the catholics have finally admitted to it. nice to see some honesty every now and then. as fucked up as this may seem to some people, i like have some respect for the catholics with this admission. no catholics in the crazy christains thread for one month. at least.
the Church of ClubDuirt has told you that religious leaders and politicians don't give two fucks about human cells and fetuses. they care about those two things .
at least the catholics have finally admitted to it. nice to see some honesty every now and then. as fucked up as this may seem to some people, i like have some respect for the catholics with this admission. no catholics in the crazy christains thread for one month. at least.
Eh, most of the people opposed to abortion that I know are opposed on the grounds that they legitimately believe it is murder.
That being said, I don't see anything wrong or any hypocrisy on behalf of the hospital in this case. They were arguing the law (and arguing it correctly). The law is what the law says, even if it goes against their own religiously held beliefs. Besides, any lawyer who didn't make that argument on their behalf would be facing a malpractice lawsuit on their own
0
Eh, most of the people opposed to abortion that I know are opposed on the grounds that they legitimately believe it is murder.
That being said, I don't see anything wrong or any hypocrisy on behalf of the hospital in this case. They were arguing the law (and arguing it correctly). The law is what the law says, even if it goes against their own religiously held beliefs. Besides, any lawyer who didn't make that argument on their behalf would be facing a malpractice lawsuit on their own
Eh, most of the people opposed to abortion that I know are opposed on the grounds that they legitimately believe it is murder.
That being said, I don't see anything wrong or any hypocrisy on behalf of the hospital in this case. They were arguing the law (and arguing it correctly). The law is what the law says, even if it goes against their own religiously held beliefs. Besides, any lawyer who didn't make that argument on their behalf would be facing a malpractice lawsuit on their own
you and i just said the same thing. priorities.
0
Quote Originally Posted by kaponofor3:
Eh, most of the people opposed to abortion that I know are opposed on the grounds that they legitimately believe it is murder.
That being said, I don't see anything wrong or any hypocrisy on behalf of the hospital in this case. They were arguing the law (and arguing it correctly). The law is what the law says, even if it goes against their own religiously held beliefs. Besides, any lawyer who didn't make that argument on their behalf would be facing a malpractice lawsuit on their own
fair enough omerta, you can certainly be non-religious and be against abortion. i don't agree with you but i certainly understand your position. but my thread isn't about the different positions on abortion as much as it's about hypocrisy.
0
fair enough omerta, you can certainly be non-religious and be against abortion. i don't agree with you but i certainly understand your position. but my thread isn't about the different positions on abortion as much as it's about hypocrisy.
fair enough omerta, you can certainly be non-religious and be against abortion. i don't agree with you but i certainly understand your position. but my thread isn't about the different positions on abortion as much as it's about hypocrisy.
It's not hypocrisy though, CD, at least not from my point of law. All they were doing was arguing the application of the law to the facts of that case. I bet that the hospital would admit that they believe, due to their religious affiliation, that personhood starts at conception. That being said, their religious belief is wholly irrelevant when it comes to the application of statutory law to the facts of the case.
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
fair enough omerta, you can certainly be non-religious and be against abortion. i don't agree with you but i certainly understand your position. but my thread isn't about the different positions on abortion as much as it's about hypocrisy.
It's not hypocrisy though, CD, at least not from my point of law. All they were doing was arguing the application of the law to the facts of that case. I bet that the hospital would admit that they believe, due to their religious affiliation, that personhood starts at conception. That being said, their religious belief is wholly irrelevant when it comes to the application of statutory law to the facts of the case.
to the rest of us, this cannot be refuted: when it comes to pursuing their religious agenda, they say fetuses are people. when it comes to saving money in litigation, fetuses are not people. they are taking two diametrically opposing positions depending on what they are trying to accomplish.
their religious beliefs are wholly irrelevant in litigation. that's not the point and it does not change the fact that they are taking opposite sides on an issue depending on what they are trying to accomplish.
in my book that is, by definition, hypocrisy.
0
take your lawyer shoes off for a second, jackie.
to the rest of us, this cannot be refuted: when it comes to pursuing their religious agenda, they say fetuses are people. when it comes to saving money in litigation, fetuses are not people. they are taking two diametrically opposing positions depending on what they are trying to accomplish.
their religious beliefs are wholly irrelevant in litigation. that's not the point and it does not change the fact that they are taking opposite sides on an issue depending on what they are trying to accomplish.
to the rest of us, this cannot be refuted: when it comes to pursuing their religious agenda, they say fetuses are people. when it comes to saving money in litigation, fetuses are not people. they are taking two diametrically opposing positions depending on what they are trying to accomplish.
their religious beliefs are wholly irrelevant in litigation. that's not the point and it does not change the fact that they are taking opposite sides on an issue depending on what they are trying to accomplish.
in my book that is, by definition, hypocrisy.
Jackie Chiles NEVER takes off his lawyer shoes
They are not saying fetuses are not people in the litigation context because that is what they believe -- we know that is not the case. That is what the LAW says, not what they believe. In a lawsuit you apply the law to the facts, even if you disagree with the law (and there are many laws to disagree with). I don't think they are taking diametrically opposed positions -- I bet if you asked them, they would remain consistent that a fetus is a person. But, as you mentioned, their beliefs are wholly irrelevant when it comes to applying the law to the facts.
It may appear hypocritical at first blush, but in reality its pretty straightforward and if you dig deeper and understand how the law works (which I know you do), its not all that controversial or hypocritical.
In fact, I would bet that their religious organization has probably lobbied their legislature to change the definition of a person to a fetus/conception. In that sense, they would be taking a consistent position, and its not their fault that the law is the way it is.
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
take your lawyer shoes off for a second, jackie.
to the rest of us, this cannot be refuted: when it comes to pursuing their religious agenda, they say fetuses are people. when it comes to saving money in litigation, fetuses are not people. they are taking two diametrically opposing positions depending on what they are trying to accomplish.
their religious beliefs are wholly irrelevant in litigation. that's not the point and it does not change the fact that they are taking opposite sides on an issue depending on what they are trying to accomplish.
in my book that is, by definition, hypocrisy.
Jackie Chiles NEVER takes off his lawyer shoes
They are not saying fetuses are not people in the litigation context because that is what they believe -- we know that is not the case. That is what the LAW says, not what they believe. In a lawsuit you apply the law to the facts, even if you disagree with the law (and there are many laws to disagree with). I don't think they are taking diametrically opposed positions -- I bet if you asked them, they would remain consistent that a fetus is a person. But, as you mentioned, their beliefs are wholly irrelevant when it comes to applying the law to the facts.
It may appear hypocritical at first blush, but in reality its pretty straightforward and if you dig deeper and understand how the law works (which I know you do), its not all that controversial or hypocritical.
In fact, I would bet that their religious organization has probably lobbied their legislature to change the definition of a person to a fetus/conception. In that sense, they would be taking a consistent position, and its not their fault that the law is the way it is.
i know what the catholic church would tell you their position is and i have a pretty good idea what position they are taking in the litigation. and they ain't the same thing.
sure, it's their position on what the law is but it's still their position. the law is only whatever the decider says it is and both sides will have their position. if the catholic church was taking their usual position about fetuses i'm guessing this case would go much differently, and more quickly.
this is what they should have done to avoid taking the position that fetuses are not persons under the law and avoid the Church of ClubDirt exposure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoINTDFosCY
0
jackie
i know how a lawyer sees it.
i know what the catholic church would tell you their position is and i have a pretty good idea what position they are taking in the litigation. and they ain't the same thing.
sure, it's their position on what the law is but it's still their position. the law is only whatever the decider says it is and both sides will have their position. if the catholic church was taking their usual position about fetuses i'm guessing this case would go much differently, and more quickly.
this is what they should have done to avoid taking the position that fetuses are not persons under the law and avoid the Church of ClubDirt exposure.
to the rest of us, this cannot be refuted: when it comes to pursuing their religious agenda, they say fetuses are people. when it comes to saving money in litigation, fetuses are not people. they are taking two diametrically opposing positions depending on what they are trying to accomplish.
their religious beliefs are wholly irrelevant in litigation. that's not the point and it does not change the fact that they are taking opposite sides on an issue depending on what they are trying to accomplish.
in my book that is, by definition, hypocrisy.
If they weren't so consumed with one of the seven deadly sins, they could have just settled, taken the monetary hit and kept their " beliefs " in tack. Kap, I understand what you're " saying" but in my view they can't have it both ways. Isn't the message more important than money? Well, it should be, but evidence shows that this organization is full of manipulative frauds.
On the flip side, how much money would it take for you guys to say you believe in God for monetary gain? Would you compromise your non-beliefs for financial gain?
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
take your lawyer shoes off for a second, jackie.
to the rest of us, this cannot be refuted: when it comes to pursuing their religious agenda, they say fetuses are people. when it comes to saving money in litigation, fetuses are not people. they are taking two diametrically opposing positions depending on what they are trying to accomplish.
their religious beliefs are wholly irrelevant in litigation. that's not the point and it does not change the fact that they are taking opposite sides on an issue depending on what they are trying to accomplish.
in my book that is, by definition, hypocrisy.
If they weren't so consumed with one of the seven deadly sins, they could have just settled, taken the monetary hit and kept their " beliefs " in tack. Kap, I understand what you're " saying" but in my view they can't have it both ways. Isn't the message more important than money? Well, it should be, but evidence shows that this organization is full of manipulative frauds.
On the flip side, how much money would it take for you guys to say you believe in God for monetary gain? Would you compromise your non-beliefs for financial gain?
So many people care about an embryo or fetus while it's in the womb. Many of those people don't care so much about its welfare after it's born. One of many brilliant observations by George Carlin.
0
So many people care about an embryo or fetus while it's in the womb. Many of those people don't care so much about its welfare after it's born. One of many brilliant observations by George Carlin.
So many people care about an embryo or fetus while it's in the womb. Many of those people don't care so much about its welfare after it's born. One of many brilliant observations by George Carlin.
Hutch,that's 1 of my biggest gripes.The last time they cared about me was when i was a fetus.Where is the marches and abortion militants when i'm living under a bridge?
0
Quote Originally Posted by HutchEmAll:
So many people care about an embryo or fetus while it's in the womb. Many of those people don't care so much about its welfare after it's born. One of many brilliant observations by George Carlin.
Hutch,that's 1 of my biggest gripes.The last time they cared about me was when i was a fetus.Where is the marches and abortion militants when i'm living under a bridge?
I'm pretty much "prochoice" only because these so called "relgious right" people, who are generally Republican voters, don't give a DAMN about the underprivileged poor in America. groups like "Focus on the Family" (who should really be called ("Focus on the Fetus") are all anti-abortion BUT do NOT want any assistance given to the teenaged girl who carries her pregnancy to term and NOW has to RAISE the child. bunch for freeking hypocrites.
that being said, IF a woman is pregnant and wants to abort, she should do it within the 1st trimester. I have NO objections to outlawing late term abortion when it's possable the fetus possably could survive outside the womb
0
I'm pretty much "prochoice" only because these so called "relgious right" people, who are generally Republican voters, don't give a DAMN about the underprivileged poor in America. groups like "Focus on the Family" (who should really be called ("Focus on the Fetus") are all anti-abortion BUT do NOT want any assistance given to the teenaged girl who carries her pregnancy to term and NOW has to RAISE the child. bunch for freeking hypocrites.
that being said, IF a woman is pregnant and wants to abort, she should do it within the 1st trimester. I have NO objections to outlawing late term abortion when it's possable the fetus possably could survive outside the womb
So many people care about an embryo or fetus while it's in the womb. Many of those people don't care so much about its welfare after it's born. One of many brilliant observations by George Carlin.
Ha. Ain't it the truth. Carlin was the truth.
0
Quote Originally Posted by HutchEmAll:
So many people care about an embryo or fetus while it's in the womb. Many of those people don't care so much about its welfare after it's born. One of many brilliant observations by George Carlin.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
