Catholic hospital says fetuses are not people

[gabosaurus]

In other words: We follow the doctrines of the Catholic Church, unless it will cost us money.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/24/fetuses-not-people-catholic-hospital-says-in-court-case/1863013/

[Kathianne]

I don't think that the Catholic hospitals or church are going to be forced into a death spiral, no matter the chatter from the left.

[ConHog]

In other words: We follow the doctrines of the Catholic Church, unless it will cost us money.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/24/fetuses-not-people-catholic-hospital-says-in-court-case/1863013/

I don't know about that Gabby. The Church can certainly believe one thing while acknowledging the law. In other words the law has recognized that point A is where life begins Even though the Church believes it begins at Point B, so I hardly find it legal that the legal system could then later say well we're going to ignore Point A in this instance.

[fj1200]

In other words: We follow the doctrines of the Catholic Church, unless it will cost us money.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/24/fetuses-not-people-catholic-hospital-says-in-court-case/1863013/


"Under Colorado law, a fetus is not a 'person' and plaintiff's claims for wrongful death must therefore be dismissed," the hospital argued.

You prefer they create law?

[taft2012]

I don't know about that Gabby. The Church can certainly believe one thing while acknowledging the law. In other words the law has recognized that point A is where life begins Even though the Church believes it begins at Point B, so I hardly find it legal that the legal system could then later say well we're going to ignore Point A in this instance.


"Under Colorado law, a fetus is not a 'person' and plaintiff's claims for wrongful death must therefore be dismissed," the hospital argued.

The Colorado lawsuit isn't the first time that a Catholic hospital has argued that it is not liable for the death of a fetus. In 1996, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that a mom there could not sue St. Vincent's Medical Center of Jacksonville over the death of her unborn child.


William ****z, St. Vincent's trial attorney, defended the hospital's stance at the time.


"We've never contended that a fetus is not a person," ****z told the Orlando Sentinel in 1996. "We've always said that an unborn person does not have the right to bring a lawsuit in Florida."

If the unborn have the right to bring a lawsuit.... then there's about 30 million Americans who can sign onto a class action suit against liberals.

[red states rule]

http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/5700000/Pro-Life-3-being-pro-life-5715505-650-403.jpg

[gabosaurus]

If the unborn have the right to bring a lawsuit.... then there's about 30 million Americans who can sign onto a class action suit against liberals.

The point is, the unborn have no rights at all. Because they are not classified as people.
You can post all the photos and sonograms you wish. But it doesn't change the law. No one is a person until they are born.

[red states rule]

The point is, the unborn have no rights at all. Because they are not classified as people.
You can post all the photos and sonograms you wish. But it doesn't change the law. No one is a person until they are born.

nce again I ask you Gabby, how can you say this is not a living and breathing child? http://images.wisegeek.com/ultrasound.jpg

[Trigg]

In other words: We follow the doctrines of the Catholic Church, unless it will cost us money.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/24/fetuses-not-people-catholic-hospital-says-in-court-case/1863013/



According to published reports, a brief filed by the hospital, owned by Englewood, Colo.-based Catholic Health Initiatives, said that the fetuses are not covered by state's Wrongful Death Act.

"Under Colorado law, a fetus is not a 'person' and plaintiff's claims for wrongful death must therefore be dismissed," the hospital argued.

A state district court and an appeals court agreed with the hospital. The case, originally filed in 2007, is currently on appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court.


It isn't the Catholic Church saying the fetus isn't a person it's Colorado Law. That being said, the hospital is being hypocritical by using that defense.

[cadet]

My view of the catholic church was totally destroyed by this thread.

My original view below.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk

[Marcus Aurelius]

In other words: We follow the doctrines of the Catholic Church, unless it will cost us money.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/24/fetuses-not-people-catholic-hospital-says-in-court-case/1863013/

The thread title is a lie. Plain and simple. Not surprising, considering the source of the thread.

[gabosaurus]

The thread title is a lie. Plain and simple. Not surprising, considering the source of the thread.

Are you serious? This is EXACTLY what the story says. Perhaps you need to improve your reading comprehension skills.

Cadet, I don't really understand your post. I hope you realize that Monty Python is satire.

[red states rule]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_OdlDH5TOnZ8/S04ZQcmonnI/AAAAAAAABxo/A6JWG8OP_jQ/s320/prolife.gif

[ConHog]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_OdlDH5TOnZ8/S04ZQcmonnI/AAAAAAAABxo/A6JWG8OP_jQ/s320/prolife.gif

you realize that Congress could pass a federal law stating that for the purposes of determining when criminal charges may apply that X is when life begins and that if anyone aborted a child after that they would then be guilty of murder don't you? Tell me, why hasn't that been done at any point in time when the Republicans were in power?

[Kathianne]

It isn't the Catholic Church saying the fetus isn't a person it's Colorado Law. That being said, the hospital is being hypocritical by using that defense.

Perhaps, yet as I said earlier, the law is tending to force such hypocrisy against malpractice.


My view of the catholic church was totally destroyed by this thread.
...

Well, seems the bishops in CO are looking into the defense, will be interesting to find what they conclude. From this article, sounds like the hospital has much to answer for, though the lower courts so far have disagreed:

http://www.canoncitydailyrecord.com/ci_22450685/bishops-will-review-catholic-hospital-defense-that-fetuses

[gabosaurus]

If the hospital has acted in accordance with current law, what do they have to answer for?

[fj1200]

If the hospital has acted in accordance with current law, what do they have to answer for?

Do you understand the wrongful death lawsuit that was brought?

[Kathianne]

If the hospital has acted in accordance with current law, what do they have to answer for?

Which so far the courts have agreed with. I would suggest you read my last link.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Are you serious? This is EXACTLY what the story says. Perhaps you need to improve your reading comprehension skills.

Cadet, I don't really understand your post. I hope you realize that Monty Python is satire.


According to published reports, a brief filed by the hospital, owned by Englewood, Colo.-based Catholic Health Initiatives, said that the fetuses are not covered by state's Wrongful Death Act.

"Under Colorado law, a fetus is not a 'person' and plaintiff's claims for wrongful death must therefore be dismissed," the hospital argued.



The Catholic hospital itself did not say the fetus was not a person. They said that "Under Colorado law, a fetus is not a 'person'".

There's a difference, dumb ass.

So, since your reading comprehension skills are apparently off, and the Catholic hospital themselves did not make the claim, your thread title is a lie.

[Robert A Whit]

In other words: We follow the doctrines of the Catholic Church, unless it will cost us money.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/24/fetuses-not-people-catholic-hospital-says-in-court-case/1863013/

How about you Gabby. Do you approve a dog and cat food manufacturing company putting the fetus into food for animals? Why waste all those dead children?

[ConHog]

How about you Gabby. Do you approve a dog and cat food manufacturing company putting the fetus into food for animals? Why waste all those dead children?

what an absolutely disgusting train of thought.

[Robert A Whit]

The point is, the unborn have no rights at all. Because they are not classified as people.
You can post all the photos and sonograms you wish. But it doesn't change the law. No one is a person until they are born.

You willing to see fetus meat used in dog and cat food?

And one more thing. Your logic will not stand up to scientific verification.

Using your logic, the instant a mechanic takes out your engine, you do not own a car.

Also, using your logic, a man can hit the woman in the gut and abort her desitred child and all he gets is a bad rap for assault. No protection for her dead child using your way of thinking.

Sucks to be in your shoes, eh?

[Robert A Whit]

what an absolutely disgusting train of thought.

Yup and now you know how I feel when Gabby approves women killing children.

[ConHog]

You willing to see fetus meat used in dog and cat food?

And one more thing. Your logic will not stand up to scientific verification.

Using your logic, the instant a mechanic takes out your engine, you do not own a car.

Also, using your logic, a man can hit the woman in the gut and abort her desitred child and all he gets is a bad rap for assault. No protection for her dead child using your way of thinking.

Sucks to be in your shoes, eh?

you're a weird illogical dude. if someone takes the engine out of your car, they are a thief, unless you told them they could do so.

if someone took your fetus out of your body without your permission they would be guilty of a crime.

If you gave them permission, they would not.

Depending on the age of the fetus of course.


oh on other thing...

you said

a man can hit the woman in the gut and abort her desitred child and all he gets is a bad rap for assault

now when someone says they got a bad rap that means they are claiming they unfairly accused of a crime. Now I realize you hate women Robert, but you aren't allowed to go around punching them, and it isn't automatically a bad rap if you get charged with a crime for doing so.

[Robert A Whit]

I don't know about that Gabby. The Church can certainly believe one thing while acknowledging the law. In other words the law has recognized that point A is where life begins Even though the Church believes it begins at Point B, so I hardly find it legal that the legal system could then later say well we're going to ignore Point A in this instance.

Why didn't you growl and tell her that you schooled her and invite her to the cage?

Musta slipped your mind to insult her.

[ConHog]

Why didn't you growl and tell her that you schooled her and invite her to the cage?

Musta slipped your mind to insult her.

I never invited you to the cage Robert. I merely suggested that you take your insults there. I still suggest that.

[red states rule]

How about you Gabby. Do you approve a dog and cat food manufacturing company putting the fetus into food for animals? Why waste all those dead children?

Hard to say of they would support that. Libs are perfectly content to toss their dead bodies in the trash can. Of course there was a Sen Obama in IL would opposed a bill that would provide medical treatment to a baby that survived an abortion. We know he is content to let them die no matter if the baby is in the womb or out of the womb

[Marcus Aurelius]

Gabby is schooled, and she runs away from her own thread. Typical.

[ConHog]

Gabby is schooled, and she runs away from her own thread. Typical.

Typical of many people who can't simply come back to a thread and say you beat them with logical posts. lol

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Gabby is schooled, and she runs away from her own thread. Typical.

Gabby may be the worse one doing that but she is not the only one. I can think of another member does it too!
And he is rarely called on it! -Tyr

[ConHog]

Gabby is schooled, and she runs away from her own thread. Typical.

also, at least she has the courage and honor to even have a discussion with those she disagrees with.

Even if she does sometimes just take a dump and run LOL

[logroller]

The point is, the unborn have no rights at all. Because they are not classified as people.
You can post all the photos and sonograms you wish. But it doesn't change the law. No one is a person until they are born.
Many states, including California, afford rights to a fetus in utero and charge people with murder for killing them.

nce again I ask you Gabby, how can you say this is not a living and breathing child? http://images.wisegeek.com/ultrasound.jpg
I'm pretty sure a fetus doesn't breath in utero.

[revelarts]

Gabby's got a point. I think the Southern Baptist quoted in the piece sums it up

Southern Baptist ethicist Richard Land said the hospital failed to live up to its pro-life principles.
"There's a difference between being legal and being right," Land said. "Either a fetus is a person or it's not."


Marcus A makes the point that the Church is going by the Law, well sure OK, but you shouldn't use the law when it suits your purposes in Court and hotly protest the law at City Hall a block over.

I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't a legal decision by the Church's hospitals law firm that didn't get run up the food chain before presented in court.
If it did get to people who knew better than those folks are like some i've known in Church and Politics, they are alway on about being "practical... realistic .... greater good ... fight another day ...this will set us back and we won't be able to do all our other good work... we've got to do this or else the other guy will win and thatd be even worse.... principals and ethics are fine, we all agree with that BUT BUT BUT.... "

I've grown so weary of it, and most folks will shake their heads up and down and compromise ...again.
I've done it too and it's sicking frankly.

I doubt that'd they do this but, at this point, they could turn this lemon into lemonade by pulling that defense and making the statement that they DO believe they were "persons" and attempt to force the issue in court. To all the public attention they can get. It'd be a bold and courageous move. And if they did lose the case. Well, it's not like there are not a lot of Catholics and other pro-lifers that wouldn't donate into a pot to slightly offset the expense of a court loss for the family and the greater effect of the case. And it's not like the Vatican couldn't pawn some gold or a Bernini Sculpture to settle the case too yaknowwhaimean?
Is it the VatiCAN or the VatiCAN'T yaknowwhatimsayinheree?

[red states rule]

http://palin4america.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/ProLife1.jpg

[revelarts]

Many states, including California, afford rights to a fetus in utero and charge people with murder for killing them.

I'm pretty sure a fetus doesn't breath in utero.
Yep.

And They/we do some practice breathing in late uterto , ambiotic fluid going in and out of the lungs until birth and the cord is cut

[taft2012]

Also, using your logic, a man can hit the woman in the gut and abort her desitred child and all he gets is a bad rap for assault.

Good point.

IIRC, some states have murder provisions in place if an assault results in a miscarriage.

How do liberals rationalize that?

[Marcus Aurelius]

also, at least she has the courage and honor to even have a discussion with those she disagrees with.

Even if she does sometimes just take a dump and run LOL

dump and run is a discussion? who knew?!

[taft2012]

Marcus A makes the point that the Church is going by the Law, well sure OK, but you shouldn't use the law when it suits your purposes in Court

But that's what lawyers do and get paid for.

This reminded me of an exchange in the Justice Roberts confirmation hearings. Joe Biden thought he had a "gotcha" moment citing something Roberts argued as a pro-bono lawyer in a case. I'm not a lawyer, but even I know there's a world of difference between what one personally believes in as a legal philosophy, and what one must argue in court because it is the most relevant argument based on current precedent, and the best argument available must be put forward to fulfill an attorney's professional oath.

On a side note, all of the Catholic (read: "not for profit") hospitals in NYC were shuttered due to state health care impositions that made survival for them impossible. I see the liberals are targeting them on a national basis. Next year over 20 Catholic schools in the city are also closing.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Gabby's got a point. I think the Southern Baptist quoted in the piece sums it up

Marcus A makes the point that the Church is going by the Law, well sure OK, but you shouldn't use the law when it suits your purposes in Court and hotly protest the law at City Hall a block over.

I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't a legal decision by the Church's hospitals law firm that didn't get run up the food chain before presented in court.
If it did get to people who knew better than those folks are like some i've known in Church and Politics, they are alway on about being "practical... realistic .... greater good ... fight another day ...this will set us back and we won't be able to do all our other good work... we've got to do this or else the other guy will win and thatd be even worse.... principals and ethics are fine, we all agree with that BUT BUT BUT.... "

I've grown so weary of it, and most folks will shake their heads up and down and compromise ...again.
I've done it too and it's sicking frankly.

I doubt that'd they do this but, at this point, they could turn this lemon into lemonade by pulling that defense and making the statement that they DO believe they were "persons" and attempt to force the issue in court. To all the public attention they can get. It'd be a bold and courageous move. And if they did lose the case. Well, it's not like there are not a lot of Catholics and other pro-lifers that wouldn't donate into a pot to slightly offset the expense of a court loss for the family and the greater effect of the case. And it's not like the Vatican couldn't pawn some gold or a Bernini Sculpture to settle the case too yaknowwhaimean?
Is it the VatiCAN or the VatiCAN'T yaknowwhatimsayinheree?

I did not say I agree with the hypocritical defense. I simply stated a fact that the church itself did not say a fetus is not a person, they simply quoted existing law.

[revelarts]

Good point.

IIRC, some states have murder provisions in place if an assault results in a miscarriage.

How do liberals rationalize that?

Not very well, some hate it.




But that's what lawyers do and get paid for.

This reminded me of an exchange in the Justice Roberts confirmation hearings. Joe Biden thought he had a "gotcha" moment citing something Roberts argued as a pro-bono lawyer in a case. I'm not a lawyer, but even I know there's a world of difference between what one personally believes in as a legal philosophy, and what one must argue in court because it is the most relevant argument based on current precedent, and the best argument available must be put forward to fulfill an attorney's professional oath.
Yess i know, it's their job.
But, the church has a job too. A higher calling than to get the best legal fix in it can you know.




On a side note, all of the Catholic (read: "not for profit") hospitals in NYC were shuttered due to state health care impositions that made survival for them impossible. I see the liberals are targeting them on a national basis. Next year over 20 Catholic schools in the city are also closing.
Cutting of their nose to spite their face. Some on the left will be crying that the Church doesn't help sick people like it use to, as well soon to probably.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

dump and run is a discussion? who knew?!

"Dump" and run is the action taken by a person low on information and high on laxatives.:laugh:
I fail to see how such actions can be defended myself .. -Tyr

[taft2012]

I did not say I agree with the hypocritical defense. I simply stated a fact that the church itself did not say a fetus is not a person, they simply quoted existing law.

I don't think it's hypocritical at all.

Every court in the land has repeatedly told the Catholic Church a fetus is not a human being. Does that legal standing not exist only when the Catholic Church is the respondent?

[Marcus Aurelius]

I don't think it's hypocritical at all.

Every court in the land has repeatedly told the Catholic Church a fetus is not a human being. Does that legal standing not exist only when the Catholic Church is the respondent?

I didn't say the law was hypocritical. I said the church was for citing it as a defense, when teaching in the church says the opposite. BTW, I'm Roman Catholic.

[revelarts]

I don't think it's hypocritical at all.

Every court in the land has repeatedly told the Catholic Church a fetus is not a human being. Does that legal standing not exist only when the Catholic Church is the respondent?

not quite true

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]

The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).

The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on Federal properties, against certain Federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism.

Because of principles of federalism embodied in the United States Constitution, Federal criminal law does not apply to crimes prosecuted by the individual states. However, 36 states also recognize the fetus or "unborn child" as a crime victim, at least for purposes of homicide or feticide....[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn...f_Violence_Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act)

[fj1200]

Gabby's got a point. I think the Southern Baptist quoted in the piece sums it up

Marcus A makes the point that the Church is going by the Law, well sure OK, but you shouldn't use the law when it suits your purposes in Court and hotly protest the law at City Hall a block over.

There's a difference between being a life and having legal standing. It's clear that the State has the ability to define legal standing.

[Abbey Marie]

The point is, the unborn have no rights at all. Because they are not classified as people.
You can post all the photos and sonograms you wish. But it doesn't change the law. No one is a person until they are born.

How's this then:

"The point is, slaves have no rights at all. Because they are not classified as people.
You can post all the photos you wish. But it doesn't change the law. No one is a person unless they are white."

Some folks back then who cared about everyone's life wanted to change the law, because, to put it simply, the law was wrong. Same for many of us today.

[ConHog]

How's this then:

"The point is, slaves have no rights at all. Because they are not classified as people.
You can post all the photos you wish. But it doesn't change the law. No one is a person unless they are white."

Some folks back then who cared about everyone's life wanted to change the law, because, to put it simply, the law was wrong. Same for many of us today.

I agree with your stance, and wish they WOULD just set a hard fast date; but unless and until that happens courts can't just go around making up whatever they want.

I would bet that even Gabby would agree that if you drew a line with point A being conception and point C being birth and added in point B as the point at which a fetus became a person for legal purposes that anyone who aborted a child between point B and point C would be guilty of murder. Just as I'm sure you would agree that if that were the case that anyone who aborted between point A and point B would NOT be guilty of murder.

Right?

[Kathianne]

I agree with your stance, and wish they WOULD just set a hard fast date; but unless and until that happens courts can't just go around making up whatever they want.

I would bet that even Gabby would agree that if you drew a line with point A being conception and point C being birth and added in point B as the point at which a fetus became a person for legal purposes that anyone who aborted a child between point B and point C would be guilty of murder. Just as I'm sure you would agree that if that were the case that anyone who aborted between point A and point B would NOT be guilty of murder.

Right?

and the definition is 'at conception.'

[aboutime]

There is a much easier, more common way for all of us to decide the individual answer to this question.

In my opinion. Think about this before you respond.

The one thing all of us have in common is....we were all the product of conception. And...our parents never thought about any of us as Human until the day the Doctor told our Mother..."CONGRATULATIONS. YOU ARE PREGNANT!"

For most mothers. The day that occurs is the START of a Human Life.

Why do all of us need to endlessly argue over something that is still A WONDER OF LIFE????

[Kathianne]

I've been pregnant 3 times, have had scads of friends that have been pregnant. Not once did I hear one of them rub their tummy and say, "I love this fetus." Inevitably they say, 'baby.'

Even those pregnant and unmarried say, "I'm pregnant, I'm going to have a baby or I'm going to abort this baby."

[red states rule]

I've been pregnant 3 times, have had scads of friends that have been pregnant. Not once did I hear one of them rub their tummy and say, "I love this fetus." Inevitably they say, 'baby.'

Even those pregnant and unmarried say, "I'm pregnant, I'm going to have a baby or I'm going to abort this baby."

I have never heard women getting together and throwing a expecting women a "fetus shower". Also can anyone tell me where I can get a copy of the song "Having My Fetus"?

[logroller]

Yep.

And They/we do some practice breathing in late uterto , ambiotic fluid going in and out of the lungs until birth and the cord is cut
Interesting, but that's not breathing. We breathe air, not amniotic fluid.

Regarding the subject at hand though, I'm thinkin that even if the Hospital claimed the fetuses were people in accordance with their religious beliefs, a court could not recognize such. Same way a court wouldn't recognize any other religious belief in conflict with state law. Seems they could have had their cake and ate it too. Ida know, maybe the Colorado statute would need to be presented in order to be considered. Dunno.

[red states rule]

A great T-shirt for infants http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/square-large-roe.gif

[taft2012]

Gabby's got a point. I think the Southern Baptist quoted in the piece sums it up

Right.

And how many Southern Baptist non-profit hospitals are currently operating in the USA?

[revelarts]

Interesting, but that's not breathing. We breathe air, not amniotic fluid.

Regarding the subject at hand though, I'm thinkin that even if the Hospital claimed the fetuses were people in accordance with their religious beliefs, a court could not recognize such. Same way a court wouldn't recognize any other religious belief in conflict with state law. Seems they could have had their cake and ate it too. Ida know, maybe the Colorado statute would need to be presented in order to be considered. Dunno.
Well if the case is thrown out without them making that legal case they win. But if instead of saying it's not a person, they would mount a defense saying they were not negligent or at fault in the death of the child. It's possible they could still win the cases. But whether the court accepts that it's was aperson or not would be on the Court. Either way the case moves forward uh seems to me... maybe... IMO in my "i'm not a lawyer but i play one on internet chat boards" role.





Right.

And how many Southern Baptist non-profit hospitals are currently operating in the USA?
quite a few , 3 of the biggest in the nation are baptist.
But why does it matter Taft?
We gonna start a feuding ovah which christian groups got the most hospitals? Would Mary appreciate that?:poke:

[red states rule]

and once again the liberal media ignored the March for Life
On January 25th, hundreds of thousands gathered in Washington, D.C. to march for the rights of the unborn. This “March for Life” has long been considered one of the most important pro-life events of the year. The march kicked off with a rally that featured pro-life speakers, including former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum. In his speech, Santorum spoke about his own feelings about abortion and about his and his wife’s decision to “keep” their daughter, despite being told that it would be better if they did not.


“She is joyful, she is sweet, she is all about love...We all know that death is never better – never better. Really what it's about is saying is it would be easier for us, not better for her. And I'm here to tell you ... Bella is better for us and we are better because of Bella."Particularly interesting about this march was the visibility of youth. While pro-life is often stereotypically considered the position of older generations, the participants in the March for Life proved that this is not the case. Everywhere you looked, youth stood holding signs and wearing pro-life paraphernalia. Moreover, some had even placed tape over their mouths to symbolize that the aborted unborn are unable to participate in this debate. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/michellemohr/2013/01/28/40yearstoomany-n1499819

[taft2012]

quite a few , 3 of the biggest in the nation are baptist.

Yeah, my Googling came up with 3 as well. So is it 3 or "quite a few"?


But why does it matter Taft?
We gonna start a feuding ovah which christian groups got the most hospitals? Would Mary appreciate that?:poke:

Of course it matters. One church has a long-standing commitment to charitable medical care and another one doesn't. The one that doesn't should shut its yap before having an understanding about such a broad commitment before criticizing the one does.

And Mary would appreciate that, which is why she's never appeared to Protestants, least of all snake dancing, arsenic drinking left footers. :thumb:

[revelarts]

Yeah, my Googling came up with 3 as well. So is it 3 or "quite a few"?



Of course it matters. One church has a long-standing commitment to charitable medical care and another one doesn't. The one that doesn't should shut its yap before having an understanding about such a broad commitment before criticizing the one does.

And Mary would appreciate that, which is why she's never appeared to Protestants, least of all snake dancing, arsenic drinking left footers. :thumb:

Taft I'm not going to do this.
but i will say that your wrong the Baptist have a few hundreds of hospitals as well.
and ANYONE can criticize the RChurch or any church org when it goes off it's mission
or the police when they break the law
or clown union if the are not funny

There a verse in the Bible where Saint Paul says he corrects Peter
Galations 2:11
11 But when Peter came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned.

The reason was, Peter wasn't following the Lords command to treat all believers the same because of pressure from others. Even though he knew he better.

[taft2012]

Taft I'm not going to do this.

... but then you did.

[revelarts]

... but then you did.

I didn't go where i could have gone, i really didn't.

[taft2012]

I didn't go where i could have gone, i really didn't.

Rev doing what he does best ...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_WvPahL3UpmE/SAKdLjLQzOI/AAAAAAAAALw/kDicSwkp39A/s320/dog-humping-a-womans-leg-~-92041.jpg

[revelarts]

Rev doing what he does best ...

..

and i still think more freedom is better probably than at lot of moderation on the boards.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Taft I'm not going to do this.
but i will say that your wrong the Baptist have a few hundreds of hospitals as well.
and ANYONE can criticize the RChurch or any church org when it goes off it's mission
or the police when they break the law
or clown union if the are not funny

There a verse in the Bible where Saint Paul says he corrects Peter
Galations 2:11
11 But when Peter came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned.

The reason was, Peter wasn't following the Lords command to treat all believers the same because of pressure from others. Even though he knew he better.

Dead on accurate. Peter was admonished by Paul . An example of how ingrained are some prejudices.. Peter accepted his correction. -Tyr

[red states rule]

“I feel the greatest destroyer of peace today is 'Abortion', because it is a war against the child... A direct killing of the innocent child, 'Murder' by the mother herself... And if we can accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love... And we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts...”
― Mother Teresa (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/838305.Mother_Teresa)