The real motives of the anti-abortion movement have nothing to do with life

The latest proof of today’s heading comes to us from Daily Kos, which reports:

In just the past year, the Church has called upon its faithful followers to march, to starve themselves, to go to jail, to even take up arms—all to protect those fetuses. No exceptions. None. Not if the fetus is already dead inside the womb. Not if the fetus is going to kill the actual living woman carrying it. No goddamned exceptions EVER.

Well, except for one: when it’s going to cost the Church money.

That’s right.  When your Catholic doctor in your Catholic hospital screws the pooch, killing you and your Sacred Unborn Feeeeeeeeeetus (+10 points for twins!) suddenly they care a whole lot about how SUFs aren’t really people.

Play it again, Sam:

Jason Langley, an attorney with Denver-based Kennedy Childs, argued in one of the briefs he filed for the defense, 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.”

Yeah, court!  Don’t you dare go overturning long-standing rulings which make foetuses non-people.  Because foetuses aren’t people!

Wait.  What?  Are we seriously looking at a Catholic organisation insisting that foetuses aren’t people … when it might hit them in the wallet?

Ain’t that a hilarious – in a laugh-or-you’ll-cry – illustration of their priorities.

I can hear you already, defenders:  “but they’re entitled to a defence under the law!  They’re entitled to use the current law to get themselves out of damages!!!”

I have but one question:  what would Jesus do?


  1. Bemused, of Moz's House

    Are you trying to imply some sort of connection between the behaviour of Jesus and the actions of the Catholic Church?

  2. Bemused, of Moz's House

    More seriously, I have a real feeling that there’d be a temple tantrum of epic proportions. Or perhaps just a very polite little Jewish man running round with a notebook writing things down before mysteriously appearing next to the pope during some important celebration and making a surprising announcement.

    What I struggle to imagine is Jesus, or anyone not a power in the Catholic Church, looking at the situation and saying “this is a wonderful example of moral behaviour”. For many situations involving that organisation, not just this particular court case.

    I suspect this defence is going to be quoted an awful lot over the next few years. If I was the one prosecuting I’d be asking the client whether they wanted to cave just to establish the precedent (or does a defence not have to win to become precedent?)

  3. Frank Macskasy

    As for the rank hypocrisy of the Catholic Church (and a few other religions which merit scorn), I think we’re more than familiar with them already.

    Back in the 1990s (?) there was a curious story about a nudist club wanting to set up in some grounds in Kati Kati. Across the stream, was a christian youth group of some sort. There were objections flying all over the place.

    To which I agreed: I wouldn’t want to join a nudist club with a chritian group just across the way. Those christians can be… dodgy. 😉