Catholic church condones child rape and is against the abortion that will save her life

[Dr Strangelove]

I would be very happy to see them go back to what they used to do, where men and women in difficult constraints could simply leave children with the Church, and the Church would care for them. It used to be like that, you could leave a child, and no questions asked.

I agree with you that those arguing in favor of abortion restrictions should be giving women a way out of raising children when faced with hardships. I think it could be done, and done quite well.

Uhmmmm..... Errrrrr........ The Republic of Ireland tried letting the Roman Catholic Church run their facilities for children "in care" up until about 20 years ago. Do we need to go into details again?

[Ben Kenobi]

Uhmmmm..... Errrrrr........ The Republic of Ireland tried letting the Roman Catholic Church run their facilities for children "in care" up until about 20 years ago. Do we need to go into details again?

Abuse rates were and are far lower than the teachers in the teachers union. Might want to take the plank out of your own eye. Yes, abuse does happen. Yes, abuse should be prosecuted. No, abuse is not sufficient to prevent them from carrying out their ministry (after weeding out the bad apples).

[Ben Kenobi]

"He" isn't the one reporting evidence, it's the reporter who's doing that. The reporter tells us that the girl was 9, pregnant, in pain and that the abortion was done to save her life. No medical diagnosis of the cause of the pain was given. Was pregnancy the only diagnosis given? In Brazil it's still illegal to provide an abortion except in the case of rape or if the mother's life is in danger. We're told that the reason given was danger to the mother's life, that would require a medical diagnosis, but the report doesn't provide it. That is my point. You're saying that there wasn't a valid medical reason for the abortion, I'm saying we don't have enough information. Bring me the medical record.

I'm saying that those making unsubstantiated claims that her life was truly in danger are required to provide medical evidence substantiating their claim. They have not. Arguing that I have to do your homework for you is not going to fly.

Like I said - first do no harm. You want to operate on the girl, great, provide medical evidence in support of the abortion. No evidence? No abortion.

[Ben Kenobi]

overwhelming majority are going to be 13 and 14 year olds and a tiny portion are going to be 10 or 11 unless the study was designed in a way to equalize the ages which given the tiny number of pregnant 10 and 11 year olds, which would be quite burdensome.

Tiny or no - this is still insufficient evidence to prove your assertion that a differential exists. All this does is establish bounds on how large the error margin could be, not the actual numbers.

[-Jrabbit]

Stayed away from this thread for awhile, for the obvious reasons. I'm a little sad to admit I just read through about 7 or 8 pages. Some interesting stuff, but for all the wrong reasons. Unblvbl. I'll be leaving again after this post.

1. A Brazilian doctor is required to determine the mother's life is in danger in order to recommend abortion. Said doctor recommends a medical abortion.
Logical inference: Doctor found substantial evidence of a life-threatening medical condition.
Beniverse inference: Because the doctor's medical diagnosis is not stated in the article, the life-threatening condition did not exist.

2. Dr Strangelove states that (a) pregnancies at age 9 are extremely rare, and (b) he has treated several thousand newborns and has never encountered a mother younger than 12.
Logical inference: Age-9 pregnancies are indeed rare.
Beniverse inference: My view is unsupported; Doc S. is probably a liar.

I still think odds are on that he should have seen at least a few girls younger than 12 with several thousand women. But, I can't confirm my suspicions at this point.

3. Ben Kenobi believes that "published" means "credible."
Which is the functional equivalent of saying "under oath" means "it must be true."

4. Several others here believe that "bylined" means "written by."
I can provide myriad examples of my commissioned work being published in print magazines (and online) under someone else's byline. In this area, I agree with Ben: as long as the check clears, I'm cool with that.

5. I found out WTF the MRT avatar is. That *almost* made the rest the read worthwhile.

[Ben Kenobi]

I can provide myriad examples of my commissioned work being published in print magazines (and online) under someone else's byline. In this area, I agree with Ben: as long as the check clears, I'm cool with that.

Exactly so. Thanks JR!

[Dr Strangelove]

I'm saying that those making unsubstantiated claims that her life was truly in danger are required to provide medical evidence substantiating their claim. They have not. Arguing that I have to do your homework for you is not going to fly.

Like I said - first do no harm. You want to operate on the girl, great, provide medical evidence in support of the abortion. No evidence? No abortion.

Well then you're just going to have to go get her medical records because the newspaper isn't obliged to publish them. Remember, every word devoted to providing news takes up space that could have been devoted to a revenue providing ad.

[Dr Strangelove]

Abuse rates were and are far lower than the teachers in the teachers union. Might want to take the plank out of your own eye. Yes, abuse does happen. Yes, abuse should be prosecuted. No, abuse is not sufficient to prevent them from carrying out their ministry (after weeding out the bad apples).

Abuse of what type, which country, and during which years? Also, did the teacher's union cover up the crimes?

[rah]

Whenever Ben brings that up I have to laugh. Well a few teachers abused kids so you can't rag about the Catholic priests. Ridiculous. Don't forget the couple of Boy scout troop leaders or that College football coach. No organization has systematically protected and covered it up as much as the Catholic Church. Arguing otherwise is silly. Unless you live in benland, of course.

[Dr Strangelove]

Tiny or no - this is still insufficient evidence to prove your assertion that a differential exists. All this does is establish bounds on how large the error margin could be, not the actual numbers.

The very fact that the group of pregnant girls between ages 10 and 11 is a very small subset of the larger group of pregnancies between ages 10 to 14 argues that they are a unique group and ought to be examined separately.

[Elok]

To be fair, Rah, the RCC is a much, much larger organization than the Boy Scouts of America or Penn State.

[rah]

Oh I agree, but Ben keeps trotting out that teachers seem to get a pass and that we're concentrating on RCC. That is such bullcrap. No one has given teaches, the Boy Scouts or Penn State a pass.
Since the RCC is much larger, they're are targeted more often. Especially since Ben spews out so much garbage about the holiness of the RCC. It's just too easy of a target.

[Ming]

To be fair, Rah, the RCC is a much, much larger organization than the Boy Scouts of America or Penn State.

To be fair... the RCC is a religious organization that supposedly provides a moral compass for it's members. And yes, abuse can happen in all walks of life, but it was the systematic cover up by the organization itself that makes it far worse. And we aren't just talking about a few isolated cases.

[Elok]

I'm aware of that, Ming. I was merely reminding Rah that, being a much larger organization, it is to be expected that they would have a larger problem with perverts and thus more to cover up in the first place. As I said, to be fair. I have no interest in arguing in detail over the moral culpability of a church I never belonged to in a scandal I didn't follow all that closely in the first place.

[Ming]

I'm aware of that... I was merely reminding you that the RCC situation is worse since it is a religious group that supposedly is against sin... and when confronted with it, covered up the sins instead of doing something about it.

[Elok]

Do you see me contesting that? If you want to get yourself good and outraged about it, vent on the Pope's myrmidon here, not me.

[Ming]

No... while you weren't contesting it... but your comment "to be fair, it's a larger org" is in a way, a justification... I don't frankly care that they are a larger so odds say that they will have a bigger problem... THEY COVERED IT UP... that's the problem.

[Elok]

The words "to be fair" are not a justification. They are an attempt to signal that I want to remain calm and even-handed in discussion, instead of getting all up in a lather about it and perhaps overreaching. I give the "accused" every allowance, and I think it's better that way. If you don't, that's fine, but I'd rather you not take it out on me.

[Jon Miller]

I can understand (and agree with) Ming wanting to make clear it is a big deal and not something to be calm about.

I have felt the same about abortion.

Sometimes calmness is needed. Other times making a big stink is what is needed to make people realize that it requires action (even if it is something they are uncomfortable about/etc).

JM

[Ming]

instead of getting all up in a lather about it and perhaps overreaching

As far as overreaching... facts are facts... And pointing out that they covered up is not getting all up in a lather... it's again, just stating the facts.

The fact that the RCC is large is not a justification for the amount of abuse, or the fact they did nothing about it and instead covered it up.

[Elok]

I can understand (and agree with) Ming wanting to make clear it is a big deal and not something to be calm about.

I have felt the same about abortion.

Sometimes calmness is needed. Other times making a big stink is what is needed to make people realize that it requires action (even if it is something they are uncomfortable about/etc).

The action in question here has already been taken. There are ongoing aftershocks as new revelations come out--I think there was one recently where it turned out the Bishop of Somewhere paid his dirty birds to resign rather than go through the hassle of even the Ecclesiastical Court process--but essentially it's all over but the lawsuits, the recriminations and the long hemorrhage of membership for the RCC. Whether I get passionate about it, here or at home or anywhere else but making arguments in front of a jury, makes no difference.

But I think it is an excellent habit to get into to try and give the benefit of the doubt even to proven stinkers--it's easy enough to do here, but that will perhaps make it easier to do when it matters. It encourages flexible thinking, the ability to see others' POV, and dispassion, all of which should in theory lead to better decisions.

[-Jrabbit]

Nice words, Elok (with bonus points for "myrmidon"), but the RCC burned its reserve of "benefit of the doubt" with impunity.
Moral leadership is a monumentally difficult task that comes with great responsibility.

Instead of cleaning house and helping the victims, the RCC actively attempted to hide the activities of its deviant priests. In doing so, they shirked that responsibility and ceded any claim to the moral high ground.

[Ming]

Couldn't have said it better

[Elok]

Did I say anything about their possessing the moral high ground, or praise them, or justify their actions? The way I see it, this is entirely a matter of my forming desirable habits of thought and feeling. I do not wish to get so caught up in condemnation that I completely demonize and dehumanize the people I'm condemning. It's a universal human tendency, but one I find repulsive and don't want to encourage in myself. Making an attempt at evenhandedness won't make them any better, but it might keep me from getting any worse.

Consider what I said to Rah: the RCC has conspired more to cover up perversion than anyone else, yes, but then the RCC has also had a larger organization and a larger potential problem to cover up in the first place. It's to be expected that they would have a bigger coverup than, say, Penn State, with its one sicko coach. The scale of their malfeasance was at least vaguely proportional to their size as an organization. What about that justifies what they did?

[Ben Kenobi]

Abuse of what type, which country, and during which years? Also, did the teacher's union cover up the crimes?

Sexual abuse, in America, and pick a year. The union keeps the abusers teachers salary. Rubber rooms exist (thanks to the unions), forcing the public to pay for convicted sex offenders. At least the Catholic Church doesn't have the chutzpah to have the public footing the bill.

[Ben Kenobi]

Well then you're just going to have to go get her medical records because the newspaper isn't obliged to publish them. Remember, every word devoted to providing news takes up space that could have been devoted to a revenue providing ad.

So you're admitting we don't have sufficient medical evidence to ascertain that her life was actually in danger. Thank you.

[Ben Kenobi]

Whenever Ben brings that up I have to laugh. Well a few teachers abused kids so you can't rag about the Catholic priests. Ridiculous. Don't forget the couple of Boy scout troop leaders or that College football coach. No organization has systematically protected and covered it up as much as the Catholic Church. Arguing otherwise is silly. Unless you live in benland, of course.

It's not "just a few teachers". That's my point. Clear double standard. Thanks for proving my case that it's all about hating the Catholic church and not about the welfare of the children.

[Ming]

At least the Catholic Church doesn't have the chutzpah to have the public footing the bill.

Nahhhh... they only threatened the victims and the families to stay quiet. Now that's chutzpah.

[Ben Kenobi]

but the RCC burned its reserve of "benefit of the doubt" with impunity.
Moral leadership is a monumentally difficult task that comes with great responsibility.

Why then can I conclusively show that in America, the abuse was correlated with certain bishops (such as Weakland), who no longer serve? It was especially bad in Washington, and the bishop there was replaced by Pope John Paul II, in the 80s. So, what happened then is relevant now? That was 30 years ago that steps were taken to correct things.

Does Three Mile Island conclusively show that nuclear power is prima facie unsafe?

[Ben Kenobi]

Nahhhh... they only threatened the victims and the families to stay quiet. Now that's chutzpah.

So why aren't you saying that public schools can no longer be trusted with children, when their abuse rates have always been higher than the Catholic church?