The Catholic Church - Ideologically Consistent, and Still Evil

[MrFun]

[David Floyd]

Can you justify auto-excommunications for abortion but not for child raping clergy first, please?

[giblets]

Unlike some posters I'm perfectly willing to admit when I make mistakes.

It's like a guy in a parallel universe somehow managed to join Apolyton and contact ours. He's wrong on everything, rarely admits it, and still feels he can say this.

[Princess Peach]

Again, you are begging the question. The question is whether or not the mother's life was in fact in danger at that point in time. The answer to this question, is no.

Orly? So what you are saying is, your doctors that you "know" say that these women weren't in imminent danger although they weren't there? I'm just wondering because you seem to think the medical world is all based on standard events. Are you stupid? You actually think since your non-attending doctors said that these women weren't in danger based on other cases, without actually knowing any patient medical history, is relevant? You sir, are the Tom Cruise of Catholicism. Completely oblivious.

[Wezil]

Princess.

You are new (or a DL).

Please don't feed Ben.

[Guynemer]

Ben:

Everyone else in this thread:

Me:

MrFun:

[Ming]

Despite my citation of a medical expert in the field of neonatology who asserts that the kid and the mother could have been saved, without the use of extraordinary measures?

That was one doctors opinion... one that wasn't even treating the patient. I guess the next time you need surgery, we should have a vote of all off the doctors in the country... and if one says you can survive without the surgery, you don't get the surgery.

True, death is always a possibility. What would you have said if the abortion docter perforated her uterus and killed the mother too?

And the hospital could get hit by an astieroid too... It's a matter of a significant difference in odds.
People die by accident all the time in hospitals... it happens. Plus, few deseases are 100% death either. Sometimes, people survive for no apparent reason and doctors can't explain it. But that doesn't mean you should stand around and do nothing and hope a miracle occurs.
Just because you don't like what the patients doctor said, you claim he was wrong. There are always going to be disagreements with doctors opinions on the severity of a condition and the impact of a patient. The attending doctor is the one in the best position to have the best opinion.

Goose, gander. You stop doing it, and start quoting me honestly and fairly, and I'll do the same. Deal?

I don't change your quotes or attribute other peoples quotes to you... But you are just a dishonest lier, so why would a deal with you be worth anything.

Erm, yes they do.

And please point out the last rapist or murder that Bishop Olmstead, or ANY catholic bishop has excummunicated in the last few months. Nice of you to point out that it probably was a big deal becasue she was a nun. But if that's the case, why haven't ALL THE PRIESTS WHO HAVE RAPED CHILDREN been excummunicated... or even a higher percentage of them for that matter. I guess is a priest raping a child doesn't matter to the Bishops, but a nun who saves a mothers life does matter to them.

According to Canon law, these cases are different. Ectopic pregnancy when detected is an imminent danger to the life of the mother, because the fallopian tubes will burst if left untreated. Women can and do die from undetected ectopic pregnancies in the first trimester. It's one of the commonest abortion complications, when the doctor misses it altogether upon examination.

It is only your non medical opinion that these womans lives weren't in danger. The attending doctors said they were... Your example is no different, if action isn't taken, the woman can die.

Again, you are begging the question. The question is whether or not the mother's life was in fact in danger at that point in time. The answer to this question, is no.

In your example, the woman isn't going to die at that exact moment either. It would be some future event, just like these examples.

A medical expert in the field agrees with me that this condition without other factors does not put the life of the mother at risk. This is very strong evidence in favour of my position. Yes, you've cited the attending physicians, but they've not taken the time to cite complications beyond the one listed to argue for their position. That to me is strong evidence that there are no other complications.

You claim "STRONG EVIDENCE"... gee, a doctor who never examined the patient... a second guesser with a political agenda... whose only source of information is what he heard... I'll go with the doctor who actually saw the patient.

It's irrelevant to this topic, to be honest. What does this one case have to do with an entirely unrelated case? Let's just deal with the one and leave the rest of them out. It doesn't strengthen your argument.

You want it left out because it's another example of how your faith commits murder by not allowing it's members to have a proceedure that can save their life. The cases are the same... the mothers life is at risk and the babies wouldn't survive anyway.

As opposed to you, who hasn't cited anyone's medical opinion who isn't already involved in the case. That's weak evidence because the attending physician is not impartial.

Your "expert" isn't impartial either... so what's your point?
You think because you can cut and paste something that it makes your medical opinion better than the doctors who actually treated her.
You are disagreeing with the attending doctors only because you disagree with their actions. You had to look up some real doctor AFTER THE FACT to support your non medical opinion. Heck, the first support you posted was from a NON MEDICIAL doctor... who is best known as a Catholic mouth piece.
And then when called on it, you then had to look hard for a doctor that supported your view... Your mind was made up that the doctor was wrong before you went looking for any medical opinions.

They aren't impartial. Open up the files and let them be examined by an impartial body.

Oh... so since it was an abortion, the patient needs the approval of church sanctioned doctors. Do heart surgery patient need to get your permision and have their cases reviewed by multiple doctors before they are allowed to be treated. Any doctor can be second guessed. But in most cases in this country, the attending doctor makes the call after discussing it with the patient. The patient deserves her right to privacy... just like anybody else that has surgery.

And if your doctor has a medical opinion opposite to your own, yeah, I'm sure you'd listen to him over yourself. You don't seem the type to accept contrary opinions.

Coming from you, that's really funny.

If I don't think my doctor is giving me the correct answer, I can always ask for a second opinion. But I'm the one that picks the doctors giving me those medical opinions. You are the one that wants to pick peoples doctors for them. You want them to be treated by people that only support your position, whether it's the correct one or not.

You can probably always find a doctor who disagrees with a medical opinion, especially a doctor who has never even examined the patient. That doesn't make him right, or the attending doctor automatically wrong. Your expert opinion is just that, an opinion. And an opinion by somebody who never even saw the patient.

[MrFun]

Ben:

Everyone else in this thread:

Me:

MrFun:

And what are you insinuating with the smilie you put for me?

[ColdWizard]

Princess.

You are new (or a DL).

Please don't feed Ben.

...except to a large carnivore...


...just kidding. That would be animal cruelty.

Ben:

Everyone else in this thread:

Guynemeyer:

MrFun:

ColdWizard:

[Guynemer]

And what are you insinuating with the smilie you put for me?

That you're gayer than a French horn.

[SlowwHand]

It doesn't get much gayer than that.

[MrFun]

That you're gayer than a French horn.

I'm not sending you anymore porn.

[Dinner]

Well, Ben was a complete train wreck in this thread. It's good to see he's consistent.

[SlowwHand]

Not really. Aside from the child molestations, which despite not enough being done to stop it, which they don't support, you're trying to tell Ben to be a Cafeteria Catholic. Just take what he wants from it and leave the rest. Although it happens in this day and age, it doesn't really work that way. You either are or you aren't. You ever accept the teachings of the Catholic Church or you don't, unless you're a Cafeteria Catholic. Ben accepts the teachings of his faith. You don't. SO don't be a Catholic and leave Ben alone. What a concept. Live and let live. Has this been said before? I may be a philopopher if it hasn't been said already. I think it has been said, though.

[SlowwHand]

dp