The Catholic Church - Ideologically Consistent, and Still Evil

[MOBIUS]

So you also think it's OK for the nun to be excommunicated for attempting to save the womans life and that it's also OK for priests to fiddle with children and get away with it, Slowwie?

Because that is what this thread is about.

I don't think any thread starts off as an express attack on Ben, it's just that his views are so preposterously repellent that it is often perceived that way?

Do you have the same repellent views, Slowwie? I sometimes wonder if you do and you're just smart enough to hide the majority of them from view from the rest of us...?

Ben's views are indefensible. End of story.

[Ben Kenobi]

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

As I've already explained, they don't auto-excommunicate people for having abortion. They auto-excommunicate people for openly promoting abortion.

This is an evidentiary standard. It takes time to prove molestation. The accusation alone isn't enough.

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

No, I believe that trying to save both the mom and the baby is the correct medical opinion. Same as you. You want people to be treated by people who agree with you, not because it's your opinion, but because you believe it's the correct medical response.

I do have a hard head, but I listen to my doc. He has been very good to me. The real question is what happens when you disagree with your own doc. Do you get another one?

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.

But it is an expert opinion from a doctor who has seen and treated similar cases as opposed to the attending doctors who likely have not dealt with this before.

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.

It's different in this example because you are killing someone else to save another. It's like transplantation. You can't take a healthy heart from someone to give another person a heart transplant, can you?

And the hospital could get hit by an astieroid too

What if I could prove to you that the woman was more likely to die from the abortion than she was to die from her complication left untreated for the first trimester? Would that change your opinion?

Just because you don't like what the patients doctor said, you claim he was wrong.

You're right. I don't like the fact that the doctor believes he is treating only the mother and not the mother and the child. This is why I think his opinion is uninformed and wrong. He's got two patients not one in his care, mother and child, and to kill one to save the other is bad medicine when there are alternatives that save both.

If you don't even believe that the child is alive, are you going to bother to save her? No. It's not even going to be an option for you.

This is the real issue surrounding this case. You see only one patient and are trying to make a discussion with someone who sees two.

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.

You've been misrepresenting my position throughout the thread. It gets tiresome. I've been very fair with you.

And please point out the last rapist or murder that Bishop Olmstead, or ANY catholic bishop has excummunicated in the last few months.

Has he had any in the diocese of Gallup who publicly claim to be Catholic? This is just a red herring. Do you believe that people should get excommunicated for killing their child?

It is only your non medical opinion that these womans lives weren't in danger.

WTF? No, it's not just my opinion. I cited the expert of neonatology, who agreed with me. Stop lying.

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.

The difference is that she will die. She will die when the child grows to be large enough to burst her fallopian tubes. With this complication they can treat her and manage it until the child is old enough to survive outside her womb. Then they can perform the emergency c-section, save the life of the child, and the mother.

Why is this outcome so abhorrent to you? I can show you that her chances of death in this situation are very low.

You claim "STRONG EVIDENCE"... gee, a doctor who never examined the patient

Yes, it's strong evidence. I can also look up this particular condition and find statistics too that don't support your conclusion, or the conclusion of the attending doctor that this condition is lifethreatening in the first trimester.

You assume that my citation is biased, while the attending physician who already stated that he doesn't believe that the child has any value, that the child is a disease that needs to be treated, has zero biases?

I'm going to take the physician who can at least acknowledge the second patient when making decisions regarding the care of the mother and the child.

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.

My faith? I thought this was your faith too. Or are you just Catholic when it's to your advantage? I'm proud to be Catholic. I am disappointed that you are ashamed of your own faith.

You think because you can cut and paste something that it makes your medical opinion better than the doctors who actually treated her.

It's called 'research'.

You are disagreeing with the attending doctors only because you disagree with their actions.

Yes, because their actions were not medically sound. There was a better option available than the one they chose. And I have an opinion from an expert on this particular treatment who says the same. I'm not sure why you are fighting this so hard.

It's got nothing to do with me. My opinion is shaped by this expert and I trust his assessment. If it could be shown to me that this particular complication cannot be treated to save the life of the mother and child, I would change my opinion.

Now, my question to you, is if I can prove to you that you can save the life of the mother and the child without putting the mother in undue risk, will you change your opinion that abortion to kill the child was the best treatment option?

You had to look up some real doctor AFTER THE FACT to support your non medical opinion.

I had to find the article that I had read about this topic. I was aware of this case well before David Floyd brought it up here. I found it, posted the article.

Why do you think that I wouldn't be interested in this case, for my own sake?

Oh... so since it was an abortion, the patient needs the approval of church sanctioned doctors.

Didn't say that. I said this case was approved by an ethics board, so clearly there were ethical and medical issues. If the board had not approved the abortion wouldn't have been done, simple as this.

Do heart surgery patient need to get your permision and have their cases reviewed by multiple doctors before they are allowed to be treated.

Sometimes, when there are ethical issues that arise, yes, it goes to the ethical committee of the hospital board. That is part of their duties.

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 the child has her right to life. It's not about privacy, Ming. If it were about privacy, than she wouldn't need treatment. Her right to privacy has been protected, and will continue to be protected. However, the child's rights were not respected or protected.

It's not a choice between one or the other, you could have easily treated the mom, saved mom and baby, and at the same time, protected the privacy of the family by not releasing their names.

[SlowwHand]

So you also think it's OK for the nun to be excommunicated for attempting to save the womans life and that it's also OK for priests to fiddle with children and get away with it, Slowwie?

Because that is what this thread is about.

I don't think any thread starts off as an express attack on Ben, it's just that his views are so preposterously repellent that it is often perceived that way?

Do you have the same repellent views, Slowwie? I sometimes wonder if you do and you're just smart enough to hide the majority of them from view from the rest of us...?

Ben's views are indefensible. End of story.

Ben hasn't been defending child molestation, he's been defending pro life.
You're just an ass and that's the end of the story.

[Ming]

No, I believe that trying to save both the mom and the baby is the correct medical opinion. Same as you. You want people to be treated by people who agree with you, not because it's your opinion, but because you believe it's the correct medical response.

The attending doctor disagrees with your opinion. And no, I don't want to be treated by people who agree with me, I want to be treated by people who are right. If I have doubt about an opinion, I get a second one... from a doctor who has total access to my records and actually does an exam. I totally trust my doctor, but sometimes he has even suggested I get a second opinon... just to be sure.

I do have a hard head, but I listen to my doc. He has been very good to me. The real question is what happens when you disagree with your own doc. Do you get another one?

See above...

But it is an expert opinion from a doctor who has seen and treated similar cases as opposed to the attending doctors who likely have not dealt with this before.

What a joke... now you are claiming the attending doctor doesn't have experience in his field, and some doctor who has treated what HE ASSUMES are similar cases, but HAS NOT SEEN the medical records OR THE PATIENT can provide an expert opinion. PLEASE POINT OUT WHERE IT SAYS THE ATTENDING DOCTOR DOESN"T HAVE EXPERIENCE... oh, that's right... you can't.

It's different in this example because you are killing someone else to save another. It's like transplantation. You can't take a healthy heart from someone to give another person a heart transplant, can you?

You keep saying you are killing someone. Some would argue the fetus isn't a person.
But more to your point, you want to murder both, when one can still be saved. So your example doesn't even fit this situation. Try again.

What if I could prove to you that the woman was more likely to die from the abortion than she was to die from her complication left untreated for the first trimester? Would that change your opinion?

And cows can fly... your point? You can't prove it. The best opinion can only come from somebody with full access to her medical records and has done an exam. I'm not going to listen to some religious nut job who doesn't even have a medical degree... or somebody who has never met and examined the patient.

You're right. I don't like the fact that the doctor believes he is treating only the mother and not the mother and the child. This is why I think his opinion is uninformed and wrong. He's got two patients not one in his care, mother and child, and to kill one to save the other is bad medicine when there are alternatives that save both.

Yep... a catholic doctor would just let them both die, and then say it's the will of god. You speak as if it's certain that both can be saved... Are you god? You can't possibly know that.

If you don't even believe that the child is alive, are you going to bother to save her? No. It's not even going to be an option for you.

Please provide the quote where either the doctor, the mother, the family, the board of ethics, or the nun say they didn't believe that the child was alive. Oh... once again, they didn't... so your typical nonsense point is irrelevent.

This is the real issue surrounding this case. You see only one patient and are trying to make a discussion with someone who sees two.

Again... please point out where I say there is only one patient. You are just making crap up yet again.

You've been misrepresenting my position throughout the thread. It gets tiresome. I've been very fair with you.

SEE ABOVE YOU LIER!

Has he had any in the diocese of Gallup who publicly claim to be Catholic? This is just a red herring. Do you believe that people should get excommunicated for killing their child?

I don't see why a mother should be excumminicated for making the right decision. If both are going to die, as was the medical opinion, than there is nothing wrong with saving one. It's the right thing to do.
Obviously the nun, the ethics board, the doctor, the hospital, and the family felt the same way.

And while you may believe that all priests who rape children should be excumminicated, you opinion is not shared by those that really matter in the Catholic Church... those that have the power to do so.
They continue to show that they aren't following their own teachings by not doing so.

WTF? No, it's not just my opinion. I cited the expert of neonatology, who agreed with me. Stop lying.

Again... an expert with no access to the medical records or the patient. Just what you need, somebody who just makes assumptions without the facts.

The difference is that she will die. She will die when the child grows to be large enough to burst her fallopian tubes. With this complication they can treat her and manage it until the child is old enough to survive outside her womb. Then they can perform the emergency c-section, save the life of the child, and the mother.

In both cases, it was the medical opinion that the woman would die, and so would the child. So what's the difference. Oh, that's right, you and people who have never seen the woman or records disagree.
I'll bet you could find a doctor who thinks ANY patient can be saved with some radical new treatment... they used to make a bundle selling snake oil too.

Why is this outcome so abhorrent to you? I can show you that her chances of death in this situation are very low.

No, you can't show that. You can't prove anything. You can toss out "opinions' all you want, but they are simply opinions that aren't based on the specific cases.

Yes, it's strong evidence. I can also look up this particular condition and find statistics too that don't support your conclusion, or the conclusion of the attending doctor that this condition is lifethreatening in the first trimester.

Evidence based on no facts... you keep trying, but you and your supposed experts have never seen the records or the patient, so any conclusion is simply a factless opinion.

You assume that my citation is biased, while the attending physician who already stated that he doesn't believe that the child has any value, that the child is a disease that needs to be treated, has zero biases?

I see you are putting words in the doctors mouth as well... Please provide the exact quote that matches what you typed.

I'm going to take the physician who can at least acknowledge the second patient when making decisions regarding the care of the mother and the child.

I'm going to take the physician that is actually familiar with the specific case. Do you treat yourself with doctors over the internet?

My faith? I thought this was your faith too. Or are you just Catholic when it's to your advantage? I'm proud to be Catholic. I am disappointed that you are ashamed of your own faith.

Yep... I'm ashamed that the catholic church's priests molest children and instead of brininging it out in the open and really trying to stop it, they covered it up for years and allowed it to continue. It wasn't until they could no longer cover it up that they FINALLY decided to act on it.
I"m ashamed that the catholic church would excummunicate a nun for advising a patient to save her own life when not doing so would have killed the child anyway... while they don't excummunicate ALL THE PRIESTS that have raped or molested little children.

You can feel free to be proud of those facts... I'm NOT. and I don't think Jesus would be proud either.
Nowhere did he ever say that his church should cover up the misdeeds of his priests.

It's called 'research'.

No... it's called ignoring the people who actually have the facts and finding somebody who doesn't, and then quoting them. And, what do you call quoting a catholic mouthpiece who didn't even have a medical degree... I call it bad and stupid research.

Yes, because their actions were not medically sound. There was a better option available than the one they chose. And I have an opinion from an expert on this particular treatment who says the same. I'm not sure why you are fighting this so hard.

You seem to be the one fighting it so hard... again, one side has the facts, and the other only has unsupported opinions about the specific case. I know which ones I would listen to.

It's got nothing to do with me. My opinion is shaped by this expert and I trust his assessment. If it could be shown to me that this particular complication cannot be treated to save the life of the mother and child, I would change my opinion.

I doubt that... you formed your opinion long before you found an "expert". Again, remember who you used as your first "expert".

Now, my question to you, is if I can prove to you that you can save the life of the mother and the child without putting the mother in undue risk, will you change your opinion that abortion to kill the child was the best treatment option?

Where have I ever said that I personally think that a mother that is not in undue risk should have an abortion. While I do support a woman's right to make her own decision, since not all woman believe or SHOULD be FORCED to believe what I or somebody else believes... I have NEVER said that it is my personal opinion that a healthy woman or a woman with little risk should have an abortion.

But I will say that I stand behind the doctors medical opinion since he was the one with access to all the facts and the patient. The hospital, the ethics committee, a CATHOLIC NUN (who many consider a saint) the family and the mother all agreed based on the facts. No medical system is set up as a democracy where all doctors vote before an action can be taken. Because that would be a stupid system. I rely on the opinon of the doctor in charge of the case. You on the other hand, want to continue to ignore or degrade the only doctor that did have all the facts.

I had to find the article that I had read about this topic. I was aware of this case well before David Floyd brought it up here. I found it, posted the article.

So why did you post the crap from the non medical doctor first... you simply aren't very believable.

And the child has her right to life. It's not about privacy, Ming. If it were about privacy, than she wouldn't need treatment. Her right to privacy has been protected, and will continue to be protected. However, the child's rights were not respected or protected.

Based on the real evidence, and not some non fact based opinion... the child was going to make it either way.

It's not a choice between one or the other, you could have easily treated the mom, saved mom and baby, and at the same time, protected the privacy of the family by not releasing their names.

Gee... now it was an "easy" thing. Keep posting, and I'm sure you will start claiming that there was a 100% chance that both could have been saved. Unfortunately, the reality of the situation was that in the opinion of the only doctor with all the facts, your fantasy isn't true.

[David Floyd]

This is an evidentiary standard. It takes time to prove molestation. The accusation alone isn't enough.

Cool. So where is the standard for automatic excommunication when molestation is proven? If it's there, great! If not, why? Similarly, why were priests and bishops not automatically excommunicated once molestation was proven? In many cases, they were simply transferred to another diocese.

[Ben Kenobi]

In many cases, they were simply transferred to another diocese.

And barred from performing the sacraments altogether, or from contact with minors, etc. Effective excommunication from the day to day life of the parish.

I guess the real question is do you want excommunication as the proper tool here? You can't discipline them if they are excommunicated, because excommunication is the ultimate punishment that the church can levy. You'd be putting them out in the public.

Whereas if they are not excommunicated, then they can be disciplined, and confined.

[Ming]

Whereas if they are not excommunicated, then they can be disciplined, and confined.

But the majority were NOT disciplined, or confined, or excommunicated.

But what most of them had in common is that their sins were covered up and not made public or brought to the proper authorities... and in many cases the victims were threatened to keep silient.
Something I'm sure every catholic can be proud of...

[Ben Kenobi]

Now, Ming.

I had to be in and out for work, so I wanted to reply when I had a solid block of time.

The attending doctor disagrees with your opinion. And no, I don't want to be treated by people who agree with me, I want to be treated by people who are right. If I have doubt about an opinion, I get a second one... from a doctor who has total access to my records and actually does an exam. I totally trust my doctor, but sometimes he has even suggested I get a second opinon... just to be sure.

Sounds like you have a good one. I'm very happy with mine. Married into our family, I've had him for the last 15 years.

What a joke... now you are claiming the attending doctor doesn't have experience in his field, and some doctor who has treated what HE ASSUMES are similar cases, but HAS NOT SEEN the medical records OR THE PATIENT can provide an expert opinion.

No, I didn't say this. I'm saying it's a possibility that this particular attending doctor hasn't dealt with a similar cases, whereas the expert has dealt with similar cases. This is why I consider his testimony to be more effective.

Unless you reveal the name of the 'attending doctors', it's impossible to state whether or not they have experience with these cases. So, ball in your court.

You keep saying you are killing someone. Some would argue the fetus isn't a person.

Indeed. This is why it doesn't make much sense to argue that the attending physician took the needs of the unborn child into consideration when making the decision, given that he categorised the child as a 'disease'.

But more to your point, you want to murder both, when one can still be saved. So your example doesn't even fit this situation. Try again.

Umm, how is it murder when you are treating someone and they die on the operating table? Abortion is the deliberate killing of a child by the doctor, which is why it is murder.

And cows can fly... your point? You can't prove it.

I can, in fact prove it. If it would mean you changing your opinion, it would be worth my time. I would be citing medical experts who had dealt with similar cases.

Yep... a catholic doctor would just let them both die, and then say it's the will of god. You speak as if it's certain that both can be saved... Are you god? You can't possibly know that.

No, but I did say that the emergency c-section would be unlikely to result in the death of the mother. The death rate for these c-sections, erring on the high side is 7 in a 1000. That means you are looking at a 99.3 percent success rate for this procedure.

I'd say those are pretty good odds.

Please provide the quote where either the doctor, the mother, the family, the board of ethics, or the nun say they didn't believe that the child was alive. Oh... once again, they didn't... so your typical nonsense point is irrelevent.

I already did. The attending doctor said that he believed that the child was a disease and that abortion would cure the mom, an opinion shared by both the nun and the family. This opinion, more than any other one spurred the excommunication.

So you believe that the child was alive? That he was a person at 11 weeks? I apologise then. This is an important point.

I don't see why a mother should be excumminicated for making the right decision.

I don't think it is the right decision, but she will have to live with this for the rest of her life. I don't envy her.

If both are going to die, as was the medical opinion, than there is nothing wrong with saving one. It's the right thing to do.

But if both can be saved, then killing one is wrong.

Obviously the nun, the ethics board, the doctor, the hospital, and the family felt the same way.

I agree, and the quote is that the believed the child to be a disease which had to be cured. So, that makes me very skeptical that the attending doctor took the welfare of the unborn child into consideration.

And while you may believe that all priests who rape children should be excumminicated, you opinion is not shared by those that really matter in the Catholic Church... those that have the power to do so.
They continue to show that they aren't following their own teachings by not doing so.

No, only a few bishops have chosen to hide and conceal the sexual abuse cases.

Again.. an expert with no access to the medical records or the patient. Just what you need, somebody who just makes assumptions without the facts.

He was very careful to say that if the facts of the case were presented, that this would be the result. This is a theoretical statement. In theory, this condition is not lifethreatening, unless it is coupled with additional complications. That's a statement of fact.

In both cases, it was the medical opinion that the woman would die, and so would the child.

The medical opinion of the attending doctor, contradicted by expert evidence to the contrary. Hence the debate.

So what's the difference. Oh, that's right, you and people who have never seen the woman or records disagree.

Those who have access to prior, similar cases disagree that this was the best option. This is how medicine works. Doctors assume that what worked for the last patient will work for the next one, you don't have to start from square one for every case.

What this doctor is saying is that this condition is not lifethreatening in the first or second trimester, given prior experience with similar cases.

I'll bet you could find a doctor who thinks ANY patient can be saved with some radical new treatment... they used to make a bundle selling snake oil too.

Given the credentials, this expert in neonatology isn't a snake oil salesman. I suspect he'd be rather insulted by the comparison. You owe him an apology.

No, you can't show that. You can't prove anything. You can toss out "opinions' all you want, but they are simply opinions that aren't based on the specific cases.

This is in fact proof that the condition is not leathal unless something else is going on.

Evidence based on no facts... you keep trying, but you and your supposed experts have never seen the records or the patient, so any conclusion is simply a factless opinion.

The statement that pulmonary hypertension is not a leathal condition in the first trimester is a statement of fact. It's like saying that HIV will progress to AIDS. You want to deny the one, you might as well deny the other.

I see you are putting words in the doctors mouth as well... Please provide the exact quote that matches what you typed.

He said that he believed the pregnancy was a disease which required treatment.

I'm going to take the physician that is actually familiar with the specific case. Do you treat yourself with doctors over the internet?

If I could get the medical opinion of a doctor who was an expert in the field, sure I would.

Yep... I'm ashamed that the catholic church's priests molest children and instead of brininging it out in the open and really trying to stop it, they covered it up for years and allowed it to continue. It wasn't until they could no longer cover it up that they FINALLY decided to act on it.

I"m ashamed that the catholic church would excummunicate a nun for advising a patient to save her own life when not doing so would have killed the child anyway... while they don't excummunicate ALL THE PRIESTS that have raped or molested little children.

You can feel free to be proud of those facts... I'm NOT. and I don't think Jesus would be proud either.
Nowhere did he ever say that his church should cover up the misdeeds of his priests.

I'm proud of the bishop for unequivocally stating that the unborn child must be protected. I think we need more like him.

No... it's called ignoring the people who actually have the facts and finding somebody who doesn't, and then quoting them. And, what do you call quoting a catholic mouthpiece who didn't even have a medical degree... I call it bad and stupid research.

Umm, the expert in neonatology lacks a medical degree? I think not. I quoted him. He said in his expert opinion if the facts conveyed were in fact true, that pulmonary hypertension was not a leathal condition in the first two trimesters. He stated that the abortion was entirely unnecessary.

You seem to be the one fighting it so hard... again, one side has the facts, and the other only has unsupported opinions about the specific case. I know which ones I would listen to.

The one quoting the expert in neonatology?

I doubt that... you formed your opinion long before you found an "expert". Again, remember who you used as your first "expert".

On the bioethical portion? Kreeft had written an article on this case. He is in fact an expert in Catholic bioethics. I used him to explain why the Catholic church treated this case differently from an ectopic pregnancy through the application of the doctrine of double effect.

I'm not sure why you find him an unacceptable source on the Catholic bioethics involved here. He is an expert on this topic.

Where have I ever said that I personally think that a mother that is not in undue risk should have an abortion. While I do support a woman's right to make her own decision, since not all woman believe or SHOULD be FORCED to believe what I or somebody else believes... I have NEVER said that it is my personal opinion that a healthy woman or a woman with little risk should have an abortion.

Ok. Now, if I can prove to you that there was little risk of death involved prior to the third trimester, will you change your opinion?

You on the other hand, want to continue to ignore or degrade the only doctor that did have all the facts.

I disagree that he made the right decision. Doctors do get it wrong sometimes, it doesn't mean he's a bad doctor. I find his rationales uncompelling. I can understand why he chose the abortion, but I believe he was wrong to do so given the condition under discussion.

So why did you post the crap from the non medical doctor first... you simply aren't very believable.

Because I was trying to explain why the excommunication occurred. For that, Kreeft is helpful.

[David Floyd]

And barred from performing the sacraments altogether, or from contact with minors, etc. Effective excommunication from the day to day life of the parish.

Except not actual excommunication, which is my point.

I guess the real question is do you want excommunication as the proper tool here? You can't discipline them if they are excommunicated, because excommunication is the ultimate punishment that the church can levy. You'd be putting them out in the public.

Absolutely. Why you think that Church discipline is the appropriate punishment for CHILD RAPE is beyond me. Of course it should be out in public - the priests should be in front of a judge and jury facing life in prison. I don't really give a **** if they are excommunicated or not - the point you continue to dance around is that the Church's "nuclear option", ie, excommunication, is deemed appropriate for those involved with abortion, but either not appropriate or not strong enough (huh?) for child rapists.

Whereas if they are not excommunicated, then they can be disciplined, and confined.

Oh, believe me, they can be disciplined and confined either way. I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure every DA in the country and every lawyer in the world would agree with me.

[David Floyd]

Never mind. I'll let Ming handle it.

[giblets]

Just out of curiosity... where does the Bible say life begins with conception? I assume it does because I don't see why they would excommunicate people without some sort of biblical support.

[Ben Kenobi]

Absolutely. Why you think that Church discipline is the appropriate punishment for CHILD RAPE is beyond me.

Because it's more stringent than the 2 years they would get in jail. 2 years, out and free. Church discipline, they'd spend the rest of their lives.

Of course it should be out in public - the priests should be in front of a judge and jury facing life in prison. I don't really give a **** if they are excommunicated or not - the point you continue to dance around is that the Church's "nuclear option", ie, excommunication, is deemed appropriate for those involved with abortion, but either not appropriate or not strong enough (huh?) for child rapists.

Sometimes when you see a nail, you should really stick to the hammer and not the nuclear weapon.

Oh, believe me, they can be disciplined and confined either way. I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure every DA in the country and every lawyer in the world would agree with me.

Given the average incarceration rate, they'd be tried, charged, imprisoned, and out in 2 years, and 'forgotten', because it doesn't matter how many kids they molest again, provided they aren't wearing the cloth.

[Ben Kenobi]

Just out of curiosity... where does the Bible say life begins with conception? I assume it does because I don't see why they would excommunicate people without some sort of biblical support.

This is a good question.

Jeremiah 1:5, is probably the most explicit quote:

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.

This is spoken by YHWH to Jeremiah.

In the NT, you have Luke 1:39-55.

At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, where she entered Zechariah's home and greeted Elizabeth. When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice she exclaimed: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy

There's others as well.

[David Floyd]

Because it's more stringent than the 2 years they would get in jail. 2 years, out and free. Church discipline, they'd spend the rest of their lives.

Church discipline is a ****ing joke. Are you really arguing that they don't deserve prison time? Because that's exactly what you are saying - Church discipline > legal ramifications, in your view.

Sometimes when you see a nail, you should really stick to the hammer and not the nuclear weapon.

So, to clarify, participating in an abortion deserves the "nuclear weapon", and child rape, merely the hammer? And of course, the hammer to which you refer is more like a plastic hammer - after all, if someone is going to rape a small child, I doubt that person will give much of a **** about so-called church discipline.

Given the average incarceration rate, they'd be tried, charged, imprisoned, and out in 2 years, and 'forgotten', because it doesn't matter how many kids they molest again, provided they aren't wearing the cloth.

Except for the fact that they would be convicted felons and registered sex offenders. Those two things cost you far more in life in terms of consequences than bull**** Church discipline.