The Catholic Church - Ideologically Consistent, and Still Evil

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

Yes, I believe this. Do you really believe that incarceration for two years is sufficient penalty?

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.

It doesn't matter what he cares about church discipline or not. The point is that he has chosen, of his own free will, to become part of the clergy of the Catholic church. He can leave and face secular discipline, or face ecclesiastical discipline.

If he chooses the latter, then he is bound by his old oath. For life. They could, if they wanted, lock him up in a hermitage for the rest of his life.

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.

Only if the employer bothers to do a background check. At least with the church, they aren't going to reoffend.

[Ming]

Yes, I believe this. Do you really believe that incarceration for two years is sufficient penalty?

At least it is a penality... unlike the many cases where ALL the church did was move the priest somewhere else where he could continue to do it again. And there was no public record, making it even easier for the priests to continue. And at least while the criminal is in jail, the public is safe... unlike what the church did.

It doesn't matter what he cares about church discipline or not. The point is that he has chosen, of his own free will, to become part of the clergy of the Catholic church. He can leave and face secular discipline, or face ecclesiastical discipline.

Priests are not above the law of the land. Just because somebody is a member of a religion doesn't mean he can ignore laws... especially laws like child rape.

If he chooses the latter, then he is bound by his old oath. For life. They could, if they wanted, lock him up in a hermitage for the rest of his life.

Too bad that's NOT how they treated these criminal priests. In most cases, they just moved them and let them rape some more.

Only if the employer bothers to do a background check. At least with the church, they aren't going to reoffend.

What a joke... many did reoffend, because the church never bothered to tell anybody.
It's far better that offenders are at least identified to the public... instead of the Church approach... cover up and protect their asses... and leave potential victims unaware of the preditors in their communities.

[David Floyd]

Yes, I believe this. Do you really believe that incarceration for two years is sufficient penalty?

Incarceration is part of the penalty. I think we both know that a priest (or teacher, etc.) convicted of raping children while in a position of authority will get more than 2 years, and we also both know what happens to child sex offenders in prison. Additionally, there are lifetime consequences - a convicted sex offender has to register at all times, faces restrictions about where he/she can live and who he/she can come in contact with, and any convicted felon will have a hard time securing gainful employment.

Are you saying that the Church "keeping it in the family", as it relates to the punishment of child rapists, is acceptable?

It doesn't matter what he cares about church discipline or not. The point is that he has chosen, of his own free will, to become part of the clergy of the Catholic church. He can leave and face secular discipline, or face ecclesiastical discipline.

If the RCC presents this as an option, they can and should be held criminally and civilly responsible for harboring a criminal, covering up felonies, etc.

If he chooses the latter, then he is bound by his old oath. For life. They could, if they wanted, lock him up in a hermitage for the rest of his life.

No, the Church actually isn't allowed to kidnap/wrongfully imprison anyone, regardless of what that person may have agreed to.

Only if the employer bothers to do a background check. At least with the church, they aren't going to reoffend.

What does this mean? That the Church doesn't have priests and bishops who reoffended, because of the lack of consequences, either theoretical or actual? Or does it mean that the threat of Church discipline, which the Church can't possibly legally enforce without incurring SIGNIFICANT criminal and civil liability, is both an acceptable and preferable alternative to prosecuting rapists through the legal system?

[Thoth]

Yes, I believe this. Do you really believe that incarceration for two years is sufficient penalty?

2 years in General Population = life sentence for a kiddy diddler.

Good enough for me.

[Zanzozz]

Only if the employer bothers to do a background check. At least with the church, they aren't going to reoffend.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iI6nXfskyvs1zxP5tR-_IB42jSbAD9FJ37680

That seems to disagree.

[Ming]

Now, Ming.
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.

What a joke... you are making the worse case scenario that the doctor assigned to a case has no experience in that area, but that an expert with no expertise in the specific case knows more simply because he has some experience in similar cases. You are claiming "effectiveness" based on a very low probability.

One last time... your "expert" may have experience in these types of cases, but he still doesn't have all the facts in the case and has never even seen the patient, while the doctor who in all probability has experience, and maybe has even treated more woman in this condition than your expert, and who has all the facts and has seen the patient, is in a BETTER POSITION TO HAVE THE BEST OPINION.

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.

Until you can prove that 'your" expert has all the facts and has examined the patient, his opinion doesn't mean a heck of a lot... the ball never left your court.

Even your own expert said... "Byrne emphasized that he was not commentating on what the woman's particular treatment should have been under the circumstances, given that she is not his patient."
Even he's not as stupid as you are, and admits that he doesn't have all the facts.

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'.

One more time Ben... where does it say the attending physician categorised the child as a disease and didn't take the unborn child into consideration. Even the version you provide doesn't say that. The only thing we know as a FACT is that the doctor considered her seriously ill and at risk. While the hospital may have made a "statement'... the DOCTOR didn't.

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.

Not treating somebody because of silly religious beliefs and allowing them to die is murder.

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.

Again.. even your own expert makes the point that his comments were general and shouldn't be viewed as specific to this case since she wasn't his patient. Similar isn't good enough since ALL cases are not identical. Maybe you should listen to your own expert and not do something even he wasn't willing to do.

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.

But again... you are just making it up and assuming that this applies to this specific case... something your own expert couldn't admit.

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.

Again... show me the quote from the doctor... Oh... you can't. The HOSPITAL issued a statement saying they allowed it because it fell under some silly catholic mandated requirement, it doesn't say the nun, the family, or the doctor shared that opinion. The only thing we do know is that they all agreed the woman's life was in danger.

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

Not relevent in any way. Unlike you, I don't let personal beliefs change how I view facts. I might make personal decisions based on beliefs, but facts are facts.

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.

At least now she will have a life... If you had your way, it would have been a short one.

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.

They agreed the mother was in danger and that the baby would die with her... nowhere does it say they all conidered it a disease, and that nobody considered the child.

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

More than a "few" considering that it is a GLOBAL problem. You keep making this sound like a "little" problem... it isn't. Oh, and how many of those Bishops have been execummunicated.

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.

REMEMBER... "Byrne emphasized that he was not commentating on what the woman's particular treatment should have been under the circumstances, given that she is not his patient." That is a FACT.

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

Not much of debate since the expert has no evidence or ever examined the patient, which your expert even admits. And ANY doctor will tell you that there is no certainty in medicine. So while you can stand by somebody who admits he can't comment on the specific case, I will stand by the opinion of the doctor that can.

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.

You keep repeating the same mantra... listen to your expert, you might learn something.

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.

Why... you had no problem insulting the attending doctor repeatedly... putting words in his mouth, making up stuff like he had no experience... with no facts to support your position.

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

LIER!

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

No surprise here... It's too bad you have too many bishops that allow child rapists to continue doing their thing.

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.

Your first expert, "Kreeft" was not a medical doctor.

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.

Backpeddleing at best... you were positioning it as a medical opinion, one that he isn't qualified to have.
And again... he doesn't have all the facts and never examined the patient either.

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, your experts... the ones who don't have all the facts and never examined the patient could be wrong too... and probably more likely that they are.

The decision was made by the people that did have all the information... that's how it works in hospitals.

[Ben Kenobi]

At least it is a penality... unlike the many cases where ALL the church did was move the priest somewhere else where he could continue to do it again.

Right, which is why I already said I opposed the cover ups, which were done by bishops covering up their own abuse. Bad bishop + bad priests = coverup.

What does this have to do with my argument about true discipline, removing the priest from the day to day life of the parish, and confinement apart from any contact with minors?

And there was no public record, making it even easier for the priests to continue.

Only because the true discipline wasn't there. Again, you are arguing against an argument which no one is making.

And at least while the criminal is in jail, the public is safe... unlike what the church did.

And two years later he's out. Yeah, how 'safe' it is.

Priests are not above the law of the land. Just because somebody is a member of a religion doesn't mean he can ignore laws... especially laws like child rape.

Where did I say this? I simply said that I believe that the ecclesiastical punishment is both harsher and more proportionate than anything he'd receive from the courts.

Too bad that's NOT how they treated these criminal priests. In most cases, they just moved them and let them rape some more.

No, in most cases they were properly disciplined. There were a few which were covered up by the bishop, which have been the cases you have bothered to cite. They aren't representative of the cases as a whole.

Quote:
Only if the employer bothers to do a background check. At least with the church, they aren't going to reoffend.

What a joke... many did reoffend, because the church never bothered to tell anybody.

Less then the reoffending rate of sexual offenders sentenced to prison.

It's far better that offenders are at least identified to the public... instead of the Church approach... cover up and protect their asses... and leave potential victims unaware of the preditors in their communities.

Again, arguing against an argument no one has made.

[Ben Kenobi]

Incarceration is part of the penalty.

So you feel 2 years is sufficient? I don't.

I think we both know that a priest (or teacher, etc.) convicted of raping children while in a position of authority will get more than 2 years

On average the sexual offenders will receive 2 years. In many cases they will go on probation, especially if they are a teacher without a prior sexual offense. We've seen teachers go free without serving time at all.

we also both know what happens to child sex offenders in prison. Additionally, there are lifetime consequences - a convicted sex offender has to register at all times, faces restrictions about where he/she can live and who he/she can come in contact with, and any convicted felon will have a hard time securing gainful employment.

Not really. He can serve with children if anyone along the chain is lax in doing a background check. Has, and will continue to happen.

Are you saying that the Church "keeping it in the family", as it relates to the punishment of child rapists, is acceptable?

If 'keeping it in the family' means that the priest is confined within the diocese and isn't permitted to have any contact with minors for the duration of his service to the church, then yes, I believe it's an acceptable punishment.

The biggest problem with the abuse scandal has been abusive bishops who have protected the abusive priests.

If the RCC presents this as an option, they can and should be held criminally and civilly responsible for harboring a criminal, covering up felonies, etc.

Only if they choose to leave the clergy.

No, the Church actually isn't allowed to kidnap/wrongfully imprison anyone, regardless of what that person may have agreed to.

How is it kidnapping, if the offender chooses to accept church discipline? It's not. Neither is it wrongful imprisonment, because as you've argued, they ought to be in jail anyways.

This is a terrible argument David. Why did you even bother bringing it up? It weakens everything else. How can you argue that confinement is wrong but imprisonment is not? You are letting your hate for the church colour your argument.

What does this mean? That the Church doesn't have priests and bishops who reoffended, because of the lack of consequences, either theoretical or actual?

No, it means that when subjected to proper discipline, that they are less likely to reoffend then those who have been imprisoned.

Or does it mean that the threat of Church discipline, which the Church can't possibly legally enforce without incurring SIGNIFICANT criminal and civil liability, is both an acceptable and preferable alternative to prosecuting rapists through the legal system?

Why would they incur criminal and civil liability? It's not the jurisdiction of the state to dictate to the ecclesial courts. Again, all of the priests have voluntarily agreed in this case to accept ecclesiastical discipline.

[giblets]

Someone explain to me how a prison sentence and this so-called "church discipline" (whatever that is) are mutually exclusive. If the church feels the prison sentence is too light why can't it administer its "church discipline" during or after the prison sentence?

Any what is "church discipline" anyway? How is it anywhere near as bad as being in prison?

[Ben Kenobi]

What a joke... you are making the worse case scenario that the doctor assigned to a case has no experience in that area

I did not say this. I said with this particular condition, given his comments, I sincerely doubt that he has ever treated a woman in a similar condition. Now, you claim that the attending doctors do in fact have said experience, but no proof.

Whereas the expert I cited, I provided his name and his credentials, which is more than you can say.

, but that an expert with no expertise in the specific case knows more simply because he has some experience in similar cases. You are claiming "effectiveness" based on a very low probability.

Horse****. I'm claiming that expert has expertise in neonatology, which is the study of the development of the unborn child in the womb.

One last time... your "expert" may have experience in these types of cases, but he still doesn't have all the facts in the case and has never even seen the patient

This is true. However, I sincerely doubt that his opinion of the case would change if he had been the physician in charge. I've seen nothing from you, or from any source that you've cited to convince me that the facts are anything other than what he's stated.

while the doctor who in all probability has experience, and maybe has even treated more woman in this condition than your expert, and who has all the facts and has seen the patient, is in a BETTER POSITION TO HAVE THE BEST OPINION.

Again, this is not always the case. Doctors make mistakes. I'm arguing that the attending doctor did not take into consideration all the possible options.

Until you can prove that 'your" expert has all the facts and has examined the patient, his opinion doesn't mean a heck of a lot... the ball never left your court.

You've never proven that the attending doctor has ever treated a woman in this similar condition. So that's pretty weak evidence that he has the said experience you claim he possesses. At least I have a name.

Even your own expert said... "Byrne emphasized that he was not commentating on what the woman's particular treatment should have been under the circumstances, given that she is not his patient."
Even he's not as stupid as you are, and admits that he doesn't have all the facts.

Indeed. However, his opinion and experience is in fact valid.

One more time Ben... where does it say the attending physician categorised the child as a disease

Did you read any of my citations up ahead? It's all there.

Even the version you provide doesn't say that.

Yes it does. Read it again.

The only thing we know as a FACT is that the doctor considered her seriously ill and at risk. While the hospital may have made a "statement'... the DOCTOR didn't.

Interesting argument. So the hospital and the attending doctor were not of one mind?

Not treating somebody because of silly religious beliefs and allowing them to die is murder.

How is monitoring the condition, and performing an emergency c-section, "allowing the child and mother to die?"

Sometimes the safest and most appropriate treatment is to do nothing.

Again.. even your own expert makes the point that his comments were general and shouldn't be viewed as specific to this case since she wasn't his patient. Similar isn't good enough since ALL cases are not identical. Maybe you should listen to your own expert and not do something even he wasn't willing to do.

No, but you can be reasonably sure that his opinion is correct, that the condition in and of itself is not lifethreatening.

But again... you are just making it up and assuming that this applies to this specific case... something your own expert couldn't admit.

Not making up anything. I haven't even looked into the full question yet, this is just a portion.

Again... show me the quote from the doctor... Oh... you can't. The HOSPITAL issued a statement saying they allowed it because it fell under some silly catholic mandated requirement, it doesn't say the nun, the family, or the doctor shared that opinion. The only thing we do know is that they all agreed the woman's life was in danger.

Aahh, so you are saying that the hospital disagreed with the doctor, the nun and the family? That's a pretty untenable position. There's no evidence to suggest that they were not anything other than of one mind on this case. In fact, you've been arguing that from the beginning.

Not relevent in any way. Unlike you, I don't let personal beliefs change how I view facts. I might make personal decisions based on beliefs, but facts are facts.

So it's a fact then that you have two persons here, mother and child?

At least now she will have a life... If you had your way, it would have been a short one.

And all c-sections result in death? Some do, but most don't. I would say that the odds were extremely high that both mother and child could have been saved. Say, around 95 percent as a guess without having looked at it further.

So I guess the question now becomes.

99 percent chance of saving the mother vs 95 percent chance to save the mother and the son. I don't think that's a good decision. Do you think that increasing your chance of dying from 1 percent to 5 percent, isn't worth saving the life of the child? What you are telling me here ming, is that you believe the life of the unborn child to be worth less that 1/20th of an adult.

More than a "few" considering that it is a GLOBAL problem. You keep making this sound like a "little" problem... it isn't. Oh, and how many of those Bishops have been execummunicated.

When the cases are from 40 years ago, yes, it isn't a big problem. There are over 1200 bishops and 10 thousand priests. Maybe 5 bishops in all have been proven guilty. 5 of 1200.

Why... you had no problem insulting the attending doctor repeatedly... putting words in his mouth, making up stuff like he had no experience... with no facts to support your position.

All I said is that we do not know if the attending physician has treated a woman with a similar condition before. This is a fact.

[Ben Kenobi]

Someone explain to me how a prison sentence and this so-called "church discipline" (whatever that is) are mutually exclusive.

Because once released to prison, the priest is no longer under the jurisdiction of the church. They could not in fact apply church discipline. Look at it this way, when the priest is released, he would have no standing whatsoever in the church. They could not decide for him where he was to go, and where he would serve.

If the church feels the prison sentence is too light why can't it administer its "church discipline" during or after the prison sentence?

Because the state takes control of him in the prison. If the church had control over it's priests even in prison, then they could take him out. This obviously isn't the case.

Any what is "church discipline" anyway? How is it anywhere near as bad as being in prison?

Priests are assigned to a particular diocese. They are given lodging, generally with the other priests.

Church discipline would bar the priest from participating in the mass, in performing mass, in hearing confessions. The Church still has control over where the priest lives, etc. They could assign him to a room, and he would be permitted contact only with his fellow brothers. He would likely be given work inside, or outside under supervision.

Think of a small, bare room in the monastery, and having to clean the steps every day for the next 30 years until you die. That is church discipline. Depending on the order, he may not be able to even speak with his brothers during the day.

[MrFun]

I hate you guys for getting BK to post book-length posts.

[Thoth]

That's what the scroll wheel on your mouse is for.

[David Floyd]

So you feel 2 years is sufficient? I don't.

I agree. It should be life. In a STATE PRISON.

On average the sexual offenders will receive 2 years. In many cases they will go on probation, especially if they are a teacher without a prior sexual offense. We've seen teachers go free without serving time at all.

Not in the case of actual rape, at least not that I'm aware. You can't seriously tell me that you don't think a Catholic priest, convicted of CHILD RAPE, would not get prison time. That's ****ing ridiculous.

Not really. He can serve with children if anyone along the chain is lax in doing a background check. Has, and will continue to happen.

Sure, as it has also happened within the RCC. Additionally, any convicted sex offender who is caught failing to register, or in any other way violating the conditions of their release, is going straight back to prison regardless of the laxness of any background checks.

If 'keeping it in the family' means that the priest is confined within the diocese and isn't permitted to have any contact with minors for the duration of his service to the church, then yes, I believe it's an acceptable punishment.

The Church is NOT a law unto itself. The Catholic Church doesn't get to tell the government "Don't worry guys, we've got this." That is illegal, unfair, and unjust. Crime is crime, and the only entity legally capable of punishing crime is whatever level of government which holds jurisdiction over the matter. This is mind boggling, Ben. You've really done it this time. You are really trying to argue that it is OK for rapists not to be prosecuting, as long as the Church "handles matters". What the ****?

Only if they choose to leave the clergy.

Nope, sorry, try again. If a rape victim can prove that the Catholic Church covered up the rape - regardless of "Church discipline", which is NOT legally recognized punishment - then that victim can hold the RCC civilly liable, and the government can prosecute anyone involved criminally.

How is it kidnapping, if the offender chooses to accept church discipline? It's not. Neither is it wrongful imprisonment, because as you've argued, they ought to be in jail anyways.

Because the Church IS NOT ALLOWED TO PUT PEOPLE IN PRISON! What the ****, Ben? It's wrongful imprisonment and kidnapping because the Church doesn't have the right to so much as DETAIN someone.

This is a terrible argument David. Why did you even bother bringing it up? It weakens everything else. How can you argue that confinement is wrong but imprisonment is not? You are letting your hate for the church colour your argument.

No, the only person making a terrible argument is you. Yes, rapists should be in prison. By prison, I do not mean "confined to the diocese", or "sent to Sierra Leone". I mean ****ing prison. If the Church tries to act as a government, withhold evidence from the investigating police department and the District Attorney, AND force someone into confinement when they hold on legal or jurisdictional authority over that person, then the Church is ABSOLUTELY LIABLE. What about this don't you get? You can disagree that this is how it should be, but you can't disagree that THIS IS HOW IT IS!

No, it means that when subjected to proper discipline, that they are less likely to reoffend then those who have been imprisoned.

So now, prison isn't even proper discipline for child rapists? Apparently, excommunication isn't proper, either.

Why would they incur criminal and civil liability? It's not the jurisdiction of the state to dictate to the ecclesial courts. Again, all of the priests have voluntarily agreed in this case to accept ecclesiastical discipline.

It's really very simple. Ecclesiastical courts have NO LEGAL STANDING. If a priest submits to an ecclesiastical court, then changes his mind in a month, the Church has no legal authority to compel him to continue to accept punishment. Said priest can file a lawsuit and/or press criminal charges. Furthermore, while Ecclesiastical courts can certainly pass whatever judgments they want outside of whatever the state does, SO CAN I. I can convene the kangaroo court of David Floyd, and so long as everyone abides by my decisions and agrees to them, then I'm largely fine (except that I'm really not, and neither is the RCC because there are limits to what you can "agree" to subject yourself to voluntarily). The main point, though, is that regardless of whatever your silly church court does, the government still has a responsibility and an obligation to criminally prosecute a rapist.

[Ming]

I did not say this. I said with this particular condition, given his comments, I sincerely doubt that he has ever treated a woman in a similar condition. Now, you claim that the attending doctors do in fact have said experience, but no proof.

WHAT COMMENTS... you are claiming that you doubt based on NO COMMENTS. Show me ANY quotes from the doctor... OH, that's right. You CAN'T. You are lying yet again. You have NO PROOF.

Whereas the expert I cited, I provided his name and his credentials, which is more than you can say.

Yet again.. an expert who himself claims he can't make a judgement because she wasn't his patient.
He seems to have far more brains than you.

Horse****. I'm claiming that expert has expertise in neonatology, which is the study of the development of the unborn child in the womb.

You are claiming he knows the case... he doesn't, and even admits it.

This is true. However, I sincerely doubt that his opinion of the case would change if he had been the physician in charge. I've seen nothing from you, or from any source that you've cited to convince me that the facts are anything other than what he's stated.

He stated that his opinion can't apply because she wasn't his patient... WAKE UP BEN!

Again, this is not always the case. Doctors make mistakes. I'm arguing that the attending doctor did not take into consideration all the possible options.

And your expert could be mistaken as well since he doesn't have ANY FACTS on this specific case.

You've never proven that the attending doctor has ever treated a woman in this similar condition. So that's pretty weak evidence that he has the said experience you claim he possesses. At least I have a name.

You haven't proven he didn't... so what's your point.

Indeed. However, his opinion and experience is in fact valid.

Yeah... the fact that he admits he can't comment on this specific patient.

Did you read any of my citations up ahead? It's all there.

Did you read what your expert actually said.

Interesting argument. So the hospital and the attending doctor were not of one mind?

One mind in that the patients life was at risk. Please post ANY quote from the doctor to support your made up claims.

How is monitoring the condition, and performing an emergency c-section, "allowing the child and mother to die?"

The doctor who was in charge of the case made a decision based on facts... not theory.

Sometimes the safest and most appropriate treatment is to do nothing.

And in their opinion, it would have led to two deaths... again, you are making crap up.

No, but you can be reasonably sure that his opinion is correct, that the condition in and of itself is not lifethreatening.

At least he knew the facts... unlike you or your expert who ADMITTED he couldn't comment on the specific case without all the facts.

Not making up anything. I haven't even looked into the full question yet, this is just a portion.

Yes... you are making stuff up. Your own expert admits he can't comment, but you feel you can. What a joke.

Aahh, so you are saying that the hospital disagreed with the doctor, the nun and the family? That's a pretty untenable position. There's no evidence to suggest that they were not anything other than of one mind on this case. In fact, you've been arguing that from the beginning.

I said the hospital issued a statement to meet their silly requirements. What is clear is that they all agreed the woman's life was in danger. Big difference. Something you don't understand. You keep claiming that doctor said this or that, but NO WHERE is there any quote from the doctor. You are simply a lier.

So it's a fact then that you have two persons here, mother and child?

Yep... two people... and both would die if the mother did. It made sense to save at least ONE life, instead of letting them both die.

And all c-sections result in death? Some do, but most don't. I would say that the odds were extremely high that both mother and child could have been saved. Say, around 95 percent as a guess without having looked at it further.

Making stuff up yet again... You are asuming that a c section could save the mother and baby. Obviouly, the doctor with all the facts disagreed. And your expert admitted he can't comment on the specific treatment or case... But you seem to be able to continue to have a medical opinion supported by no facts...

So I guess the question now becomes.

99 percent chance of saving the mother vs 95 percent chance to save the mother and the son. I don't think that's a good decision. Do you think that increasing your chance of dying from 1 percent to 5 percent, isn't worth saving the life of the child? What you are telling me here ming, is that you believe the life of the unborn child to be worth less that 1/20th of an adult.

Your whole point here is irrelevent... as usual. You are just making stuff up. Your numbers don't fit the actual case.

When the cases are from 40 years ago, yes, it isn't a big problem. There are over 1200 bishops and 10 thousand priests. Maybe 5 bishops in all have been proven guilty. 5 of 1200.

Yep... no big problem at all... just a global problem with far more than 5 bishops involved. Bury your head in the sand if you like, but the rest of the world isn't.

All I said is that we do not know if the attending physician has treated a woman with a similar condition before. This is a fact.

And do you know that he hasn't... Yet you keep trying to quote a doctor that wasn't quoted.
Your whole argument is based on not knowing any of the facts... At least I'm supporting the one person that actually had some facts.