The Catholic Church - Ideologically Consistent, and Still Evil

[loinburger]

Umm, I didn't start this thread

What percentage of the posts in the thread are yours? How about in every thread on homosexuality that you troll? Or every thread on women's rights? You don't need to start threads to be a troll, you just have to behave exactly as you have been doing - repeatedly engaging in dishonest discourse, turning every thread into a "look at me I'm Ben Kenobi and I'm up here on my cross" thread.

[Ben Kenobi]

Don't you think that the most relevant medical opinion is the one of the attending physician? Anyone can "Monday morning quarterback" any decision they want, but that doesn't make their judgment the right one.

No, I don't think that the attending physician made the right decision here. If the case were to come up before medical review where all the particulars were opened up, I'm certain that the abortion would be regarded as medically unnecessary.

Unless of course there are other complications which haven't been publicised this isn't that controversial a case. Take the whole 'abortion politics' out of it, and it's pretty much open and shut.

This isn't a monday morning quarterback situation. This is like having game film, and having Dan Marino criticising Jamarcus Russel's throwing decisions. You have someone more qualified than the attending physicians commenting on the particulars of the case, saying outright that the woman's life was not at risk.

The next step would be to take a look at similar cases with this complication in the first trimester, and to record how many were serious enough to require intervention to save the life of the mother. Again, it is a serious complication but not a life threatening one until later into the pregnancy. It's not until the 3rd trimester that it would become serious enough to threaten the life of the mother.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's called triage you numbskull. You're buying into the premise that if you do nothing then you're not morally responsible for your lack of action

It's called Primum non nocere. First do no harm. The physician by aborting a perfectly healthy child has caused considerable harm to the patient.

The appropriate response would not have been to do nothing, but to monitor the situation.

- if we wait and see what happens (even though there's an extremely high probability that both the mother and unborn will die if we do so) then we're in the clear.

Extremely high probability? That's the point of contention here. You are making a circular argument.

I'm questioning this specific assumption, and you must address this challenge rather then simply trying to talk over me with the BAM. What's the percentage of women with this complication in the 11th week who would die within the next week or so? I'm betting that the answer is statistically insignificantly different from the normal incidence of death.

I take it you also believe that conjoined twins should never be separated if doing so may cause the death of one (even though not separating them will almost certainly cause the death of both)?

That's a question that depends entirely on the degree of separation between the two. Some cannot be separated at all, and others can be separated with minimum risk to either.

"If I sit back and condemn all others' actions then I'm morally in the clear."

"If I kill one person, when I could have saved him by making different decisions, I'm in the clear. She could have another baby later."

[David Floyd]

No, I don't think that the attending physician made the right decision here. If the case were to come up before medical review where all the particulars were opened up, I'm certain that the abortion would be regarded as medically unnecessary.

That's an unbelievably arrogant thing to say. How would you know? Do you have a medical degree? Did you even go to Nursing School, much less Med School? Ever take premed classes, for that matter? No? Then how would you know?

This isn't a monday morning quarterback situation. This is like having game film, and having Dan Marino criticising Jamarcus Russel's throwing decisions. You have someone more qualified than the attending physicians commenting on the particulars of the case, saying outright that the woman's life was not at risk.

Your position, then, was that the attending physician was incompetent? So, then, you think they should be sanctioned by the American Medical Association, and perhaps even prosecuted? Attacking the competence of the attending physician - that dog won't hunt here.

The next step would be to take a look at similar cases with this complication in the first trimester, and to record how many were serious enough to require intervention to save the life of the mother. Again, it is a serious complication but not a life threatening one until later into the pregnancy. It's not until the 3rd trimester that it would become serious enough to threaten the life of the mother.

And again, you're not a doctor. Yes, some people who you claim agree with you may be doctors - but I'm gonna take a shot in the dark and say that they are probably also pro-life Christians of some sort, probably Catholics. In other words, they have a dog in the fight. I'm not attacking their competence, but their motives. But more importantly, I'm gonna go with the opinion of the clearly qualified attending physician (clearly competent because, well, the AMA says so).

[Asher]

No, I don't think that the attending physician made the right decision here. If the case were to come up before medical review where all the particulars were opened up, I'm certain that the abortion would be regarded as medically unnecessary.

Based on your demonstrably thorough understanding of the case and your decades of medical experience. Why would anyone even argue against you here?

You are clearly an expert. An expert who had to attend community college to get grades high enough to study history at one of the most pathetic schools in all of Canada, a rural university of "northern British Columbia". Jesus Christ, Ben.

BUT DON'T WORRY, you say. You also quote the expert medical testimony of a PHILOSOPHY MAJOR most famous for pimping Christianity in academic circles over anything substantive in his life.

[Ben Kenobi]

How about in every thread on homosexuality that you troll? Or every thread on women's rights?

Women's rights! = abortion? You need to go talk to Susan B Anthony.

repeatedly engaging in dishonest discourse,

I suggest not assuming what you are trying to prove before labelling others as dishonest.

The question is whether or not the woman was at a significant risk of dying.

I've cited medical opinion which asserts that she was not at a significant risk. How is this a dishonest argument?

[Ben Kenobi]

That's an unbelievably arrogant thing to say. How would you know? Do you have a medical degree? Did you even go to Nursing School, much less Med School? Ever take premed classes, for that matter? No? Then how would you know?

I trust the already-cited expert opinion in this thread. You are right, I am not a doctor. I do know doctors and I have spoken with them, and their opinions on this matter are pretty clear. This complication while serious is not imminently life threatening. C-section in the second trimester is the standard treatment.

Your position, then, was that the attending physician was incompetent?

No. I think he made the wrong decision. There's a large degree between this and incompetency.

So, then, you think they should be sanctioned by the American Medical Association, and perhaps even prosecuted? Attacking the competence of the attending physician - that dog won't hunt here.

The case should be taken up for medical review. Ordinarily, I would not have suggested that this occur, but then this would be helpful to settle the matter. The review is not to assess the conduct of the attending physician, but to resolve the matter as to whether the abortion was or was not medically necessary.

And again, you're not a doctor. Yes, some people who you claim agree with you may be doctors - but I'm gonna take a shot in the dark and say that they are probably also pro-life Christians of some sort, probably Catholics.

Some are and some are not. The opinion is argued on medical grounds, and not on philosophy.

In other words, they have a dog in the fight. I'm not attacking their competence, but their motives. But more importantly, I'm gonna go with the opinion of the clearly qualified attending physician (clearly competent because, well, the AMA says so).

And the physician I cited is also competent, and shares a different assessment. The issue here isn't competency, but whether or not the abortion was medically necessary.

[loinburger]

Women's rights! = abortion? You need to go talk to Susan B Anthony.

Women's rights != abortion. At best, women's rights ⊃ abortion, though in reality abortion is not fully contained by women's rights. No, an example of women's rights is your belief that women are breeding machines, a subset of which is your belief that abortion is murder, but which also contains your belief that women should not be in positions of authority.

How is this a dishonest argument?

Your dishonesty is spread far and wide throughout the forum - your actions in this thread are merely the tip of the iceberg.

[loinburger]

I'm questioning this specific assumption, and you must address this challenge rather then simply trying to talk over me with the BAM. What's the percentage of women with this complication in the 11th week who would die within the next week or so? I'm betting that the answer is statistically insignificantly different from the normal incidence of death.

And this is you treating people as statistics again. If she dies we'll just have more data points for the next time we deny the procedure.

[Asher]

I trust the already-cited expert opinion in this thread. You are right, I am not a doctor. I do know doctors and I have spoken with them, and their opinions on this matter are pretty clear.

Is your brother a doctor?

[C0ckney]

[Ben Kenobi]

And those doctors aren't the attending...

You are right that they were not attending. I'd argue that if they were, the abortion would not have occurred, and both the mother and the child would be alive today. Unfortunately that didn't occur and the child was killed.

You don't seem to care about the mother as all

I think we have different definitions of 'caring'.

I think the incredibly caring statement that she can always get another one in the future shows considerable empathy and tact.

And again... please explain why abortion deserves excummunication but killing a one day old child isn't?

They both do. Next up?

See earlier comments... your qualified doctor NEVER even examined the patient, so his opinion is just that... an opinion based on no examination. So he isn't qualified at all.

It's an expert testimony. If he were given access to the patient files, do you have any reason to believe that his opinion would change? Do you believe that if he were the attending physician, that the mother and child would have been both saved instead of one dying?

So Ben... what if it's a scientific fact that the mother will die if a pregnacy continues... should she be allowed to have an abortion to save herself, or should just die because of your beliefs?

I've already said, that in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, that it would be permissible. This case is different.

[Ben Kenobi]

belief that women should not be in positions of authority.

Which is why I enthusiastically support Sarah Palin? Next up.

[Zanzozz]

Is your brother a doctor?

I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV.

Oh and I can't seem to find out how to make a signature, I need to put

"I enthusiastically support Sarah Palin" -Ben K

in it

[Princess Peach]

I do know doctors and I have spoken with them, and their opinions on this matter are pretty clear.

Although I could be mistaken, I'm pretty sure your family doctor doesn't count.