The Catholic Church - Ideologically Consistent, and Still Evil

[Ben Kenobi]

Gee... your uneducated medical "opinion" is better than the doctor treating the patient?

Kreeft says the same thing as I do, and he's got plenty of letters behind his name. Or perhaps one of the articles where the Catholic DOCTORS, disagreed with the assessment.

Even the ethics committee of the CATHOLIC hospital agreed it was the right choice.

Oh, they did? The article doesn't make that claim. What were their names?

But you think you know more than doctors... at least they were familiar with the specifics of the case... are you DR MORON.

No, but I am familiar with this case already.

If they receive ANY public funding, then they should follow the laws of the land.

Do they have a choice in this? Oh wait, no they don't thanks to Obamacare.

That's all this is about, forcing Catholic hospitals to perform abortions against their wishes.

In the MEDICAL opinion of the doctor, the child would have died with the mother.

Medical opinion of who? The Ms. Magazine? I don't see the article say, Dr. So and so, and this is his opinion.

As is the case with the other example I provided. So in their MEDICAL OPINION AS DOCTORS, the child was not going to survive either way.

The RCC position... Your child is going to die... so you must die as well, even though you can be saved and the child can't. That is simply murder!

So lying about what Catholics teach, is a-ok?

A Bishop who has no more medical training than a dead rat excummunicated the nun. The Ethics Committee of the CATHOLIC HOSPITAL agreed it needed to be done after REVIEWING THE MEDICAL FACTS that the doctor provided!

Funny, how we don't get any names in this hit piece so those of use who know can do our own research. Maybe we should cite an actual newsworthy piece and not this propaganda.

And you know this how? Do you have her medical history and charts? Are you a medical doctor or do you just copy and paste stuff from pro life websites?

Because I read the statement of the bishop regarding this case, and his disagreement. That's called 'getting both sides of the story'.

Without the abortion, she probably would have died... and the baby too.

And with the abortion the baby has a 100 percent chance of dying. How do we know she would have died within the next 15 weeks?

So you are claiming that the only way it is really life threatining is if the patient actually dies. A little late to save the mother using your logic.

There have been cases like this before. The standard treatment, depending on the severity of the hypertension is to have the mom monitor her condition at home. If it's really severe, they keep her in the hospital, and keep her alive until the baby is far enough along to try an emergency c-section.

You seem to assume that a case like this has never occurred before. They have, and the standard response is successful in saving the life of the mother and the child.

Only yours and the Bishop's uneducated medical opinion assume that both could have been saved.

And Kreeft, and plenty of others have commented on this case, and similar cases in the past.

The doctor and ethics committee disagree. They acted to save the life of the mother, because the baby wasn't going to make it either way.

Who were their names? Kreeft is a Catholic bioethicist. He's fully in agreement here.

[Asher]

Kreeft says the same thing as I do, and he's got plenty of letters behind his name.

The guy's got a philosophy degree. His judgment on medical issues is a little lacking. Just like yours.

Creep.

[Ben Kenobi]

As for the Sao Paolo case, this was the last effort by CIDA to trash the Catholic church and overturn abortion laws in countries like Costa Rica and Honduras.

It's based on the faulty assumption that the child was too young to deliver. It's not nearly as good an argument as the other case.

[Ben Kenobi]

The guy's got a philosophy degree. His judgment on medical issues is a little lacking. Just like yours.

It's the same as the ethics board.

[Asher]

It's the same as the ethics board.

Ming's point was you're not a doctor. Your point was "so what, a philosopher agrees with me on this medical issue".

[Ben Kenobi]

http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=36604&page=1

"gravely concerned by the fact that an abortion was performed several months ago in a Catholic hospital in this diocese," and was appalled by the hospital's twisted reasoning that justified the direct abortion by reducing the unborn child to a disease." An unborn child is not a disease. While medical professionals should certainly try to save a pregnant mother's life, the means by which they do it can never be by directly killing her unborn child. The end does not justify the means."

Which is why Olmstead rejected the opinion of the doctors who approved of the case, and of the Nun, because she was obviously not working from the proper perspective of the unborn child.

This directive is based on the Catholic philosophical principle of double effect, which says that if the treatment sought addresses the direct causes of the woman's health condition (such as radiation treatment for cancer), but never intends to kill the unborn child (even though that may happen as a secondary, but unintended, effect of the lifesaving treatment), then it is morally licit.

Which is what I was referring to earlier.

However, Dr. Paul A. Byrne, Director of Neonatology and Pediatrics at St. Charles Mercy Hospital in Toledo, Ohio, disputes the claim that an abortion is ever a procedure necessary to save the life of the mother, or carries less risk than birth.

He goes on to say:

Byrne has the distinction of being a pioneer in the field of neonatology, beginning his work in the field in 1963 and becoming a board-certified neonatologist in 1975. He invented one of the first oxygen masks for babies, an incubator monitor, and a blood-pressure tester for premature babies, which he and a colleague adapted from the finger blood pressure checkers used for astronauts.

He continues:

He said that pregnancy in the first and second trimesters would not expose a woman with even severe pulmonary hypertension - which puts stress on the heart and the longs - to any serious danger.

And there you go.

I'm not a doctor, but you have the assessment of a doctor who's far more competent than I am.

[Ming]

As for the Sao Paolo case, this was the last effort by CIDA to trash the Catholic church and overturn abortion laws in countries like Costa Rica and Honduras.

It's based on the faulty assumption that the child was too young to deliver. It's not nearly as good an argument as the other case.

And how do you know it was a faulty assumption... did you review the medical records in this case.
Are you an expert. In reviewing the MANY stories on this case, all the doctors quoted agreed.

What are you basing your "assumption" on. Do you have any medical facts to back it up?

And in regards to the first story... you claim

No, but I am familiar with this case already.

What do you mean... "FAMILIAR". Does that mean you have read a bunch of biased catholic sites or does it mean you have actually seen the medical records... talked with the doctors who actually examined the woman... or are familiar with the "actual" facts in this case. Oh.. but that's right, you are basing you information on a Doctor... a guy with alphabet soup after his name... Dr. Kreeft. A professor of philosophy... NOT A MEDICAL DOCTOR!

Gee... next time I'm dying from sickness, I'm going to make sure I go to Dr. Kreeft for a medical opinion.
You are such a moron.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ming's point was you're not a doctor. Your point was "so what, a philosopher agrees with me on this medical issue".

That's your point.

Ming's point is that the ethics board agreed with it along with the doctors. So your complaint about 'arts degrees' is not valid.

It's not just a medical issue. It's a medical and an ethical issue.

[Ming]

"gravely concerned by the fact that an abortion was performed several months ago in a Catholic hospital in this diocese," and was appalled by the hospital's twisted reasoning that justified the direct abortion by reducing the unborn child to a disease." An unborn child is not a disease. While medical professionals should certainly try to save a pregnant mother's life, the means by which they do it can never be by directly killing her unborn child. The end does not justify the means."

So in other words... if the mother is going to die, taking the baby with her, it is not ok to save the mother. She must die even though she could be saved. That is MURDER.

Now, as far as you other expert... Many doctors disagree with him. He is considered radical in his thinking and the medical community as a whole doesn't support his findings.

But I'm sure the RCC would consider a one percent chance of the woman and baby surviving a good enough risk for the mother. MOST doctors don't. If you wish to condemn a person to death by going against the odds, that's your choice. Don't FORCE that choice on others. Let them make their own choice.

[Ben Kenobi]

And how do you know it was a faulty assumption... did you review the medical records in this case.

Again, I read both sides of the story when this article came out. CIDA was arguing that because of this, minors under the age of 16 should be allowed abortion services. The Church listed their reasons for excommunication, along with the list of other things, that their only argument is that a child of 9 is too young to safely deliver, something which is in fact contradicted by medical proof of the contrary. Children younger have safely given birth, and if she were healthy in all other aspects, it wasn't an issue.

What do you mean... "FAMILIAR". Does that mean you have read a bunch of biased catholic sites or does it mean you have actually seen the medical records.

It means I've read Bishop Olmstead's decision, and a few other articles that explain why he did what he did, as well as the other side. I'm also familiar with the doctrine of double effect through both my own studies, and the time I've spent in bioethics courses at UBC. So this case is simply the application of those principles already elicited quite some time ago.

I've got lots of stuff on this 'doctrine of double effect' because it's extremely important to understanding Catholic bioethics. If you don't understand this, then you cannot understand Olmstead's position.

Gee... next time I'm dying from sickness, I'm going to make sure I go to Dr. Kreeft for a medical opinion.
You are such a moron.

Kreeft was the first name that came to mind as I recall what he said about this particular issue, and why it was significant.

I'm supposed to be impressed when someone quotes a third hand source from an unreliable publication, rather than the second hand sources from when this actually happened? No, I've not seen the medical records, but Olmstead cites information conveniently left out of this hit piece.

[Ben Kenobi]

So in other words... if the mother is going to die, taking the baby with her, it is not ok to save the mother. She must die even though she could be saved. That is MURDER.

No, not at all. It means the child is a child. A baby, not an infection to be treated by abortion. It's an important distinction.

Now, as far as you other expert... Many doctors disagree with him. He is considered radical in his thinking and the medical community as a whole doesn't support his findings.

Pulling it out of your ass?

Like who, Ming? Who is the 'medical community?'

Don't FORCE that choice on others. Let them make their own choice.

So if the husband wanted to keep the child, the child should have been kept alive? We shouldn't force a choice on anybody, least of all someone who wants to raise his child.

[C0ckney]

ben, just to be clear, you think that the best outcome is for a 9 year old child, a victim of rape by her stepfather, to give birth to twins that are the consequence of that rape?

[Ming]

That's your point.

Ming's point is that the ethics board agreed with it along with the doctors. So your complaint about 'arts degrees' is not valid.

It's not just a medical issue. It's a medical and an ethical issue.

Yep... the ethics committee agreed from an ethcial standpoint, and the doctors agreed on the medical side... The family and mother agreed on the personal side. A slam dunk for anybody with a brain.

[Ben Kenobi]

ben, just to be clear, you think that the best outcome is for a 9 year old child, a victim of rape by her stepfather, to give birth to twins that are the consequence of that rape?

Yes, because she is giving life to her children. The children are not responsible for what their father did, and the mother has a chance to have something good come out of a terrible situation.

Is it easy? No.

But it's the right thing in my opinion to do.

Abortion due to rape is very common, among minors, and it is a way for the rapists to cover up their crime.

[Ming]

No, not at all. It means the child is a child. A baby, not an infection to be treated by abortion. It's an important distinction.

You can argue words all you want... but it's really simple. If the fact of having a child is going to cause the woman to DIE, and that the baby won't survive the death, why should the woman have to die when the baby isn't going to make it either way?

Pulling it out of your ass?

Nahhh... I just research things from real medical sources... not some pro life or pro catholic propaganda site. Maybe you should try it some time. You might learn something.