Belief Beat

Belief Beat


Ariz. Bishop to Pregnant Women: Drop Dead (Rather than Abort)

posted by Nicole Neroulias

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix has stripped St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center of its Catholic affiliation because of the 2009 procedure that ended a woman’s life-threatening pregnancy at 11 weeks.

Apparently, the hospital should have allowed her to die, rather than return to her four children at home. Or, perhaps St. Joseph’s could have transferred her someplace that wouldn’t have to answer to religious authorities. God forbid — literally — we leave medical decisions to the doctors and patients.

USA Today and PoliticsDaily have more on this story. Also, check out the Catholic Health Association’s defense of the 115-year-old hospital, Arizona’s largest.

(I’d love to hear what the patient and her family have to say, but they’ve been quiet on this.)

What do you think? Share your thoughts in the Comments section below.

*Click here to subscribe to Belief Beat and click here to follow Belief Beat on Twitter.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(256)
post a comment
Grumpy Old Person

posted December 22, 2010 at 10:47 am


This simply serves to highlight the selectivity of the Catholic ‘pro-life’ agenda. The mother’s life is so utterly without worth to the Cathoic ‘Church’ that the “H”RCC will strip a hospital of its affiliation.
Contemptible. Sad. Typical.
And if this is “Catholic-bashing”, frankly, I no longer care. The “H”RCC clearly, demonstrably, observably doesn’t give a ratsass about people once they’re born. IMO, they DESERVE any/all bashing that comes their way.



report abuse
 

Michael Waters

posted December 22, 2010 at 12:21 pm


Kudos to the bishop. The actions of the hospital (beyond this case) put him in a position where doing nothing would have furthered the scandal. If an institution, be it a medical facility, university, grammar school, nursing home, or whatever, wishes to be associated with the Catholic Church then they ought to expect to follow the directives of the Catholic Church. We learned in high school that a direct abortion is never acceptable, so either the hospital ethics board was deluding themselves or simply knew that it violated Catholic principles to have an abortion. If they had any doubt, they should have gone to the bishop!
This may work out for the best for the hospital too, because now they won’t be in a position to worry in the future. Undoubtedly this was a difficult decision to make for them, but they made the decision and are living with the consequences, and don’t seem to be bothered by it at all. So everyone is standing on their principles. Maybe it’s a win-win.



report abuse
 

null

posted December 22, 2010 at 12:45 pm


Best headline that I’ve seen that shows the Catholic church just what kind of mess they’ve created for themselves, and not only on this issue either. It sums it up in a nutshell. The answer though really is a very simple one. The Catholic church should get out of healthcare entirely and/or people should avoid going to religiously-affliated hospitals and health care establishments. I know that there are places where that is an unreasonable request and/or expectation, but where practicable, it should be done. Where I live, the Catholic hospital system in place really, really, really is of low quality. People talk about the hospitals in this system as “death traps” where you take your life into your hands entering one for any kind of care because its substandard.
The bishop is certainly acting within his rights from a church perspective, and he and they are welcome to it. It just makes it all the more imperative that religion get out of healthcare as a business and that in places where religiously-affiliated health care is the only choice available, that there be a move to provide alternatives. It is one thing for a religion to expect certain behaviors from its adherents; it’s another thing when they expect it of anyone seeking treatment in a medical facility they operate. If the laws can’t stop or prevent such interference, then maybe laws forbidding religious concerns from engaging in this kind of activity, where they get to make decisions for people regardless of what they believe (or not), is needed. Certainly this situation seems to indicate that such action may be required to stop this kind of nonsense.



report abuse
 

Giulia

posted December 22, 2010 at 12:59 pm


The Catholic Church isn’t “pro-life” at all. It is pro-rightwing ideology at the expense of living women and children. It is more interested in the unborn than the already here children who are victimized by priests, more interested in the brain dead than the indigent elderly, more interested in protecting its reputation than its parishioners. So sad that one of the most powerful churches in the world is such a force for moral blindness, greed and lack of Christianity.



report abuse
 

Henrietta22

posted December 22, 2010 at 2:23 pm


So proud of the Medical Profession, this hospital stood it’s ground and the life of the mother of four children was the first thing first. That is the job of doctors making medical decisions for the lives of their patients. The hospital’s ethics team concluded the pregnancy could be ended under the church’s ethical directives because “the goal was not to end the pregnancey but save the mother’s life”,the hospital said. The hospital will comply with Olmsted’s decision but it will continue to operaate under Catholic guidelines. “We will continue in the Catholic heritage through words and deeds”. St. Joseph’s does not receive direct funding from the church, but in addition to losing its Catholic endorsement, the 697-bed hospital will no longer be able to celebrate Mass and must remove the Blessed Sacrament from the hospital. As a Christian it isn’t the Popes approval that is necessary, it is the Father, Son and Holy Ghost that counts and St. Joseph’s has that for sure.



report abuse
 

Dale

posted December 22, 2010 at 3:34 pm


I find the headline, the essay, and many of these comments so very sad, uninformed, arrogant, and insulting. Do any of you consider yourselves Christian? “Drop Dead?” Really? I suspect NONE of you, including Ms. Neroulias, has actually read the bishop’s letter or understands the Catholic Church’s teaching on abortion. It’s certainly not apparent that any have.
Please consider educating yourself first. Then, if you still disagree, that’s fine- it’s your opinion. But then please don’t call yourself Catholic. And moreover, please have the courtesy, humility, and charity to permit others to have their opinions also.



report abuse
 

Dina Swartz

posted December 22, 2010 at 4:11 pm


Everything about the Catholic church’s history and policies reflect the need to 1. make women subservient 2. Fill their coffers at the expense of every one of their”parishners”.



report abuse
 

Jaye Curtis

posted December 22, 2010 at 5:49 pm


It always pays to read the ENTIRE article. The Church was right to pull their affiliation, because St. Josephs was guilty of MANY acts contrary to faith and practice of the Roman Catholic Church. Their side of the story is worth reading. The lady in question was suffering from high blood pressure, which could have been treated in other ways, rather than abortion. To those of you who presume to judge the Church, well, nobody ever FORCES ANYONE to be treated at a Catholic Hospital. If you don’t like the way they do things, go ELSEWHERE!



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted December 22, 2010 at 5:52 pm


The hospital is clearly better off without that benighted influence. Null hit the nail on the head; they should get out of the health care business and when they don’t any thinking person who has an alternative should use it.



report abuse
 

Jonathan Carpenter

posted December 22, 2010 at 6:56 pm


Isn’t it nice how this discussion brings all the bigots out of the woodwork?



report abuse
 

SFMichele

posted December 22, 2010 at 7:27 pm


I got my first inkling of the RCC’s overt and never-ending sexism at the
age of 10.
My mom was pregnant with her 4th and final child. And she
inadvertently (?) shared with me that if something went wrong during
the pregnancy or delivery, the doctors were *supposed* to save the baby and not her. The baby came first and damn the 3 kids and husband at home?!?!!
Well, I continued to love the rich spirituality (in other areas) of the church for some time, but the snowball of knowledge about how
the church really felt about women kept growing and growing. I left the church once I was off to college.
There was simply no place within it for a thinking woman of the then-20th century. None.



report abuse
 

MH

posted December 22, 2010 at 7:33 pm


Assume for a minute that the hospital failed to abort a life threatening pregnancy and the woman died. Not only would the woman be dead and children motherless, but the hospital and its staff would be vulnerable to civil and possible criminal charges, and there would also be the inevitable lawsuit.
The fifth amendment only protects the doctors in criminal charges against them. So a prosecutor can force them to testify in court against the hospital or its administrators. They would say that the woman’s life was in danger, the fetus’s death would be the inevitable result, and the reasonable and customary practice would be to abort the pregnancy. The hospital’s case would be pretty much over at that point.
Would the Bishop a** be on the line in any of this? No, so the doctors and hospital being subject to secular laws in a secular democracy will do the responsible thing and protect the woman’s life and their own interests as well. This outcome will happen at any hospital not just that one.



report abuse
 

Fed Up with this "Reporter"

posted December 22, 2010 at 8:55 pm


Who picked this idiot woman to report on religion when she obviously has no understanding of it. It’s like having a 6 year old report on nuclear physics.



report abuse
 

Nicole Neroulias

posted December 22, 2010 at 9:07 pm


Sorry that you’re Fed Up, but don’t shoot the messenger.
Or, try to frame your comments in a more constructive manner related to the news, rather than personal attacks, and perhaps we can have a fruitful discussion.



report abuse
 

Grumpy Old Person

posted December 22, 2010 at 10:10 pm


“But then please don’t call yourself Catholic.”
I can’t speak for others, but I’ve never called myself that – because I’m not. But observers can see how the Catholic church acts and we can have opinions about the obvious injustices perpetrated in its name.
Face it, the woman’s actual life meant NOTHING to the Catholic church.



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted December 22, 2010 at 10:15 pm


I believe Nicole’s doing a fine job. I admit I miss the old days with three news articles to chew over every day, but several of those were real dogs and Nicole usually gets interesting topics and gives us good references to learn more if we feel the need.
So I’m happy with what she does and wish she’d do more of it. Perhaps a lot more.



report abuse
 

Robert C

posted December 22, 2010 at 10:36 pm


That headline is rather pathetic and really a manipulative attempt at scholck ‘journolism’ Made even worse by the bevy of usual haters perpetuating the tired liberal credo of ‘someone eleses’ relgion bashing as an excuse for hedonistic excess. Cheap shot.



report abuse
 

Robert C

posted December 22, 2010 at 10:37 pm


spell check obviously still in shock and not working in this instance.



report abuse
 

jestrfyl

posted December 22, 2010 at 11:58 pm


When rules become more important that people, the system is lost. It seems like this hospital will lose nothing significant by losing its RCC affiliation. On the other hand the RCC loses an excellent resource for care and a facility that was likely quite the flower in their institutional bouquet.
They need a staff Bible Study on “The Good Samaritan”. Rules kept the people from caring or the injured man. Only the person who was not bound by the rules was able to do the one thing God wants most – care for the person.
When that is over they need to work through some of their trust problems. The RCC chiefs obviously do not trust people who, though well educated and prepared to take responsibility for life & death issues, represent them in the halls and rooms of the hospital. If they cannot trust the doctors and nurses, perhaps it is bet that they do leave healthcare to people who care more about health than secondary or tertiary rules created for institutional control rather than assisting people in crisis.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus

posted December 23, 2010 at 3:19 am


The Catholic Diocese in Phoenix has the Right to choose, too. It also has the Right of association, and it chooses not to affiliate with a hospital that breaks the Diocese rules for that affiliation.
The hospital had the same Right to choose, and it chose to act in opposition to the Diocese rules.
The Diocese is not required to uphold constitutional Rights — perceived, or not — any more than I am required to uphold constitutional Rights on my own property.
The Diocese acted on its own conscience. The hospital acted on its own conscience. It fell on the Diocese to make its decision whether the values of the Catholic Church, as far as they meet the Standards of God, mean anything.



report abuse
 

Jason Hall

posted December 23, 2010 at 5:23 am


Yeah I read everything I could find on this. The claim that the baby could be saved by other treatments is ridiculous. Ask an OB Dr if you like. Inducing pregnancy would have killed the mother. She was experiencing heart failure! A C- section could have also killed the mother.
The tragedy here is that you have a catholic family who was faced with an awful situation. Instead of finding compassion from their church they get some Bishop who thinks he knows more then the medical staff who were in the room with the mom. I can only wonder at the needless guilt and shame this poor women feels as a result. My prayers go out to her.



report abuse
 

Mark Allen

posted December 23, 2010 at 11:25 am


As usual, this liberal viewpoint simply ignores the wellbeing of the child being aborted and focuses only on the ‘mother’.
Childbirth is not a risk-free undertaking and prospective parents know this. The Christian viewpoint is one of personal sacrifice and there is absolutely no justification in always choosing the mother’s life over the child’s when problems occur or, in this situation, when potential problems may have occurred (“could have also killed the mother”…).
It is refreshing to see Christians actually being obedient! Well done Roman Catholic church!!! I hope they were able to change the name of this “hospital” too – it is a disgrace to leave it named after a saint. In a similar vein, “liberal Christians” who vote for political parties who condone abortion and gay rights are a disgrace to Christianity. It is way past time that Protestant churches start to kick these false Christians out of their congregations like the Catholic church seems to be doing.



report abuse
 

Mark Allen

posted December 23, 2010 at 11:41 am


Another point – providing a link to the “Catholic Health Association’s defense of the 115-year-old hospital” is duplicitous.
“Sister” Carol Keegan, the head of this breakaway Catholic organization, has been personally censured by the Catholic Church for supporting Obama’s health care initiative when the rest of the Catholic church was united in its opposition to this initiative due to its provision of abortion. Both Keegan and Obama are prime examples of CINOs (Christian in name only).



report abuse
 

Arnobius of Sicca

posted December 23, 2010 at 11:48 am


Unfortunately Ms. Neroulias is either unaware of or is indifferent to the Catholic beliefs. As a result she trues to smear us with the charge that we do not care what happens to the life of the mother. Thus she speaks falsely about us.
So here are some principles of Catholic moral theology on the issue.
1) The Catholic Church believes that the unborn child is human.
2) The Catholic Church also believes that abortion is the willful termination of this human life.
3) The Catholic Church believes that the willful terminating of an innocent human life is a grave evil
4) The Catholic Church believes it is wrong to do evil so that good may come of it
5) The Catholic Church recognizes the life of the mother is also sacred, and the Church does not prefer one life over the other.
6) However, if it comes to a choice between doing evil and suffering evil, we are called to endure evil and not do evil
5) An institution which lives in opposition to what the Catholic Church believes cannot call itself Catholic
When one recognizes that the Catholic Church believes these things, then one recognizes that Bishop Olmert had every right to do what what he did in declaring that St. Joseph’s Hospital can no longer call itself Catholic.
St. Joseph’s Hospital remains a hospital. It just can no longer call itself Catholic when it openly acts in a way contrary to the beliefs of the Church it claims to be a part of.
Ultimately, Nicole Neroulias’ issue is with what we, as Catholics, believe about abortion, and her rather repugnant article demonstrates intolerance to views apart from her own. She employs the appeal to emotion, while demonstrating no comprehension of what we believe



report abuse
 

connie

posted December 23, 2010 at 12:05 pm


Please remove those sinners from the Catholic church immediately – you must make room for the pedophiles……ring a bell?



report abuse
 

connie

posted December 23, 2010 at 12:10 pm


Mark – I support gay rights and women’s rights….But I don’t support rapists of small boys….those that support those priests are worse than CINO’s….they are just pathetic.



report abuse
 

null

posted December 23, 2010 at 12:16 pm


I guess I need to make some things clear here to those who found my earlier post offensive or anti-Catholic, somehow.
1. Bishop Olmsted of the Diocese of Phoenix had every right to say what he said and act as he did.
2. It appears that overall that is not going to make much of a difference to the hospital’s existence, operation, or Catholic Health West. I certainly understand the religious implications of his words and actions and recognize that he exerted his authority and took the strongest action he could. All well within his rights. And Catholics who agree with him and who are upset that a hospital with their denomination’s name and operated by a company with Catholic in its name and an Catholic religious order who seems to operate outside the church’s purview have every right to be upset, express their anger, and support their bishop.
3. Those who are angry about the headline, feeling that it’s a kind of mockery to them or Catholic religious beliefs need to read what Bishop Olmsted actually said, because he does a fairly decent job of making the very point that the headline makes. Because saving the life of the woman would mean ending the life of the child still developing and unable to survive outside the mother at the point he or she was in his/her development, and abortion is considered as the Bishop put it “an intrinsic evil” there is no way an abortion could be morally justified as a result according to Catholic theology and as I understand his point. In layman’s terms, that means that if a pregnant woman’s life is threatened by the pregnancy itself, that pregnancy needs to be continued no matter what. The message is not “two lives are at stake, we can’t hope to save both, but we can only save one” gets changed to if the baby cannot live outside the womb yet, and his/her existence threatens the life of his/her mother, the mother must die because abortion is always wrong and in every circumstance. The headline is accurate and I have read all kinds of articles, commentary, theological treatises and all sorts of documentation as relates to this case. There isn’t the crystal clear line that the Bishop’s holds to universally held in those opinions and beliefs, but his is the one that wins out and has gotten enforced by the Bishop. It is better that both should die if the baby cannot survive, as I understand Bishop Olmsted’s position and yes, that can be read as having the view that the pregnant woman’s life is of less consequence.
Yes, pregnancy is risky, yes it requires sacrifice on the part of the mother and yes it can cost and dearly, as I know all too well from personal experience from two high-risk pregnancies and complicated births that nearly killed me (especially the second time) and have resulted in permanent damage and long-term changes to my health. To imply that pregnant women who struggle with these questions but who come with their health care providers to other conclusions from the church as anti-life, anti-Christian/Catholic or whatever, as all those commenters here who are so up in arms about,is judgmental. I get it, abortion is wrong. No two ways and twice about it, abortion is about taking life, whether actual or potential. No woman I know thinks of it any other way. It’s not a decision anyone really and truly wants to make. Those who appear to think otherwise are in a minority, from what I’ve read and seen.
To me then, the issue is no longer about “Catholic” hospitals and Bishop’s directives, but about letting doctors and medical professionals act according to their expertise, and the theologians and clergy in theirs. The best solution for all involved is to have the Catholic church get out of healthcare. Then the church doesn’t have to worry about compromising its positions, beliefs and values and patients and their doctors (and clergy if desired) can make medically appropriate decisions. I honestly think we can all agree here that this was not an easy decision for anyone actually involved. I can only imagine the loss that mother is grieving and hope she’s been shielded from all the judgment and easy words spoken by those who’ve never been in her shoes and situation. To me, that’s the saddest part of this entire case; that, and the very real concern about people living in places where the only choice for emergent medical care is a religiously-affiliated hospital, where theology can and sometimes does trump medicine in decision making. I cannot see how pointing this fact out is anti-anything, let alone anti-Catholic.



report abuse
 

Henrietta22

posted December 23, 2010 at 12:18 pm


God did not make anyone to suffer for his sake. If he did there would be no colleges, no medical schools, no learning. Who would need them if all we humans were to do is suffer? Someone doesn’t understand medicine here who said her blood pressure could have been taken down by another RX. Some high blood pressure is wild and nothing can control it and the patient dies of a stroke. I had our first baby in a catholic hospital down south in the 50’s. I was fortunate I didn’t die. I was so young and innocent I didn’t know about the RCC and their rules about letting the mother die if anything went wrong. This hospital was right in what they did. People who are Catholic would do well to start a new Catholic Church and keep their beauty, and shuck the ancient men’s rule.



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted December 23, 2010 at 12:32 pm


AoS: “Ultimately, Nicole Neroulias’ issue is with what we, as Catholics, believe about abortion, and her rather repugnant article demonstrates intolerance to views apart from her own. She employs the appeal to emotion, while demonstrating no comprehension of what we believe.”
I’d guess the majority or a large minority of Catholics (as identified by the fact they go to church there and contribute) don’t believe as you and some others here and the old male clergy do. So don’t try to make it Nicole and some of the rest of us posters against Catholics. That’s false. Perhaps against certain parts of Catholic theology and the old guys who enforce it.
So let’s recapitulate: I think all of us agree the bishop could do what he did; many of us agree the hospital is better off, some of us agree the RCC should get out of health care and thinking people should try to avoid RC health care. And some are sticking to their claim blastocysts and zygotes and embryos and fetuses are as important as women.



report abuse
 

Mark Allen

posted December 23, 2010 at 12:49 pm


Connie, who ever said that they supported pedophile priests?
These priests should be thrown out of the church in exactly the same way that unrepentant homosexuals, unrepentant abortionist proponents, unrepentant thieves, unrepentant adulterers, unrepentant pedophiles, etc. should be.
No one who unrepentantly continues to disobey the tenants of the Catholic church should be allowed to call themselves a Catholic. And that also applies to hospitals! This is not a difficult concept…



report abuse
 

kenneth

posted December 23, 2010 at 1:34 pm


“….No one who unrepentantly continues to disobey the tenants of the Catholic church should be allowed to call themselves a Catholic. And that also applies to hospitals! This is not a difficult concept…”
It is a difficult concept inasmuch as the Church itself will never acknowledge that anyone can be an ex-Catholic. They’ll keep counting you in their grossly overinflated numbers even if you leave and do so in writing.



report abuse
 

Mark Allen

posted December 23, 2010 at 2:18 pm


“the Church itself will never acknowledge that anyone can be an ex-Catholic”
This is one of the greatest current failings of the Catholic church. It is precisely the reason why the board and staff of this hospital went down the abortion path in the first place, why the Carol Keegans of the world exist, why pedophile priests have flourished, and why the church is full of pro-abortion, pro-homosexual supporters – they all profess to be Catholics and then don’t practice the religion in their lives.
Fortunately the Catholic church is starting to realize that it is better to have a smaller, dedicated core of practicing believers than a large group of “anything goes” lukewarm believers. It is exactly why they are now threatening politicians who support abortion with excommunication. This anything-to-keep-number-up approach is exactly why the Anglican church has become completely ineffective in the UK.
I complement you on your honesty in leaving the church if you don’t want to be obedient to its teachings. Unfortunately there 1) are too many CINOs who don’t have the courage of their convictions and 2) too few church leaders who are willing to do the necessary pruning.



report abuse
 

Nicole Neroulias

posted December 23, 2010 at 2:30 pm


The headline I used on this post is an ironic twist on the famous “X to Y: Drop Dead” headlines of the past few decades, starting with “Ford to City: Drop Dead” in 1975. I thought it was appropriate to use here, because this story literally deals with a life-and-death situation, as opposed to the usual headlines that are just trying to be snarky.
As for the religious life-of-baby vs. life-of-mother debate, let’s keep in mind that in this particular situation, the situation involved an 11-week pregnancy — months away from a viable fetus. In other words, had the mother been allowed to die — which the medical professionals had determined would almost certainly happen had the pregnancy continued — then the baby wouldn’t have been saved, either.



report abuse
 

MH

posted December 23, 2010 at 3:07 pm


I agree with the right of free association, so the Bishop has the right to do what he did. But as I pointed out in my earlier post, doctors at any hospital would likely behave identically given the humanitarian and legal realities.
So the Catholic Church can either deal with these realities, or they can withdraw and become smaller and more pure. The latter seems like a path to becoming an irrelevant beautiful loser. Which over the long haul is likely to result in their declining influence. Frankly the ARIS numbers from last year look like this is well under way.
But the Catholic Church seems happy with this path, for example in 2006 they withdrew from the Massachusetts adoption market rather than comply with state law requiring that gays be allowed to adopt children.



report abuse
 

Stacey

posted December 23, 2010 at 3:50 pm


Who cares? The church has every right in the world not to be involved with abortions. Why Obama the baby killer was ever at Notre Dame is beyond me. Obviously, the university is a front for a bunch of losers.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in Jesus' Name

posted December 23, 2010 at 4:40 pm


The decision by the Phoenix Diocese doesn’t hinder St. Joseph’s from performing abortion.



report abuse
 

Mom of Four

posted December 23, 2010 at 7:04 pm


How about the fact that there were other infractions that led to the Bishop taking action? What measures were first taken to try to save both the mother and the child? What procedure was actually used that terminated the pregnancy? The Church provides for treating the mother as the primary patient even if it causes the death of the child but did the hospital follow those orders? This is a opinion piece not a fact based article.



report abuse
 

Mordred08

posted December 23, 2010 at 7:12 pm


Robert C: “That headline is rather pathetic and really a manipulative attempt at scholck ‘journolism’ Made even worse by the bevy of usual haters perpetuating the tired liberal credo of ‘someone eleses’ relgion bashing as an excuse for hedonistic excess.”
I find it amusing that as a Christian, you regard saving a woman’s life as hedonism. Now tell me that I completely misinterpreted your comment somehow.
I know all you pro-life folks that are raging about the unholy trinity of “baby killers” and liberals and homosexuals (oh my!) are hoping we don’t notice that you’re pretty much admitting you’d rather an innocent woman die if an abortion is the only way to save her life. Sorry, but we’re not stupid. And don’t tell me “there were plenty of other options”. If there were another option, why didn’t she take it? Do you think she had the abortion for fun? Cause I’ve long suspected you guys think people actually do that. That’s how detached from reality you come off as sometimes.



report abuse
 

Dominic

posted December 23, 2010 at 8:36 pm


Ahhh, the abortionists are hiding behind Hippa. So, the bishop is at a disadvantage when it comes to public opinion and they know it. Doctors aren’t God and that’s why they call it the practice of medicine. Remember, Tebow was supposed to be born severely handicapped or deformed. Doctors have a high percentage of being wrong in many of these types of situations.



report abuse
 

Mark Allen

posted December 23, 2010 at 8:46 pm


This all comes down to an argument for or against situational ethics.
On the one hand, you have “Let us do evil that good may come” i.e. there are no moral absolutes so let’s kill the child so that the mother can live.
The Roman Catholic church (along with other Christian churches) believe that there ARE moral absolutes, set by God, and that “it is wrong to do evil so that good may come of it” (see Arnobius of Sicca’s post above) so it is not OK to the kill the child so that the mother can live.
In a nutshell your position on this is going to come down to whether you believe in a God that defines moral absolutes or not.



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted December 23, 2010 at 9:03 pm


Let’s suppose you wanted to believe in a god that defines moral absolutes. First there’s the issue of which one to choose. There are a lot of gods and many of them are claimed to define moral absolutes of one sort or another. Then supposing you settle on a Christian god. You’d have to decide what moral absolutes it endorses. Different Christians observe different moral absolutes; for instance some find abortion to be terrible and others find it to be a tool to use if its needed.
So let’s face it, there’s an excellent chance the RCC is barking up the wrong supernatural tree. And of course there’s a good chance that tree doesn’t even exist. Lives should not be put at risk because of something as unlikely as Catholic theology.
If I were a pregnant woman or her husband and I was aware of the RCC’s take on this, which they enforce when possible, I would not put my or my wife’s life at risk by using a Catholic hospital. I would, in fact, drive a long way if necessary to go to a more sensible hospital.



report abuse
 

Ed Mullen

posted December 23, 2010 at 9:13 pm


In Canada, doctor errors directly cause 24,000 death every year. Doctors are very, very often dead wrong. The Bishop in this case stripped the hospital of its Catholic identity because the hospital abandoned its Catholic identity, failed to follow Catholic guidelines in such cases, convinced the parents to abort, rather than following the Catholic protocols. In other words, a hospital who has Catholic in its identification can not behave like an abortuary without losing the Catholic part of its name. When Catholics approach this hospital from now on, They’ll know it may behave like any other secular institution. They can choose a Catholic hospital who lives up to the name. Bravo, Bishop, now let’s see about the universities who pretend to be Catholic, are run by renegade priests and secularists, eg Notre Dame.



report abuse
 

Mark Allen

posted December 23, 2010 at 9:29 pm


“If I were a pregnant woman or her husband and I was aware of the RCC’s take on this, which they enforce when possible, I would not put my or my wife’s life at risk by using a Catholic hospital. I would, in fact, drive a long way if necessary to go to a more sensible hospital.”
And there you have provided the answer… if you don’t agree with Catholic theology, 1) don’t use their facilities (hospitals, orphanages, universities, etc.) and 2) don’t criticize the Catholic church for making sure that their facilities practice their theology (as Nicole Neroulias, the author of this article, implicitly did in her heading).



report abuse
 

Mordred08

posted December 23, 2010 at 10:14 pm


Mark Allen: “On the one hand, you have ‘Let us do evil that good may come’ i.e. there are no moral absolutes so let’s kill the child so that the mother can live.
The Roman Catholic church (along with other Christian churches) believe that there ARE moral absolutes, set by God, and that “it is wrong to do evil so that good may come of it” (see Arnobius of Sicca’s post above) so it is not OK to the kill the child so that the mother can live.”
So letting the mother die is not evil. Got it.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus

posted December 23, 2010 at 10:20 pm


What’s the beef? Nobody is stopping that hospital from performing abortion. The Catholic Church, in Phoenix, is happy not to be affiliated with a hospital that performs abortion, and the hospital is happy that it performed the abortion. Everybody is happy, no?



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted December 23, 2010 at 11:01 pm


Mark I don’t believe I criticized the Catholic Church for making sure that their facilities practice their theology. I certainly did criticize their theology and made the point it’s a foolish thing to hang lives on. But that’s what bishops and such do: try to get people to manage their lives by rules other people made up which are certainly not for the benefit of the people they try to impose them on.
So, no we can’t blame the bishop for this. We can however take the lesson that it would be really foolish to follow a bishop, or a pope, too closely.



report abuse
 

Charles

posted December 23, 2010 at 11:09 pm


This is exactly the kind of mind numbing stupidity that drove me from the Catholic Church to begin with. The old men need to turn the church over to the nuns then all this institutional idiocy would go away.



report abuse
 

Dominic

posted December 23, 2010 at 11:11 pm


Dr. Bernard Nathanson, the infamous former abortion doctor, said that there is no reason today to abort a child to save the life of the mother. he went on to say that with today’s medical technology that EVERYHING is treatable – even when the expectant mother has cancer. God bless you Bishop Olmsted. You are a man of great courage.



report abuse
 

Your Namevivian

posted December 24, 2010 at 2:05 am


As a nurse I don,t believe its possible this day and age you have to let either one die.Yes, people die,but its not because you let them die. You try to save all life.



report abuse
 

Amy

posted December 24, 2010 at 3:00 am


What happened to “Inspiration,Spirituality,Faith?” I would expect this from the mainstream media but this looks like a news site from believers. What happened to faith in the Almighty God that he will work all things together for good for those who love him and are called according to his purpose? Who are we to be so afraid of death that we kill our own innocent child? We do what is right, have faith that God is in control and support those who make the right decision.



report abuse
 

Fayrix

posted December 24, 2010 at 5:13 am


@Amy
Don’t be fooled into thinking that this site is for believers or run by believers. Quite the opposite. This is a secular site which blogs on religious topics for the benefit of secular readers, occasionally luring in some unsuspecting religious folk who expect unbiased blogging on religious topics. Also, please try not to confuse Ms. Neroulias with an actual journalist (Bloggers are NOT journalists, and I’m sure that SCOTUS will eventually get around to confirming that from a First Amendment standpoint). Her posts, commenting history and tenor of her articles and bylines suggest a humanist with open contempt for evangelical or fundamentalist Christians and bemused indifference toward other religions.



report abuse
 

VulpesRex

posted December 24, 2010 at 5:38 am


Fayrix wrote:
” Her posts, commenting history and tenor of her articles and bylines suggest a humanist with open contempt for evangelical or fundamentalist Christians and bemused indifference toward other religions.”
Got it in one, Mr. Garibaldi!



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted December 24, 2010 at 6:55 am


THEY JUST WANT THEM BORN SO THEY HAVE MORE CHILDREN THE PRIEST CAN RAPE.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted December 24, 2010 at 7:11 am


YOU KNOW WHAT SO FUNNY IF YOU TRULY BELIEVE IN HEAVEN THEN WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD ANYONE WANT TO COME TO THIS H–L HOLE . SERIOUSLY STAY WITH YOUR LOVING GOD(LOL) OR BE BORN AREN’T THESE FETUSES BETTER FOR IN HEAVEN.



report abuse
 

MH

posted December 24, 2010 at 9:36 am


Dominic, a woman has a ectopic pregnancy, how would Dr. Bernard Nathanson treat this situation? Note that if left untreated, about half of ectopic pregnancies self abort. The other half result in the death of the mother because of internal hemorrhaging. There would be no outcome in which the embryo becomes viable and the pregnancy ends in a normal delivery.
Moreover what would a Catholic Hospital do when presented with a patient with an ectopic pregnancy?
Fayrix, never create a weapon you wouldn’t allow your opponent to wield over you. Once the Supreme Court starts deciding who is a journalist and who isn’t, the first amendment is out the window. For example the Roberts Court might rule against the NY Times or WikiLeaks, but a hypothetical Kagan court could rule that Fox News was advocacy and not journalism.



report abuse
 

kenneth

posted December 24, 2010 at 11:45 am


There’s more to it than pregnancy. Early last year, bishops handed down a new directive which says that Catholic hospitals must continue to keep comatose patients alive, regardless of their advance wishes or legal documents to the contrary. That’s right. The Church, not you, not your doctors and not your family, will have the final say over your life and body. I would sooner die in the street than allow myself to be admitted to a Catholic hospital.



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted December 24, 2010 at 12:20 pm


“What happened to “Inspiration,Spirituality,Faith?” I would expect this from the mainstream media but this looks like a news site from believers. What happened to faith in the Almighty God that he will work all things together for good for those who love him and are called according to his purpose? Who are we to be so afraid of death that we kill our own innocent child?”
Happily this site is, in places, more objective than one full of “faith in the Almighty God that he will work all things together for good for those who love him and are called according to his purpose”, which obviously would be far removed from reality. But you can find bloggers like that at B’net. Some of us sometimes try to bring them closer to the real world.
And if you’re so confident in your god why are you concerned that the fetus went to heaven early? Surely your god has a place reserved for it, alongside the millions of blastocysts, zygotes, embryos and fetuses It aborts every year in the form of miscarriages.
I’m not saying Ms. Neroulias is “a humanist with open contempt for evangelical or fundamentalist Christians and bemused indifference toward other religions”, in fact I doubt it, but what would be wrong with a journalist (or blogger) with that attitude? Check the bloggers here and you’ll find most are strongly prejudiced toward some religion, including especially evangelical and fundamentalist Christians and Catholicism. Humanists should get some representation too.
You people whine a lot.



report abuse
 

Grandma

posted December 24, 2010 at 1:01 pm


This heartbreaking situation produced a flashback when 40 years ago I knew that I was going to die giving birth to my last child. I never considered any other option. I spent a lot of time teaching the other children that Daddy might come home with the new baby because it would be time for Mommy to be with the God she loves. I wanted them to have happy memories. The doctor kept me pregnant long enough for the child to develop, then juggled both lives. I had told him to save the child first. I had already lived 35 years; it was my body that was failing; the child was healthy. What was expected to go wrong did, and I had a near-death experience. It changed my life freeing me from both material things and spiritual abuse. It gave me freedom of soul. Freedom from man.
I had to make a heartbreaking choice. Take medical means to never be in that position again or die in childbirth as the doctor bluntly told me he couldn’t save me the next time. I decided to live and took medical measures to insure the decision. The Church labeled me “living in sin” which plunged me into a twenty year dark night of the soul, the greatest gift ever given to me by God. It freed me to re-study history and re-direct my spirit away from idolatry and toward the One God of the First Commandment for which I thank every day of my life. So there are blessings in heartbreak but to enjoy those blessings, you might have to leave a spiritually abusive religion. At least this is so for those who refuse to participate in back-room corruption concerning contraception. Honesty always pays. But for this crisis in conscience, I would have never known a mature relationship with God. I would have been tethered to childhood crutches. What a great gift from God!
A bit of irony here? The child I refused to abort is now a U.S. Marine sworn to defend everyone including those who choose to abort. The key is to leave an abusive religion.



report abuse
 

bjhgeo

posted December 24, 2010 at 2:21 pm


If you don’t understand your faith,(if you are Catholic) then learn it. There is an explanation for this situation. They could have given a C Section. It is not our place to decide who lives and who dies as a Catholic. There are circumstances that have an answer. Dont’ listen to the blogs here who berate the Catholc Church. The Authentic Catholic Teaching is from the Magisterium of the Church. These are rules are not made by mere men. For those of you who don’t understand, please go to RealCatholic.TV and or EWTN and ask why this situation is occurring. They will explain.
To those of you who are not Catholic, we understand that you cannot understand our laws are from God, which are written, spoken and orally passed on from our Lord by word of mouth. Catholics have to learn that our “feelings” regarding spiritual matters and teachings don’t count. Obedience does. Sorry. I learned this myself. OPINIONS WERE NEVER ASKED FOR BY OUR LORD. HIS WILL BE DONE. I PRAY FOR HOLY MOTHER CHURCH AND THE FAITHFUL THIS CHRISTMAS THAT THE BISHOPS, AND PRIEST START TEACHING THE AUTHENTIC CATHOLIC WAY. TOO MANY CHIEFS, WITH NO LEADERSHIP SKILLS AND TOO MANY FAITHFUL LEFT WONDERING WHAT IS GOING ON. CONFUSION, GREY AREAS. THE DEVILS FAVORITE COLOR IS GREY!



report abuse
 

MH

posted December 24, 2010 at 2:29 pm


bjhgeo, at 11 weeks the baby is about 1.6 inches long and weighs about 1/4 of an ounce. There would be no point in a C section.



report abuse
 

Chris

posted December 24, 2010 at 2:49 pm


How is an article like this presented as news? It is completely bias and sounds like an angry teenager wrote it. Where’s the other side of the argument?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus, the LORD of lords, KING of Kings!

posted December 24, 2010 at 3:15 pm


HAPPY JESUS BIRTHDAY !

JESUS CHRIST — THE WAY, THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE — THE ONLY WAY TO THE FATHER !

Chris says:
How is an article like this presented as news?
Mr. Incredible asks:
Who says it’s presented as news? What happens if the article is ABOUT a news item?
Chris says:
It is completely bias [sic]…
Mr. Incredible says:
From YOUR viewpoint, it may be. An opinion piece is, by its nature, according to a viewpoint. It may not be YOUR viewpoint. So what?
Chris says:
… and sounds like an angry teenager wrote it.
Mr. Incredible says:
Irrelevant. It’s an opinion piece about an item in the news.
Chris says:
Where’s the other side of the argument?
Mr. Incredible says:
In the responses to the article. In other arguments presented elsewhere.
In any case, there may not be just one other side to the argument. There may be twenty-five different sides to the argument. The author is not required to present all twenty-five sides.



report abuse
 

John

posted December 24, 2010 at 4:00 pm


“…devoted to unbiased coverage of religion and ethics.”
Isn’t this part of your bio, Ms. Neroulias? Pity you don’t practice the unbiased journalism you profess to follow with this essay.
This situation is complex. CHW (Catholic Healthcare West) has a long history of working contrary to the Magisterium and Catholic medical ethical practices. Pity your hate-filled diatribe and slanted headline doesn’t allow for that piece of information.
For shame.



report abuse
 

mitch smith

posted December 24, 2010 at 4:11 pm


It’s a shame that such anti-catholic bigotry is posted on belief.net. Not to mention such abysmal ignorance of the entire situation, or of the teachings she seems to want to criticize.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus Who is the True Light!

posted December 24, 2010 at 4:18 pm


“…devoted to unbiased coverage of religion and ethics.”
John asks:
Isn’t this part of your bio, Ms. Neroulias?
Mr. Incredible says:
Where is “journalism” in there? Where is the word, “reporting,” or, “report”? An opinion may cover a news item.
John says:
Pity you don’t practice the unbiased journalism you profess to follow with this essay.
Mr. Incredible says:
An essay is not necessarily a report.
This is not a news blog. It is a blog about the news. Quite a difference.

HAPPY JESUS BIRTHDAY !



report abuse
 

Happyjack

posted December 24, 2010 at 4:20 pm


“John” says “Pity your hate-filled diatribe and slanted headline..” It’s so typical of the overreligious to transfer their own hatred of those not sharing their fanaticism, to those same people. This tactic is a pitiful attempt at deflection, and anyone who is part of Sane America can see through it.



report abuse
 

HAPPY JESUS BIRTHDAY!

posted December 24, 2010 at 4:22 pm


JESUS IS LORD ! THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD OVER THE HILLS AND THROUGH THE VALLEYS, TROUNCING GIANTS !

mitch smith says:
It’s a shame that such anti-catholic bigotry is posted on belief.net [sic].
Mr. Incredible says:
There’s plenty to be critical about.



report abuse
 

Robert Morwell

posted December 24, 2010 at 4:50 pm


The issue in this case may indeed be more complex than it would seem on the surface. The problem with confidentiality, hearsay evidence, and secondary opinions makes it hard to judge.
But I would have to agree that the headline was inflammatory (and intentionally so) and does not reflect objectivity.
What is not clear is if this blog purports to be straight journalism, or commentary. In the case of this story, it would fail as the former, but would qaulify for the latter. And I say this as someone who does not entirely share the Catholic Church’s position on abortion.



report abuse
 

Levi

posted December 24, 2010 at 5:48 pm


Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.



report abuse
 

Ben

posted December 24, 2010 at 5:49 pm


I would have to side with the diocese on this one, it doesn’t appear they tried to do anything to treat her high blood pressure except performing an abortion. Even if there was risk to the baby from treatment of the disease, it would have been better for it to have a chance at survival rather than being terminated because there was a risk it would die.



report abuse
 

npr prn

posted December 24, 2010 at 6:47 pm


As a L&D nurse working in a Catholic hospital may I assure everyone that 1) yes PIH will kill the mother and 2) no there is no other options then a abortion to save her life. Anyone who says it can’t happen is wrong. Sad things happen- we can cut down on bad events but not cure everything. Yes a women not treated with a ectopic pregnancy will die a horrible death, yes a women who is rupture at 20 weeks can get sepsis shock and die, PIH will kill, etc. Pregnancy is not without risks and Mom’s life always comes before Baby’s life. Thankfully usual everything goes well, but enough useless speculation about stuff you don’t know.



report abuse
 

jestrfyl

posted December 25, 2010 at 12:24 am


It is time – today – to set all of the factions, sects, and political affiliations aside. Who ever you are and how ever you express your spirituality know this – Peace, Hope, and Joy to all people. Merry Christmas, Wondrous Solstice, Joyous Kwanzaa, Freaky Festivus, and a simple Good December 25th. Take today and this week to connect with someone new, different and surprising so that the year may end with a blessing. That is indeed a good way to close one chapter and begin another.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted December 25, 2010 at 1:26 pm


Levi: Please keep your religious crap to yourself.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in Jesus' Name – the Name above ALL names!

posted December 25, 2010 at 4:02 pm


HAPPY JESUS BIRTHDAY !

Your Name says:
Levi: Please keep your religious crap to yourself.
Mr. Incredible says:
Levi, if I may…
Mark 1:24
Luke 4:34
In short: NO!

AND THE LIGHT SHINETH IN DARKNESS; AND THE DARKNESS COMPREHENDED IT NOT.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus Who will cast out none who come to Him!

posted December 25, 2010 at 4:13 pm


Now what?



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted December 25, 2010 at 5:09 pm


Right you are, j!
Happy Holidays to you all!



report abuse
 

Charles B

posted December 25, 2010 at 5:36 pm


Good, medical decisions should be left up to the doctors and not the church or government.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus Who does not take His eye off the Righteous!

posted December 26, 2010 at 2:54 am


HAPPY JESUS BIRTHDAY !

Charles B says:
Good, medical decisions should be left up to the doctors and not the church or government.
Mr. Incredible says:
Nobody is stopping the hospital from performing abortion.
The Phoenix Diocese did simply what the Constitution says it may do – that is, not to associate with the hospital. Freedom of Association.

JESUS CHRIST – LORD OF LORDS, KING OF KINGS!



report abuse
 

James Corsaro

posted December 26, 2010 at 3:29 pm


Another case of a man (one who doesn’t understand women or parenting) deciding what is right for another person; what sick S.O.B. Hopefully he isn’t around any little boys!



report abuse
 

charles

posted December 26, 2010 at 3:52 pm


Stuff like this is the reason why I have never and will never attend church…



report abuse
 

Robert C

posted December 26, 2010 at 4:03 pm


My dear Modred, wrong again as usual. First you make the classically simplistic yet incorrect assumption that I am Christian. Second you blithely assume that ‘hedonistic excess’ refers to the circumstances of the poor woman in the Phoenix hospital rather than to the usual mongrels posting on this site, caterwauling their repetitive hate-tinged paeans, oh so typical in extolling their presumed philosophical superiority over long established religious beliefs that refuse shelter for their personal life choices. Well, pass the Vaseline and let’s all get down and dirty.
In the meantime let’s not bother to analyze Catholic dogma on these difficult circumstances or revisit Thomas Aquinas and the Principle of Double Effect as outlined in the permissibility of self-defense in the Summa Theologica (II-II, Qu. 64, Art.7). Let’s not consider the rather unusual parameters or the intense shades of philosophical gray raised by these circumstances. No mincing of words having to do with direct versus indirect causal consequences. Let’s overlook the fact that the patient’s husband and the patient herself, despite the known medical risks, gambled with fate while risking another pregnancy. Let’s ignore any culpability on the part of the family’s OBGYN in discussing possible inherent risks before the pregnancy. Let’s skip over the fact that there are sixteen other non Catholic hospitals in Phoenix proper where the patient could have been admitted and treated without issue. Let us please overlook the fact that if the ethics committee of the facility had the time to discuss and adjudicate their decision then there assuredly was time for a transfer. Let’s simply forget that in this patient’s case, death is a possible risk, not a certain outcome. Let’s not suggest that alternative treatment was possible considering that there are practicing specialists elsewhere who have had noticeable success rate in treating pulmonary hypertension during pregnancy. Let’s simply ignore the reality that all pregnancies are risky and that the decision to enter into the pregnancy was consciously made. Let’s all gloss over the fact that the Catholic Church does not consider a woman and her unborn child to be one “real, living” person and one “future” person, but that both are real, living people. Let’s not just consider this a religious argument but a philosophical paradox, and a scientific one as well – since according to embryology, an embryo or fetus of an organism is the same creature as the adult organism, just a different age. Oh, and never mind any consideration that the story was purposefully leaked to the press in an effort to embarrass the bishop and apply significant pressure on the episcopate to acquiesce. Let’s all be liberals for a moment and discard these needless essentials in order to have our particularly personalized ends du jour justify the means.
Instead let’s do consider that the church has a constitutional right to grant imprimatur and certification to whichever facilities it chooses. Let us also remember that other religious traditions also operate hospital facilities and are equally protected under the law. Let’s not forget that ‘Catholic health systems are also significantly more likely to provide higher quality performance to the communities served than secular not-for-profit health systems, it said. By contrast, investor-owned systems have significantly lower performance than all other groups.’ Let us keep in mind that Catholic health and social service organizations have a long tradition of service in the United States, dating back to New Orleans in 1727 when 12 French Ursuline sisters arrived in the city and became nurses, teachers, and servants of the poor and orphans. We can hardly lose sight of the fact that Catholic hospitals employ over 598,934 full-time equivalent employees, admit over 15.4 million emergency room visits per year and accept more than 86 million outpatient visits. Nor should we ignore the fact that Catholic health care is rooted in the belief that every person is a treasure, every life a sacred gift, every human being a unity of body, mind and spirit.
Finally. Let me make it simple for you. Why should you give a good flying tokhes whether the facility retains the right to claim the name Catholic? I’ll answer. You shouldn’t. If the facility desires to challenge the ruling it will consult a canonist and apply to Rome. In the meantime it remains fully functional as a medical facility. If you happen to be a cafeteria catholic, which I sincerely doubt, you can ruminate, hyperventilate and prognosticate to your heart’s content. I would advise you though that you should be more concerned with the inevitable rationing of health care under Obamacare and a non-sectarian health care system shaped by liability concerns and a utilitarian cost-benefit perspective that endangers more lives than the loss of nomenclature and the sacrament at St. Joseph’s ever could. If you are not Catholic, than I, with the barest modicum of respect, suggest that you bugger off, purely because no Catholic truly should care what you or the satanic chorus of socialist bullies, hostile atheists, persistent ignoramuses, or drama intense fluttering fanatics of the gay left feel should be their anti clerical cause du jour. So in the spirit of Nicole’s headline..rather than drop dead….well the Irish say it mo’better than I.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbrzZWLu6Qw



report abuse
 

Robert C

posted December 26, 2010 at 4:04 pm


But in the spirit of the Christmas season now that I’ve said my piece, it’s time to go…or maybe not
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTnwv2NN-DI&feature=player_embedded
But at least here’s a wish for all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTnwv2NN-DI&feature=player_embedded



report abuse
 

Robert C

posted December 26, 2010 at 4:07 pm

nnmns

posted December 26, 2010 at 4:39 pm


Robert, based on your posts and seeming familiarity with Catholicism it’s very reasonable to assume you are Christian and, in fact, Catholic. If you aren’t you might explain to us why you act so much like one.
Happy Holidays.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus, our Champion!

posted December 26, 2010 at 4:52 pm


James Corsaro says:
Another case of a man (one who doesn’t understand women or parenting) deciding what is right for another person…
Mr. Incredible says:
That’s what societies in civilization do.

JESUS CHRIST — THE WAY, THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE — THE ONLY WAY TO THE FATHER !



report abuse
 

Tom

posted December 26, 2010 at 5:55 pm


When I was growing up being taught by nuns in Catholic schools in the ’70’s, we were taught that if a choice needed to be made between saving the life of the mother OR the unborn baby, the baby got preference. The possible death of the mother was a risk that simply needed to be taken… under no circumstances was a baby to be aborted or killed to save the life of the mother.
This diocesan decision simply reaffirms Catholic doctrine that abortion is not permitted. If people don’t like it, they can go to other hospitals.



report abuse
 

lynseypug

posted December 26, 2010 at 7:25 pm


The Catholic Church only uses women to make future sex toys (aka children) for their perverted priests.



report abuse
 

OldNassau

posted December 26, 2010 at 7:35 pm


Why should the Catholic Church give its imprimatur to an(y) organization that does not follow its dictates?
Why should St. Joseph’s give a damn about losing the Church’s approval?



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted December 26, 2010 at 9:16 pm


Only proves yet again the lack of value of a woman’s life in the RCC. As a non-Catholic I did have a child in a Catholic hospital, but fortunately had an easy delivery. Would hate to think I would have had the RCC telling my doctor to let me die if there had been a problem! Now older and wiser—I would have changed hospitals. The woman whose life was saved already had children, but it is the RCC,s opinion that they could be motherless because their mother died having a new Catholic baby sister or brother—even though she would have not been their to raise them! Stupid.
There have been many opinions on this subject/post, mine not being so different. How any place that says it values life can claim that with their attitude is—-no faith at all, IMO. No God would demand the death of woman just so there the then motherless baby could live, along with it’s motherless siblings, IMO.
This hospital is much better off without the support of the RCC. The Sister who helped make the difficult decision is to be commended for it, thinking of the living woman. Bless her.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in Jesus' Name – there's no other name by which we must be saved!

posted December 26, 2010 at 9:44 pm


AND THE LIGHT SHINETH IN DARKNESS; AND THE DARKNESS COMPREHENDED IT NOT.

OldNassau says:
Why should the Catholic Church give its imprimatur to an(y) organization that does not follow its dictates?
Mr. Incredible says:
EXCELLENT point! Excellent.



report abuse
 

Nicole Neroulias

posted December 26, 2010 at 9:52 pm


Several of you are discussing the Church’s position on the life of the mother vs. the life of the baby. That’s fine, but keep in mind that in this case, the pregnancy was only 11 weeks along — still several months away from a (potentially) viable baby. So perhaps a more relevant conversion would be to debate the life of the mother vs. no life at all?



report abuse
 

AKeptVow

posted December 26, 2010 at 9:52 pm


I am a recovering Catholic, and any recovering Catholic knows what this is. When my firstborn was born perfect, I felt so blessed and grateful that I made a vow to the Lord that any child I gave birth to would be educated in the Catholic Church. Six months later, I picked up a Bible for the first time in my life(KGV) and immediately disavowed the Church-but I kept my vow. I had nothing else to give my children. They were Baptiized, First Communioned and Confirmed. HOWEVER!!! I read the Bible to them and when they came of age, they also left the Church. Even the Pope knows that his “church” is hemmoraging believers…and he knows why, too.
This article is Reason No. 431 why I am not Catholic.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus Who is the True Light!

posted December 26, 2010 at 9:53 pm


pagansister says:
This hospital is much better off without the support of the RCC.
Mr. Incredible says:
And the Diocese of Phoenix is better off not supporting behavior that violates RCC values. So, we guess it’s a wash.

“THE WORDS THAT I SPEAK UNTO YOU, THEY ARE SPIRIT, AND THEY ARE LIFE. YE ARE CLEAN THROUGH THE WORD WHICH I HAVE SPOKEN UNTO YOU.” — Jesus



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus, the ONLY Way to the Father!

posted December 26, 2010 at 9:57 pm


Nicole Neroulias says:
… the pregnancy was only 11 weeks along — still several months away from a (potentially) viable baby.
Mr. Incredible asks:
What’s “viable”? Capable of living outside the womb?
The unborn child is capable of living outside the womb from the very first seconds. He may not live long. However, length of life doesn’t define life.

JESUS IS LORD ! THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD OVER THE HILLS AND THROUGH THE VALLEYS, TROUNCING GIANTS !



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus Who has overcome the world and, through Him, we, too!

posted December 26, 2010 at 10:08 pm


Well, the hospital now can perform abortion all it wants. No RCC conscience to worry about. So, there should be no further beef.

JESUS CHRIST – LORD OF LORDS, KING OF KINGS!



report abuse
 

Robert C

posted December 26, 2010 at 10:15 pm


nnmns. I am familiar with many religions. Nicole does not post on Santeria often, as an example. No chance to discuss that. You don’t need to practice a religious faith to speak up for it, witness the many who feel a compulsion to defend Islam as of late. Since you are not Catholic what compels you to denigrate it so forcefully, especially since you lack a full comprehension of catholic dogma?



report abuse
 

Robert C

posted December 26, 2010 at 10:25 pm

nnmns

posted December 26, 2010 at 10:56 pm


I denigrate it because it’s a bad influence on our policies and our politics. And its morality is really lacking. I don’t need to know the whole biology of a hog to know when it stinks.
I didn’t much care for your film clip. Maybe funny to a true-believing right winger.



report abuse
 

ktmay

posted December 27, 2010 at 12:43 am


I agree with the prohibition against abortion, but the church must take a more tempered approach with its message. Extremist craziness like this (i.e. preferring to possibly make orphans or a widower out of people rather than save a woman’s life thru a life-saving abortion) just turns ppl away from their legitimate stance against avoidable abortions. God is forgiving and merciful so why can’t humans be, too?



report abuse
 

Mrs. Parker

posted December 27, 2010 at 8:39 am


Here is MY true test of whether or not the Catholic church truly believes in this method of non-treatment for life-threatening pregnancies: Is the Pope or any other bishop willing to be liable for any lawsuits that involve doctors practicing at its affiliated hospitals? Put your lira where your mouth is and you’ll gain more creedence.



report abuse
 

Robert C

posted December 27, 2010 at 10:15 am


Ahhh nnmns. Its annoying when someone mocks what you believe to be true, isn’t it? And that film clip was about politics and not religion. I should point out to you that many people believe that “our national policies and our politics” are things that are evil influences on the whole world. It really is all a matter of perspective. And a hog to one smelleth like a rose to another. You don’t realize that you are actually sowing the seeds of hate and are purposefully hurting others who believe wholeheartedly in their faith. A faith, I am sure, that does not interfere in your life one iota. You are skeet shooting for sport. But don’t fret, you are in renowned company. The list of those who have enjoined religious persecutions is a long one.



report abuse
 

Robert C

posted December 27, 2010 at 10:18 am


PS. I suppose being so far out there on the left you can’t discern where the middle is anymore, can you?



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted December 27, 2010 at 10:34 am


Robert you lie about me but I suppose you’ll find an excuse.
I don’t malign the RCC to hurt people. I do it in hope a few people will think about leaving or a few young people will question what they are told. For a very long time no-one could get away with criticizing it; hence the success in covering up all that child abuse, for starters. If you want to keep people from hurting other peoples’ feelings you should start with those who make so very many false claims about liberals. Oh, wait, you’d be correcting yourself.
Of course it’s a matter of perspective. Most things are. Duh.
And the RCC’s ban on abortion and the ban on birth control they’d like to impose affect a lot of people. If they want a lot less criticism they need to get out of politics and political influence.



report abuse
 

Michael

posted December 27, 2010 at 11:02 am


Yes, I have a thought. File this “article” under some heading other than “news”. It is clearly opinion, it is painfully slanted, and it is uselessly inflammatory. I would have expected more from a site called “Beliefnet”.
Shame on you.



report abuse
 

Robert C

posted December 27, 2010 at 12:02 pm


Lie? Most religions, at least in the west, are voluntary. People come and they go depending upon their personal life story at whichever moment in time. You misrepresent the history of criticism. That particular church has been criticised and persecuted ad infinitum for centuries, including here in the land of the ‘religiously free’. It has also done its fair share of criticism and persecution. But the inherent beauty in the 1st amendment as it applies to religious freedom is that it is a wide umbrella. By definition, “Freedom of religion is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance; the concept is generally recognized also to include the freedom to change religion or not to follow any religion. The freedom to leave or discontinue membership in a religion or religious group is a fundamental part of religious freedom.” In 1807, Thomas Jefferson said “among the inestimable of our blessings, also, is that …of liberty to worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to His will; …”. You purport to insist and impose upon those who freely believe that abortion is wrong a standard that would affirm that it is a right. Freedom of religion is not arguable, however the abortion standard remains in the forefront of legal discourse. It is an inalienable right to decide to support or oppose that issue. It is not a right to oppose the inviolability of the 1st amendment. That bishop is entitled to confirm catholic teaching in the manner in which he did. Each catholic in turn is free to decide whether to accept it, or not. However, I must point out that there is a difference between legitimate criticism and purposeful malignment. I also must point out that I make no false claims about the far left, having been there and done that for many years. The far left and the far right are mirror images. Evil twins. Where on the spectrum do you reside?



report abuse
 

Rob

posted December 27, 2010 at 3:09 pm


This is truly a sad situation. I believe this article was bias against the Church. I believe the Church made the right decision to separate itself from the hospital. That is a shame because the Church provides a good valuable service to the community….BUT the Church must affirm its position and retain its ability to practice its belief and faith.
Just like everything else in this selfish world we live in, religious education and religious hospitals or any religious humanitarian charity must come to an end or they must abandon the truths that have been firmly routed from the depths of her faith. Now the Church will never deny its dogma, nor turn away from its unshaken beliefs…..so the only alternative is to abandon such activities and community relationships which pose a threat to its very existence.
In this, the Church is correct in its decision to terminate its relationship from the hospital.
In my opinion, this is not the first time, nor the last time this will happen. The more selfish humans get, the more evil society gets, the more we shall hear of religious organization rethinking its relationships to provide humanitarian services.
The Lord said it best when he said, “What profits a man to gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” The Church is about saving souls, and doing it on GODS terms. GOD doesn’t change, nor does the Church change because humans want what they want despite the consequences.



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted December 27, 2010 at 4:58 pm


RobertC: “You purport to insist and impose upon those who freely believe that abortion is wrong a standard that would affirm that it is a right.”
It is a right, with constraints as laid out by Roe v. Wade and various states operating within that wise decision, in the USA. The land of the free. And yes, people happily are free to change religions. Of course that’s made harder by those religions which teach that they are the only way to heaven. Know any religions like that, RobertC?
Rob you are agreeing with me and others earlier; the Church should get out of health care. It can’t, within its principles, provide full service health care so it should sell off that whole part of its empire.



report abuse
 

Kathy

posted December 27, 2010 at 5:22 pm


Dear Ms. Neroulias,
Your bio says you are “devoted to unbiased coverage of religion and ethics.” Yet your article is written in such an angry and condescending tone that it undermines–even negates–your stated goal and desire to be unbiased. Perhaps you should get out of journalism if you can’t, with all of your obvious biases, provide objective news coverage. Your job as a writer is to simply relate the facts of an event or situation, not to spin them or tell your readers what they are supposed to think about those facts.



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted December 27, 2010 at 7:11 pm


Nicole, you are doing fine. Don’t let a very few bitter people, who should be attacking the morals of their pervert-protecting church instead of the journalistic ethics of anyone who questions it; don’t let their complaints get you down.



report abuse
 

wizzard duche

posted December 27, 2010 at 7:22 pm


These right wing ding dongs need to be “born again. It scary out here!



report abuse
 

Abealrd Montague

posted December 27, 2010 at 10:23 pm


Well, it has been many years since I have been able to take the Catholic church-or any of it’s spokespersons- seriously as a credible source for opinions on what constitutes morally upright behavior.
Decades of heinous sexual abuse of innocent children, coupled with an equally despicable and unforgiveable in-house mandate to protect the perpetrators of that abuse-makes the mere idea of judge the behavior and choices of others equal parts laughable and outrageous.
There’s also the spectacle of individuals who have (at least, in theory) chosen a life without sexual activity having the chutzpah to give advice to those of us who do not wish to deny ourselves the blessings of this gift. Like the old punchline goes: ‘You no play-a da game, you no make-a da rules.’



report abuse
 

patrick

posted December 27, 2010 at 10:30 pm


The Church has always taught that in a situation where a baby or the mother could be saved, the baby is always to be chosen. Thats Catholic teaching. Putting a headline that says Bishop tells woman to drop dead shows a great deal of ignorance. When a story is about the Catholic church many people seem to display a great deal of disrespect for their teaching. The Bishop concerned could do nothing else but what he did.



report abuse
 

Robert C

posted December 27, 2010 at 10:36 pm


nnmns it is language like ‘pervert-protecting church’ that undermines your credibility and claim to legit criticism and demonstrates that you are merely a shrill bigot with a deep seated psychosis. Abortion is a tenuous right legislated from the bench and subject to reversal. The fact that the uber left have this unique and tragic case to attack like mongrel dogs in the night proves that they are down to threadbare rationale in defense of an unfortunate practice. If it were only this kind of circumstance the vitriol on both sides would be muted, however it is not, and you are obtuse enough to believe that it is only the RCC that opposes your hedonism. Get a clue. As far as those interjecting sex abuse issues into this thread, please don’t let the facts get in your way, it is the Alinsky taught medthodology of the fanatical leftists to utilize any and all means, true or untrue, to deprecate any legitimate discussion. I’ve lived that strategem from the inside as a witness and know from whence it comes.



report abuse
 

Kight of the Unborn

posted December 28, 2010 at 12:33 am


You may operate with the “intent” to save the mother and if the child dies in the process that is morally exceptable. The intent is what matters. This is true in many cases such as end of life. If pain medician is given to stop the pain and death results that is exceptable and not just to the Church but to the Lord Who has left the church to feed the His sheep.



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted December 28, 2010 at 5:42 am


Robert you are delusional, in a variety of ways.
Goodbye for now.



report abuse
 

npr prn

posted December 28, 2010 at 9:15 am


The title of the article is accurate. In this case, the mother would have die with out an abortion. There is no other treatment except delivery, and any doctor who would decide against the abortion needs to not be a OB. Allow me to put this in terms that a maybe a man could understand. Imagine that it is determine that in all the world you are the only one who could save someones life by donating 1/2 of your liver to him; except you have a disease that would immediately kill you and the other person. Should you force to donate? Of course not. The standard of care in the US and most of the world is that Mother’s life take preference always. Catholic hospitals know this ; if it is unclear they should get out of the business (and waste huge sums of money). Really doesn’t matter what was taught in Catholic schools years ago; that logic is flawed.



report abuse
 

Robert C

posted December 28, 2010 at 11:04 am


…and you get no points for being rather evil.



report abuse
 

Eric

posted December 28, 2010 at 12:28 pm


This article so misses the point of the Bishops action. The headline proves the author failed to due research as to the Bishop’s decision. What a shame! I have attached an “url” with links to the Phoenix Diocese website so that people might see this from a different perspective.



report abuse
 

MH

posted December 28, 2010 at 1:58 pm


Eric, there’s not much new information on those pages you linked to. Basically it says that the hospital performed an abortion, but doesn’t elaborate on the nature of the mothers disease.
If the claim that the mother had preeclampsia (PIH), then depending on the circumstances it can be swiftly fatal, as the nurse pointed out above. So it’s basically a Bishop who is not medially trained second guessing doctors as to what would be fatal or not.
It sounds like the Bishop’s real beef is their cooperation with Mercy Care Plan.



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted December 28, 2010 at 2:05 pm


RobertC: If the middle means agreeing with the RCC in this case, then fortunately I’m not there. What is “left” about saving the life of a mother of 4 living children, when an 11 week old fetus can’t survive outside the womb? Nothing. The church, as I said, doesn’t seem to value what kind of life her 4 children would have without her. She was not important in the long scheme of things apparently, only the possible life of an 11 week old fetus. Sticking with my previous statement—the Sister did the right thing—as for the RCC? They no longer can meddle in the hospital’s business.
Nicole, thanks for posting this, as well as the other things you do so well.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in Jesus' Name

posted December 28, 2010 at 2:43 pm


A human creature can survive outta the womb from the very first moments and live 3 seconds, or to a very ripe age. So, length of life doesnt’ define “life.”
If a hospital wants to associate with the Phoenix Diocese, it must honor and follow the Diocese’s values and rules. That’s the agreement, and, either the hospital honors its end of the agreement, or it does not.
If it does not, the Phoenix Diocese is under no obligation to honor its end, and it may separate from the hospital so as not to give the impression that it approves of what the hospital did.
It’s like goin’ through the security checkpoint at the airport.
When you go through, having had the opportunity to read the signage and having all kinds of opportunity to see the news reports about it, you give what the law calls “implied consent” to a search. Where there is implied consent, there is no Fourth Amendment issue. You agreed, and the screeners may hold you to that agreement. If you refuse, you suffer the consequences. That’s what agreement is all about.
So, the hospital knew ahead of time that abortion violates the agreement of association with the Phoenix Diocese. The hospital has no legitimate reason to expect that association to continue.



report abuse
 

Chris

posted December 28, 2010 at 3:14 pm


I’m a Christian that believes abortion is wrong no matter what. But in cases like these, when the mother’s life is in danger, I won’t say a single word against the hospital or the mother for opting to abort the child. The aborted child will go to heaven, period. It makes no sense to deprive a husband of his wife and children of their mother just to satisfy some hard-line political agenda couched in “beliefs.”
Again, as a Bible-believing, Jesus-worshiping Christian who is vehemently opposed to abortion, I believe that the RCC was wrong here.



report abuse
 

S. Castro

posted December 28, 2010 at 5:02 pm


Chris, I am with you on this one. I am a Christian, former Catholic woman active in the Lifesavers Ministry and Right-To-Life, but if the mother had preeclamsia and as threatened with death, her child could not have survived either. This is not abortion in the sense that Planned Parenthood pushes it, to end an unwanted pregnance out of convenience for the mother.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus, in Whom we are more than conquerors!

posted December 28, 2010 at 6:08 pm


“Pregnance”?????



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in Jesus' Name – the Name above ALL names!

posted December 28, 2010 at 6:13 pm


The Catholic Diocese of Phoenix didn’t stop the hospital from performing abortion. After all, the hospital performed an abortion, and the hospital will continue to perform abortion.
Given that contentious spirit, the Catholic Diocese of Phoenix is not required to support conduct that violates the agreement between the Diocese and the hospital. To have done nothing would have left the impression that the Diocese supports abortion.
Now the hospital can go on performing abortion without a guilt trip.
The Diocese can go on without the guilt trip.
Everybody’s happy.

AND THE LIGHT SHINETH IN DARKNESS; AND THE DARKNESS COMPREHENDED IT NOT.



report abuse
 

Mr. Normal, in his own name

posted December 28, 2010 at 6:31 pm


Mr. Incredible, I am an atheist who believes all religious belief is bad. But I am so very happy you identify yourself as a Christian. Many people will abandon their silly beliefs when they read yours.



report abuse
 

Joe Catholic

posted December 28, 2010 at 7:23 pm


Abortion, even in the case of “attempting to save a woman’s life”, is sinful, and wrong. God decides life, not people.



report abuse
 

npr prn

posted December 28, 2010 at 8:05 pm


All these male who keep deciding that a woman should die for their religious beliefs are really irritating. When you are willing to just ignore potential health risk of 50% of the population, that is sinful and wrong.



report abuse
 

MH

posted December 28, 2010 at 8:41 pm


Joe Catholic, should we eliminate all medical care and life saving procedures? After-all, if God decides life and not man, then we should not interfere with his will.



report abuse
 

John Del Rosario

posted December 28, 2010 at 9:42 pm


http://www.pilotongpilipino.com
Who decideds if a human being should live or die… Not the priests,not the bishops but the doctor who is trained to save a life and understands the reason for life..
John D.



report abuse
 

Big Fat Atheist

posted December 28, 2010 at 11:02 pm


If men believewhat the Bible says, that sex is for procreation only, stop sticking your penises into your wives vaginas unless she is ovulating, and ready and willing to be pregnant. This means no sex for fun. No sex after menopause, and NO RAPING us. In the meantime, you not only have no right to be knocking us up when we don’t want to be knocked up, you also have no right to have ANY opinion on abortion. There is not one married woman on the planet that has not had sex with her husband when she didn’t want to, usually just to SHUT HIM THE HELL UP ABOUT IT, and that is RAPE!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus

posted December 29, 2010 at 4:05 am


Mr. Normal, in his own name says:
Mr. Incredible, I am an atheist…
Mr. Incredible says:
Yes, you say you are.
Mr. Normal, in his own name says:
…who believes all religious belief is bad.
Mr. Incredible says:
So, you DO believe.
Mr. Normal, in his own name says:
But I am so very happy you identify yourself as a Christian.
Mr. Incredible says:
So am I.
Mr. Normal, in his own name says:
Many people will abandon their silly beliefs when they read yours.
Mr. Incredible says:
They are responsible for making that choice, giving me more power than the Lord, though I don’t accept it. Christ will make that call on the Day of Judgment.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus

posted December 29, 2010 at 4:09 am


Big Fat Atheist says:
If men believewhat the Bible says, that sex is for procreation only…
Mr. Incredible asks:
Where does He say that? Give us the line of scriptural thought that explains it.



report abuse
 

Firm Believer

posted December 29, 2010 at 12:27 pm


A heroic Catholic mother will choose the Church’s path of giving her life for that of her unborn child. She has had a lifetime in which to be baptized, receive the sacraments, and grow in grace as she moves toward eternity, and her child must be allowed those same opportunities. Like Christ, she sacrifices herself for another.



report abuse
 

A Catholic Mother

posted December 29, 2010 at 12:36 pm


Thank you Firm Believer. It’s murder.



report abuse
 

dgh69

posted December 29, 2010 at 1:11 pm


Catholicism is a cult, these people are nt christians.



report abuse
 

Theo

posted December 29, 2010 at 2:51 pm


If it is against Catholic teaching to have an abortion, then it is against Catholic teaching to provide abortions. If a Catholic hospital is providing abortions for any reason, when there are hospitals all over the place that provide abortion services and kill the unborn… then the Bishop did what he had to do. Some people seem to think that religious people have no right to practice their religion when and where other people’s beliefs and morals are concerned. But the reality is, we not only have the right to practice our religion but we have a Divine obligation to follow the teachings of Jesus and His Church.
Does that mean that we tell this woman to drop dead? By no means, that was a Secularist attributing words and attitudes to the bishop to make Catholics look evil and uncaring. It just means that if you’re a non-Catholic, and you believe your life is at risk because of your pregnancy, then you had better go to a different hospital. And if you’re a Catholic woman, and you go to a Catholic hospital, and they tell you that your life is at risk because of your pregnancy, then you have a decision to make. 1) Trust in God and the prayers of your loved ones and allow nature to take its course, or 2) check into a non-Catholic hospital and have them kill your unborn child. The choice is yours, but don’t assume your freedom of choice trumps the beliefs and freedoms of religious people.
I have been watching things develop on the public seen for about 30 years or more, and have noticed an alarming intolerance on the part of Secular Humanists to use the power of the media and the government to shape popular opinion and compel people of faith to fall in line with their agendas. In some states it’s getting to the point where religious doctors and pharmacologists, who follow the teachings of their Faith, may face private litigation and even criminal prosecution, because of the laws government has imposed, compelling them to do things that violate their conscience – in the public’s interest. In the case of abortion rights, the majority of the American people are pro-life or at the very least sympathize with the prolife stance against abortion, and yet the secular institutions of government remain in lock-step with Planned Parenthood and other Prochoice movements.
I believe its time not only Catholic Bishops take a clear stand against the abortion industry, Planned Parenthood and the Secular government, but for all Christian pastors and people of faith to raise up a standard against them. We have religious freedom in this country, and we have the right to practice our Faith as we have always done in America. Tell the secularists to drop dead, and tell those in medical need, where they can best be cared for according to their beliefs. But don’t force Christians to choose between their chosen professions and killing the unborn. That is totally over the top.
~ Theophilus



report abuse
 

Minor Detail

posted December 29, 2010 at 2:52 pm


“A heroic Catholic mother will choose the Church’s path of giving her life for that of her unborn child. She has had a lifetime in which to be baptized, receive the sacraments, and grow in grace as she moves toward eternity, and her child must be allowed those same opportunities. Like Christ, she sacrifices herself for another.”
Yes, but she was only 11 weeks along, too soon for the baby to live on its own. If the pregnancy kills the mother early on, then it also kills the unborn baby. At that point her death doesn’t save the baby’s life, and by choosing to die then isn’t she basically suiciding herself along with the baby that has no chance either way?



report abuse
 

Phil

posted December 29, 2010 at 2:56 pm


I’m not a Catholic, but I am a Christian. I sympathize with the bishop (and with the woman whose baby was destroyed), but I don’t know the particulars of this case and can only address the issue conceptually. If the death of the mother was imminent and the life of the baby would certainly have been lost if the mother died, then I disagree with the bishop. But I don’t know if that was the case. There are so many variables. In fact, the Bible does not address every possible set of variables because doing so would require a book of impossible length – impossible for man to read. One tries to learn the principles of God’s will from what is written and to apply those principles appropriately, as the situation requires. In this case, the bishop may have applied the wrong principle, but I can’t say that with absolute certainty because I don’t know all the variables.
Doctors are required to have medical expertise, but that does not guarantee that all doctors are equipped to make good moral decisions. It is the bishop’s job to teach and lead on issues of religion and morality. He cannot deferr that responsibility to others on the basis of medical expertise.
The author of this article responded to one her critics saying personal attacks are inappropriate, but her own headline is inflamatory. It is the stove calling the kettle black.



report abuse
 

null

posted December 29, 2010 at 3:34 pm


It’s interesting to see this discussion continue to unfold as it has. One thing that seems to be lacking is any consideration of the lives affected beyond the pregnant woman and her child. I suspect that much of what weighed so very much on that woman’s mind (because it would certainly weigh heavily on my own) would have to do with the lives of those I would leave behind. The most likely result of this scenario would have been the deaths of both mother and baby. The mother because it would be a sin (as the church sees it and teaches) for the pregnancy to be ended and the baby because it was far too underdeveloped to be able to live outside the womb at 11 weeks gestation.
The medical issues are more complex than typical preeclampsia or even the more serious HELLP syndrome, which most commonly manifest much later in pregnancy, more likely in the third trimester. My understanding is that the mother had primary pulmonary hypertension, which is a far more serious, complex and more life threatening, because there are far fewer treatment options. I’m not a medical doctor, but as a wife and mother who’s experienced two very high-risk pregnancies, one preeclampsia and the other more akin to HELLP syndrome and massive post-partum hemmorage, I know well the dangers and issues I would face if I were to conceive and carry a pregnancy again. My body has been permanently damaged because of what happened. My bet is that I would be likely to be in a similar situation to this poor woman, although the medical issues involved would be different, though no less life-threatening. One of my children has multiple handicaps and disabilities. He is able to live at home with his family because I am able to care for him, his dad, and other sibling. If I were to be in a similar situation as the woman who’s situation we’ve been discussing here, I could choose not to sin, and leave my family to handle a situation that is well beyond their capacity to handle, or I could accept the stain and sin and choose to live for their sake. What good is it for me to save my own soul while condemning the souls and lives of those I would leave behind? My disabled child would face a lifetime of institutionalization and my spouse and other child a mountain of guilt, anger and resentment for abandoning them for the cold comfort of an absolute principle. Is it still murder when there’s some modicum of self-defense involved, which I think is more than plausible in the situation under consideration here? Does any opponent of abortion or angered commentator in this discussion who feels that the bishop and/or Catholic church has been maligned here really think that this was some blithe, non-thought-out or considered decision based on what I feel has been characterized by some of the commenters here as a selfish choice on the part of the woman involved, affected and dare I say, afflicted by such a horrible situation? Because for me, it would not be that kind of decision. I have to wonder at what kind of God would put someone in such a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation like this. I also have to wonder at the selfishness of people who would urge that women in such situations choose death for the sake of their personal salvation and to hell with the living they leave behind. I’m amazed that there has been little to no consideration of the idea that something other than personal self-preservation and/or personal salvation (I will assure myself a place in heaven) might have been considered by those who had to face, make and then live with that decision. That’s not only been true in this particular discussion, but one I’ve noted and noticed in nearly all discussions regarding this topic. Even the Catholic church in its theology acknowledges that there are times when a choice between two evils might need to be made for grave reasons in a given set of circumstances. Sometimes, no matter how hard people try not to sin, sometimes that might just be the sacrifice a person might have to make for the sake of others affected by a given decision. Just something to think about — those who would be left behind. My bet is that those people figured far more prominently than anyone cares to acknowledge or admit here and in any consideration of this issue. How sad.



report abuse
 

Robert C

posted December 29, 2010 at 3:43 pm


The question, Pagan, is whether you would defend Roe v. Wade as is, or, whether you would be content to see a revision where only the life of the mother was the sole exception legally allowed under the practice. That would be the center. The vitriol with which the left is attacking this bishop and focusing on this instance is enough proof that they feel that the tide is turning against the civil sanctioning of abortion in all cases. They have retreated philosophically to defend the worst case scenarios.
Of course most of those arguments in this case are simplistic and rather ridiculous since the woman in question is alive. If the hospital had chosen to apply Catholic teaching and retain its certification by the church, it would have stabilized her, discontinued care, moved her into an ambulance and transferred her to Banner Good Samaritan less than a half mile away where the issue would have been mute but the result would have been the same. Aside from possible physician credentialing and affiliation, and the facilities catholic affiliation, it is my presumption that St. Joseph’s was chosen as the first choice care facility in this case due not only to its world class Fetal Care unit and excellent Trauma center, but also due to its’ Center of Thoracic Transplantation. However, Banner is a nationally known center for high-risk obstetrics, with pre-eminent care of mothers and fetuses at risk for serious health complications during pregnancy and birth. One must ask the question why this happened here.
Aside from the patient’s progression into right side heart failure, inevitably politics always plays a role in such circumstances. The archbishop did not rescind Catholic certification due to this one case, nor did he rescind due to previous emergency medical circumstances, he only acted after months of direct discussion had failed to induce the hospital and CHW’s corporate management to refuse to perform not only other abortions there in the future, but to discontinue providing other abortions at their other facilities, which they have historically done on the sly in other circumstances such as rape or incest.
At St Joseph’s, Sister McBride unfortunately accepted the rap for Linda Hunt, the hospital’s CEO and her bosses in San Francisco. Indications are that Ms. Hunt made a personal political and corporate decision in the matter of this patient, fully intended to push the envelope in this case with this archbishop, and that subsequently she was aware that the information would be leaked to the media. How much influence the ACLU has had in these decisions is questionable yet pertinent as they have moved to enjoin religious facilities from refusing to perform abortions under guise of enforcing EMTALA and the COP, citing the civil rights of the mother, but conveniently ignoring the civil rights of the child. I find it rather distasteful that CHW would seek to protect its ‘assets’ under potential Joint Commission sanctions forced by ACLU actions at the expense of the aborted child, the mother, the mother’s remaining children, Sister McBride and the Archbishop. There is no easy choice in circumstances such as this, but conducting a lottery doesn’t make the results any less offensive. As far as Nicole’s posting of the topic, well maybe some additional homework would have been in order rather than gross grandstanding



report abuse
 

null

posted December 29, 2010 at 5:01 pm


One last thing. I’ve been faced with the choice of ending a pregnancy via abortion because the doctors believed my first child had Down’s syndrome. Now, mind you, statistics indicate that up to 90% of such babies never get to birth because parents choose to end the pregnancy as a result. We chose not to, even to the point of refusing any intrauterine invasive testing that could have put the child at risk of miscarriage. It turned out to be a false alarm, a false positive. At that time I was much more of a believer than I am now. Having a child with any kind of disability was not an issue to me or my spouse. Ironically, it was our second child who had multiple issues that did not manifest themselves until after birth. What’s remarkable is that I know far more people who would have done the opposite of what we did (among whom were several self-identified Catholics and/or Christians). The way I figure it, my family is a living testimony to what it means to be pro-life, but this particular case really really got to me. And whether you take issue with my views, feelings, and experiences or not, I really felt let down by the church and it really hit home to me personally (whether you agree with it or not) that as a woman, I really am a second-class citizen in the church, particularly with respect to a dilemma which I feel has more than one valid, just and moral solution, even using and applying standard Catholic theology such as the principle of double effect and the same principles that Pope Benedict used in his discussion about using condoms to inhibit/prevent HIV transmission. And, everything I’ve been reading seems so much like others imposing heavy burdens that they themselves don’t have to or are unwilling to carry themselves. It’s so very sad. The truth is, no one won in this situation. There was no good solution. When the bishop and those who agreed with him spelled it out in black and white, there seemed to be so little consideration of the actual people involved or who have ever had to face such a tough and terrible solution. It reminds me of the William Styron novel “Sophie’s Choice.” That’s what this entire situation reminds me of. And, for those in the know, keep your Godwin comments to yourselves.



report abuse
 

tonybigs

posted December 29, 2010 at 6:28 pm


The doctors are playing God. To the best of *their* reasoning both mother and child would die. But that isn’t necessarily true. The expression was “life threatening”. Life Threatening is very broad. An automobile drive, eating peanuts, walking across the street are all “life threatening”. Every beat of our heart is life threatening. Only by God’s grace does it continue to beat.
As simplistic as the argument some would have others think and clouding it with “shades of gray” so that no one recognizes absolute Truth, putting trust and faith in God is the most important decision we’ll ever make.



report abuse
 

KellyAnn

posted December 29, 2010 at 8:36 pm


I absolutely do not want kids and will never carry a pregnancy. I have asked my doctor repeatedly for a sterilization but been denied because my doctor (who sees me once a year) feels she knows my mind better than I do and thinks I will change my mind someday and want babies. I won’t. (I’m a 33 year old professional with two graduate degrees….I believe I’m capable of making this decision.)
Due to some other medical issues, I am unable to take any form of hormonal birth control. This means I have to rely on less reliable methods such as condoms. If I accidentally become pregnant, the doctor who refused the sterilization will be asked to perform the abortion that COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED if she had been willing to perform the procedure I originally asked for. I do not ever want to become pregnant and take steps to avoid it but have been denied the tubal ligation which would prevent it.
If you want to reduce the number of abortions, reliable birth control needs to be made available to anyone who asks and adult women should not be treated like children who will change their minds when they ask for a permanent solution.



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted December 29, 2010 at 10:49 pm


RobertC: I am a supporter of Roe V Wade. I believe a woman should be able to have an abortion if she chooses to. It is ultimately her decision. Personally, I feel that decision should be made before the 4th month of pregnancy—plenty of time. No revision of Roe V Wade is, IMO, necessary.
You wondered why she wasn’t stablized and sent to another hospital, apparently close. Who knows—we weren’t there. Perhaps the woman refused or perhaps it really wasn’t a possiblility to do.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus

posted December 30, 2010 at 2:20 am


pagansister says:
I believe a woman should be able to have an abortion if she chooses to.
Mr. Incredible says:
That’s why society gets to choose whether the unborn, beginning at conception, are persons, so that they are protected, also, by the Constitution.
I want Roe to stay, too, since, about three-fourths of the way down in the ruling, Justice Blackmun says that the Court would-a had to rule the other way had the State shown that the unborn are persons. The appellant agreed.
pagansister says:
Personally…
Mr. Incredble asks:
Soooo, we should defer to YOUR standard??? Why shouldn’t you defer to OUR standard???
pagansister says:
…I feel that decision should be made before the 4th month of pregnancy…
Mr. Incredible asks:
Why stop there, if she has the Right to choose? Why not right up to the ninth month, or beyond?
pagansister says:
No revision of Roe V Wade is, IMO, necessary.
Mr. Incredible says:
I agree that we should not get rid of Roe. After all, Justice Blackmun, in Roe, itself, says that had there been “personhood” before the Court and applied to the unborn, the Court, he says, would-a had to rule the other way.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in Jesus' Name

posted December 30, 2010 at 8:57 am


Roe, itself, says that, had there been, before the Court, even the suggestion — by law — that the unborn are persons, the Court would’ve had to rule the other way and give Fourteenth Amendment protection to the unborn. That’s cuz the Constitution protects persons. ALL persons. The Roe appellant agreed with this.
So, all we gotta do is what several states are doing: define “personhood” as beginning at conception.
Of course, that’s already done in inheritance law which says that the unborn child, beginning at conception, has “future interests.” The unborn child is treated as a person — that is, he is what the law calls a “jural person.” Corporations are jural persons, and, if we can think of corporations as jural persons, we can think of the unborn as jural persons.



report abuse
 

Faith and Medicine

posted December 30, 2010 at 9:32 am


tonybigs – The part that complicates this for me is that the woman already has four children. No amount of faith can compensate for the loss of a mother, and no amount of faith will guaranty those other four kids that their mother will survive the pregnancy. I would imagine you would have a very difficult time looking those kids in the eye and saying “yes, we could have let the medical community save your mother, but we had faith instead, and I guess this time it was God’s will that she died and left you mother-less”. Can’t God’s will sometimes be that medical advances are achieved that allow four children to grow up with a mother?



report abuse
 

Anti- Mr Incredible

posted December 30, 2010 at 11:14 am


So Mr. Incredible, in Jesus’ Name, unborn fetus has more rights than its mother, right? After all, mothers are not people like fetuses, they don’t need to survive unlike fetuses, their only purpose it carry fetuses and be brood mare, right?
So society gets to choose what woman can do with its own body, but woman itself has no thoughts, no rights, and no voice in the matter, right?
After all, Mr. Incredible men don’t have to risk their lives in pregnancy just demand a child and beat up a wife in gods name, right?
But then Mr Incredible and all of your anti-abortion friends, only care about fetus as long as they are unborn, the moment they are born, all interest is gone and the women are the ones who must provide. After all children don’t need health care (thats why you’re all againt free child healthcare), they don’t need education, they don’t need to be clothed, has a roof under their heads. Because YOUR tax break is far more important for that.
I would believe you more if you weren’t self-rightious hipocrites who stopped careing about children the moment they were born and all are for self-determination as long as women don’t get to choose!



report abuse
 

Robert C

posted December 30, 2010 at 11:37 am


Pagan, so your not anywhere near the middle then. Don’t delude yourself, your are on the far left of the spectrum. Look around, make yourself comfortable, although the thin oxygen out there ( whatever oxygen available is usually sucked up by the pompous ivory tower types) does give a drug induced type stupor.
As far as Anti incredulous or what ever you wish to style yourself, what a simplistic, rose colored, juvrnile view of a complex situation. Sure its’ a woman’s body. As such she should be wise and judicious about sexual intercourse and not carelessly find herself with an unwanted pregnancy. If she is a brood mare in this day and age its because she allowed herself to become one. She is a person, like her unborn child. But unlike that child she has age and experience and resources to assist her. The child does not. She inherently has an unfair advantage over that child. Even if they had equal rights, which they do not, the unborn child still is at significant disadvantage in every way imaginable. I also posit that it is a woman’s body totally until conception. Then she shares it in a symbiotic relationship. BTW who would you suggest should care for that child if not the family? Please don’t diffuse the discourse with blather about Obamacare or presume to taint those with philosophical differences with the paint brush of callous indifference. You only brand yourself ignorant.



report abuse
 

Henrietta22

posted December 30, 2010 at 12:37 pm


Nicole, I hope you are enjoying the Season up there in all that snow! Hurry back to your computer and get rid of all this old stuff. It’s turned into a free-for-all again, people attacking people they don’t agree with. The title of this article is called “pulling you in to read it, title”. All good writers use the same psychology. If you don’t want to read it because it offends your RCC religion just delete it. I agree with PS and nnmns, you do a service for info., and do it well. Happy New Year everyone!



report abuse
 

Mike

posted December 30, 2010 at 1:45 pm


The article does not tell the whole story – as usual is the case with the media. There were more options than merely to abort and no the woman was not going to die as indicated and certainly the bishop did not say “drop dead”.
Unfortunately the author is giving only the pro choice side.



report abuse
 

Just Be

posted December 30, 2010 at 2:07 pm


According to medical experts, the reality is that only 1/10th of 1% of all abortions performed are because the mother’s life is actually in medical danger. That is just an excuse for pro-choice advocates. This whole abortion debate will never be won or lost by either side. Women need to take responsibility for their behavior that leads to an “unwanted” pregnancy. This is an issue that needs to stay out of politics. This issue is between a woman and God, or her concious if she is not religious.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus

posted December 30, 2010 at 2:19 pm


That’s true that most abortions are elective, to save the social life of the mother.



report abuse
 

mcA

posted December 30, 2010 at 3:10 pm


What’s the bother?
The hospital is simply no longer allowed to call itself Catholic.
If you disagree with the Catholic Church – that is a good outcome.
If you agree with the Catholic Church and follow its rules – that is a good outcome.
If you want to call yourself Catholic but not follow its rules, that is your problem.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus, in Whom we are more than conquerors!

posted December 30, 2010 at 5:56 pm


“THE WORDS THAT I SPEAK UNTO YOU, THEY ARE SPIRIT, AND THEY ARE LIFE. YE ARE CLEAN THROUGH THE WORD WHICH I HAVE SPOKEN UNTO YOU.” — Jesus

Anti- Mr Incredible asks:
So Mr. Incredible, in Jesus’ Name, unborn fetus has more rights than its mother, right?
Mr. Incredible says:
No, the Constitution protects ALL persons. Equal protection under the law. Equal application of the law.
Anti- Mr Incredible asks:
After all, mothers are not people like fetuse, they don’t need to survive unlike fetuses, their only purpose it carry fetuses and be brood mare, right?
Mr. Incredible says:
They are the guardians of the lives they carry. The lives of the unborn are in their care. That takes responsibility. Responsibility takes a sense of responsibility.
Anti- Mr Incredible says:
So society gets to choose what woman can do with its own body…
Mr. Incredible says:
No, with what the woman may do with the body of another.
Anti- Mr Incredible says:
…but woman itself has no thoughts, no rights, and no voice in the matter, right?
Mr. Incredible says:
Of course, you’ve danced yourself up into some heightened emotional state, and, in so doing, you misstate the issue in order to satisfy your amplify emotional condition.
Anti- Mr Incredible says:
After all, Mr. Incredible men don’t have to risk their lives in pregnancy…
Mr. Incredible says:
Look who’s being sexist!
Anti- Mr Incredible says:
… just demand a child and beat up a wife in gods [sic]…
Mr. Incredible asks:
Which “god”?
Anti- Mr Incredible asks:
… name, right?
Mr. Incredible asks:
That time of month, eh?
Man also change your oil, paint your house, fix your toilet, unplug your sink, change a flat, take you shopping, mow your lawn, take out your garbage, take you and buy you dinner, carry your luggage and your books, even open your doors, among other things, in the Name of Jesus. No complaints there, huh.
Anti- Mr Incredible says:
But then Mr Incredible and all of your anti-abortion friends, only care about fetus as long as they are unborn, the moment they are born, all interest is gone and the women are the ones who must provide.
Mr. Incredible asks:
“Only”??
Anti- Mr Incredible says:
After all children don’t need health care…
Mr. Incredible asks:
They don’t??
Anti- Mr Incredible says:
… (thats [sic] why you’re all againt free child healthcare)…
Mr. Incredible asks:
“All”??
Now you’re PMSing.
Anti- Mr Incredible says:
… they don’t need education…
Mr. Incredible asks:
They don’t??
Anti- Mr Incredible says:
… they don’t need to be clothed…
Mr. Incredible asks:
You down with child pornography??
Anti- Mr Incredible says:
… has a roof under their heads.
Mr. Incredible says:
You be throwin’ back some 40s,huh.
Anti- Mr Incredible says:
Because YOUR tax break is far more important for that.
Mr. Incredible says:
Over 90% of the employment in this country is in small business. Business needs lower tax rates in order to do business – that is, buy equipment, space and hire employees. When tax rates are high, in order to make the money necessary to buy equipment and pay for the space, businesses sacrifice employees.
Today, businesses are afraid to spend money and hire cuz they don’t know whether they will come up short. Coming up short would be worse for the country.
Anti- Mr Incredible says:
I would believe you more if you weren’t self-rightious [sic]…
Mr. Incredible says:
Ahhhh, the ol’ “self-righteous” card.
Anti- Mr Incredible says:
… who stopped careing [sic] about children the moment they were born and all are for self-determination as long as women don’t get to choose!
Mr. Incredible says:
Some man really did you bad, huh.



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted December 30, 2010 at 7:37 pm


Whatever, Robert C. You asked for my stance, I gave it to you. Left—not a problem. Women have the right to control whether they get pregnant or not—-as some MEN don’t choose to take that responsibility. If an unplanned AND unwanted (some unplanned are not unwanted) pregnancy should occur, there is a legal option she can choose. Isn’t and never should be an easy decision. Like I said, left is no problem. I’ve lived long enough to have seen what happened when there wasn’t a legal option. That should never happen again. Preferrably education and birth control, but none of that is perfect. Options to an abortion should always be offered, but not forced. No situation is the same. OK, we disagree, and that’s fine. Not being a woman (I assume from your name) you really have no idea what a woman goes through with anything. It is ALWAYS a woman’s body even at the time of conception. She has the choice to keep or not keep that change—and I would (as I said) hope she could make up her mind before the 4th month. If not, again in my opinion, she should complete the pregnancy.
The air is fine—-Thanks.



report abuse
 

Der Jakl

posted December 30, 2010 at 10:02 pm


So sad to see such bigotry and hatred here for Catholics and The Holy See. You will all be in our prayers. May God change your hearts to see His Grace and Mercy.



report abuse
 

Robert C

posted December 31, 2010 at 11:16 am


Since there wasn’t a question mark at the end of that rhetorical statement, I really wasn’t inquiring since I already knew your position based on your far left perspectives. Yes woman have the right to choose whether they get pregnant. Because of readily available abortions, some women disdain accepting the responsibility that should come with a mature, adult sexual life experience. There is now a certain indifference to consequences that has developed and lessened the quota of personal responsibility that society has relied upon to function well. Unfortunately for more than some abortion is an easy decision for reasons callous and trivial compared to a life held in the balance. I used to think that the leaders of the pro-abortion movement were heroes. The older I get and the more I have seen I now realize that they were gutless and superficial. I am adverse to much of the legal mandating of behaviors but rather than legal abortion in all cases it would have been preferable to have had a national birth control program. We will be heading in that direction anyway. And please don’t hand me that tired old spiel that a man can’t comprehend what a woman goes through. That has always been a tired and manipulative ruse effective only for the gullible. If you share more than a toss in the hay with someone and you care you empathize with all of life’s experiences, and that goes both ways. I totally disagree with your statement that its always a woman’s body after conception. As I’ve stated I believe that once a woman concieves, she shares that body, and assumes a greater responsibility than whether her whims of the moment, or her finances, or her life style, or blah blah blah whatever inconsequential reason aside from her physical health may dictate. Rape and incest are different issues and should be approached differently. Enjoy your air. But Do I detect some cheap incense afoot?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted December 31, 2010 at 11:50 am


There is no such movement as the “pro-abortion movement”. That is a fiction invented by self-righteous Christianists, usually male, usually Catholic.
When you grow up enough to discuss the pro-CHOICE movement, we can have an adult discussion. Talking to liars is counter-productive.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus

posted December 31, 2010 at 2:13 pm


Your Name says:
There is no such movement as the “pro-abortion movement”.
Mr. Incredible says:
Yes, there is no paperwork, no official organization “Pro-Abortion Movement.” Nobody would name an organizaton that, and nobody would openly be a member of it cuz it is too obvious, and everybody would reject it.
However, there is such-a movement. People in it want not to be associated with the term “pro-abortion” which is really “pro-kill-the-unborn.”
Your Name says:
That is a fiction invented by self-righteous Christianists, usually male, usually Catholic.
Mr. Incredible says:
Nobody claims that there is an official organziation “Pro-Abortion Movement.” Nobody would wanna be that open about being pro-abortion. That’s why they claim to be pro-choice which is really pro-choice=pro-abortion=wrong-choice.
Your Name says:
When you grow up enough…
Mr. Incredible says:
In other words, when we agree with you.
Your Name says:
…to discuss the pro-CHOICE movement…
Mr. Incredible asks:
SEE?
Hitler did the same thing; he didn’t call “killing” “killing.” He called it “cleansing.”
Your Name says:
…we can have an adult discussion.
Mr. Incredible says:
We can talk anytime about the pro-abortion movement. It just that YOU can’t.
Your Name says:
Talking to liars is counter-productive.
Mr. Incredible says:
Then stop lying.



report abuse
 

Lucy lucy

posted December 31, 2010 at 6:15 pm


The term “a woman’s body is her own” is a LIE !! Only God has the right to take life, a human being NEVER has that right. Abortion is MURDER, simply stated, and no amount of excuses for it will ever make it anything other than this !! Who knows the purpose of that life inside of a woman? God never does anything that isn’t for a reason !! I know it isn’t my place to judge this woman or her decision, and I am not by any means, but I do know that one day we will all stand before our creator. Women today have been brainwashed into thinking “it is a woman’s choice” To add to that, young people today have been brought up with such a tolerance for violence and loss of mercy and sympathy that our society has become the way it is today ! God have mercy on our country, and may parents have the sense to teach the scriptures to their children.



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted December 31, 2010 at 7:40 pm


The excuses for the inexcusable go on and on. It’s inexcusable to value a blastocyst, a zygote, an embryo or a fetus more than a woman. The former vfour are not people, though they are on their way. A woman is a person with the rrights of a person.
The RCC has boxed itself into an indefensible position with these “infalible” papal statements that can’t be changed even if reason should somehow prevail at the top of the RCC. Too much face would be lost.
And speaking of face, Gus diZerega gives a telling analysis of how the RCC got in the mess it’s in. It’s not just a Catholic problem, it’s problem of any organization its members think of as being too important. But the RCC has it in spades because it’s leaders sacrificed all those children so the Church wouldn’t lose face. Fortunately, it hasn’t worked and the Church has gotten some of what it deserves.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus, in Whom we are more than conquerors!

posted December 31, 2010 at 9:06 pm


nnmns says:
It’s inexcusable to value a blastocyst, a zygote, an embryo or a fetus more than a woman.
Mr. Incredible says:
Nobody values the unborn child more than his mother. Under the Constitution, all persons are treated equally. Equal application of the law. The law says that the unborn child is at least what the law calls a “jural person”– that is, he is treated as a person, just as corporations are treated as persons.
nnmns says:
The former vfour are not people…
Mr. Incredible says:
Yes, they are. Inheritance law, for example, says that, beginning at conception, they have what the law calls “future interests.” Department of Human Services regulations say that the unborn child, beginning at conception, is entitled to health care entirely apart from that available for the mother.
nnmns says:
…though they are on their way.
Mr. Incredible says:
Conception is the beginning of the birth process. Beginning at conception, the birth process moves forward. All the elements of life are present at conception. The conceptus, beginning at conception, grows independently of the mother.
nnmns says:
A woman is a person with the rrights of a person.
Mr. Incredible says:
The law treats the unborn child as a person, too.

JESUS IS LORD ! THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD OVER THE HILLS AND THROUGH THE VALLEYS, TROUNCING GIANTS !



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted December 31, 2010 at 9:22 pm


Lucylucy,
If indeed only your god has the right to take a life, what’s with all the wars in the name of GOD!? He or She apparently allows them to happen. (Yeah, I know, free will and all that). You have the right to NOT have a termination, but neither you or your god has the right to tell another woman she can’t have one if she feels it is something she has to do. You don’t have to agree or disagree, it is her right just as it is your right to NOT have one. BTW, one also has to believe in that particular god.
RobertC: You say that you can feel what a woman goes through? If a woman has ever had any medical procedure in that region of her body—she would never want to have another—including a termination. I don’t think I have ever met a woman who took having a termination—for any reason—as something to use as birth control. NOOOO! Hurts too much. (and a woman still has control of her body after conception). Happy New Year!



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted December 31, 2010 at 9:40 pm


You apparently have not read Roe v. Wade. Bzefs gain the protections states choose to give them more and more as they get closer to being born, i.e. becoming a person. I won’t argue about the inheritance laws, but that’s different than being a legal person. And far different than being an actual person.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus Who is the Light of the world!

posted December 31, 2010 at 9:54 pm


“THE WORDS THAT I SPEAK UNTO YOU, THEY ARE SPIRIT, AND THEY ARE LIFE. YE ARE CLEAN THROUGH THE WORD WHICH I HAVE SPOKEN UNTO YOU.” — Jesus

nnmns says:
Bzefs gain the protections states choose to give them more and more as they get closer to being born, i.e. becoming a person.
Mr. Incredible says:
Roe didn’t take up “personhood.”
However, Justice Blackmun, about two thirds of the way down, says that, had “personhood” of the unborn been established, even by suggestion, by law, the Court would have had to rule the other way.
This means that “personhood” is key to getting the unborn Fourteenth Amendment protection. Several states are working on “personhood” right now. That’s all it takes.
That doesn’t mean that the unborn are not persons.
Inheritance law says that, beginning at conception, the unborn are treated as persons – that is, they are jural persons – and that they have what the law calls “future interests.” If we can call corporations “persons,” we can call the unborn “persons.”
nnmns says:
I won’t argue about the inheritance laws…
Mr. Incredible says:
It’s not that you won’t. You can’t.
nnmns says:
… but that’s different than being a legal person.
Mr. Incredible says:
Jural persons ARE legal persons. They get Due Process.
nnmns says:
And far different than being an actual person.
Mr. Incredible asks:
What is an “actual person,” as far as the Constitution is concerned? Does the Constitution protects persons, or “actual persons”?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in Jesus' Name, the ONLY Name by which we must be saved!

posted December 31, 2010 at 10:05 pm


pagansister says:
Lucylucy,
If indeed only your god…
Mr. Incredible says:
She has no “god.” She has God. We know you mean it as disrespect.
pagansister says:
Has the right to take a life…
Mr. Incredible says:
He allows life to be taken. He doesn’t take life. He is not a God of death, rather of life.
pagansister says:
… what’s with all the wars in the name of GOD!?
Mr. Incredible asks:
Which ones?
pagansister says:
He or She apparently allows them to happen.
Mr. Incredible says:
Men allow them to happen. What is loosed on Earth is loosed in Heaven.
pagansister says:
(Yeah, I know, free will and all that).
Mr. Incredible asks:
Is free Will important, or not?
pagansister says:
You have the right to NOT have a termination…
Mr. Incredible says:
Gee, thanks!
pagansister says:
…but neither you or your god…
Mr. Incredible asks:
Which one?
pagansister says:
… has the right to tell another woman she can’t have one if she feels it is something she has to do.
Mr. Incredible says:
If the unborn are persons, they are protected by the Constitution; and, if they are protected by the Constitution, we have the Right to enforce that.
And God has the Right to tell the woman anything He wants. You don’t have veto over Him.
pagansister says:
You don’t have to agree or disagree…
Mr. Incredible says:
Gee, thanks.
pagansister says:
…it is her right just as it is your right to NOT have one.
Mr. Incredible says:
Then she shouldn’t have had sex.
pagansister says:
BTW, one also has to believe in that particular god.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Which one?

JESUS CHRIST – LORD OF LORDS, KING OF KINGS!



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted December 31, 2010 at 10:46 pm


Some gods hate abortion, some see it as a tool; it depends on the head that god lives in. No US law forces those who hate abortion to have one. None should prevent a person who needs one, or a family which needs one, from getting it.
And no person, no matter how wordy, has the moral standing to snidely say a woman has to carry through a pregnancy because she had sex. There are many reasons why people who have sex will need abortions. Just for instance contraception sometimes fails; abstinence fails a lot, jobs are lost, people get sick. So some people get pregnant who are trying not to and some women and families who intended to get pregnant need to change course. The moral thing is to allow women and families to make their own decisions.



report abuse
 

Robert C

posted December 31, 2010 at 11:30 pm


Some really piss poor reasons for murdering a child nnmns. I fail to understand how the uber leftists can callously and offhandedly simplify aborting a child for pedestrian reasons with language such as ‘making their own decisions’. You can justify a lot of repulsive things with that rationale in this world. It just doesn’t hold water.



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted January 1, 2011 at 1:06 am


What child? There’s no child involved. You imagine up a child where there is none so you can claim power over the actual woman involved.
I’d reassure you but you don’t want to be reassured. There is no child.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus, the LORD of lords, KING of Kings!

posted January 1, 2011 at 2:02 am


nnmns says:
Some gods…
Mr. Incredible asks:
What gods?
nnmns says:
… hate abortion, some see it as a tool…
Mr. Incredible asks:
Where do you find that?
nnmns says:
…; it depends on the head that god…
Mr. Incredible asks:
Which god??
nnmns says:
…lives in.
Mr. Incredible asks:
god lives in the head, not in the heart???
nnmns says:
No US law forces those who hate abortion to have one.
Mr. Incredible says:
The unborn child want his mother not to have one. From conception, the unborn child, living, moves in development through each stage of life. The law says that he is a person. The Constitution protects persons.
nnmns says:
None should prevent a person who needs one, or a family which needs one, from getting it.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except where another person is killed.
nnmns says:
And no person, no matter how wordy, has the moral standing to snidely say a woman has to carry through a pregnancy because she had sex.
Mr. Incredible says:
Civilized society protects the lives of persons through the Constitution.
nnmns says:
There are many reasons why people who have sex will need abortions.
Mr. Incredible says:
The statistics are that the majority of abortions are elective for the purpose of saving the social life of the mother. It is selfish.
nnmns says:
Just for instance contraception sometimes fails…
Mr. Incredible says:
The innocent life of the unborn child doesn’t understand that. And he doesn’t care. His desire is to survive.
nnmns says:
…; abstinence fails a lot…
Mr. Incredible says:
No, it doesn’t. It works 100% of the time.
nnmns says:
…jobs are lost, people get sick.
Mr. Incredible asks:
And the innocent child must pay with his life for that??? Why should the child pay for the “crime” of the mother???
nnmns says:
So some people get pregnant who are trying not to…
Mr. Incredible says:
Not trying hard enough.
nnmns says:
… and some women and families who intended to get pregnant need to change course.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Says who?
nnmns says:
The moral thing…
Mr. Incredible asks:
Where do YOU get Morals? You made your Morals up, didn’t you?
nnmns says:
… is to allow women and families to make their own decisions.
Mr. Incredible says:
The decision should be to protect life, accident, or no, and not make the child pay for the “crime” of the mother.

JESUS IS LORD ! THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD OVER THE HILLS AND THROUGH THE VALLEYS, TROUNCING GIANTS !



report abuse
 

David

posted January 1, 2011 at 3:24 am


To nnmns: Following your line of reasoning for allowing unlimited freedom to abortion for any reason, what is to prevent a person from extending the same logic to infanticide?!? All your reasons for getting an abortion could logically be used to strangle a two week old infant and throwing it in the dumpster! Would care to respond?



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted January 1, 2011 at 5:42 am


Infanticide would be murder. The final line is at birth. We give babies and children the protections some of you want to give bzefs.
And I didn’t advocate unlimited right to abortion. I think Roe v. Wade is a very wise decision. Over nine months a human being is developing and it’s gaining the rights the state it’s in chooses to give it consistent with that decision and the fact it’s not a person yet and the mother is.



report abuse
 

Robert C

posted January 1, 2011 at 11:05 am


nnmns please define sentience, do you believe in a soul, and please explain to me when you believe a fetus becomes a human being.



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted January 1, 2011 at 11:12 am


A fetus becomes a human being when it’s born but it’s been gaining rights for some time before that.
There’s no evidence for a soul. I take it you believe in them anyway. In and of itself wishful thinking doesn’t necessarily hurt.
Earlier popes had varying ideas of when “ensoulment” happened, though the RCC doesn’t want y’all to be aware of that.



report abuse
 

Robert C

posted January 1, 2011 at 12:18 pm


and sentience? Does a fetus ‘experience’? Not asking about what the RCC believes asking about what you believe. And if the fetus is not human then does it have the potential to develop further as another sentient/non-sentient being? Put another way, how do you determine the humanity of a being? Also please define viability.



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted January 1, 2011 at 12:58 pm


A fetus surely “experiences” and feels pain. That’s one reason late term abortions can and should be more constrained. But let’s be clear – an abortion is far different from a murder.
In the typical murder the victim has a chance to fear for her life and may experience a lot of pain for a long time. Neither of those is true of an aborted fetus. Also a murder victim may have time to mourn for those who depended on him and feel anguish that he won’t get revenge on his killer. And his family and friends will miss him and mourn for him. Few if any of those things apply to an aborted fetus. If a woman has a miscarriage she may reasonably mourn for the child she might have had, but if she agrees to an abortion she at least has good reasons. And no one does her any favors by trying to make her feel guilty.
Now let me ask you one or two. You believe in souls and a god I think. Would your god take it out on the soul of a bzef because it was aborted? What happens to the souls of miscarriages?
It’s good to have a pleasant conversation.



report abuse
 

Anthony R

posted January 1, 2011 at 3:04 pm


nnmns,
I find there to be a great inconsistency in those who hold to late term abortions and their view of the world. Many hold to an evolutionary process that makes man little more than a species of the animal kingdom, albeit with cognitive abilities that surpass all other species.
The problem is when laws are passed that reflect the protection of fetuses in the animal kingdom, yet do not protect the fetuses of humans. Does this strike anybody else as odd that it is criminal offense to purposefully destroy or harm the fetus of many animal and bird species, but not those of a human?
So, just to clarify your thoughts – are you saying that a fetus (as long as it does not experience protracted pain throughout the process of the baby’s murder) can be brought out into the world with the exception of the baby’s head, then have a doctor drive a metal instrument into the base of his/her skull, open up the hole and suck out the baby’s brain, then finally crush the skull of the little boy or girl??!! This is the basic definition of what happens in a partial birth abortion.
All for the sake of their head being in the open, this is still to be considered a fetus with no soul and no rights or protection? Welcome to a world where murder in the name of research is acceptable. Sounds a lot like a country in Europe around say the early 1940’s.
I do believe in God and I believe He is gracious beyond all measure. From my own study of Scripture as a minister, I believe that souls of all babies who are killed are taken to be with God forever.
Anthony



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted January 1, 2011 at 3:28 pm


AnthonyR perhaps when you demonstrate you’ve actually read and thought about what I wrote I’ll respond to you. Since you haven’t, I won’t.



report abuse
 

Anthony R

posted January 1, 2011 at 3:34 pm


nnmns,
Actually, I read all the comments very thoroughly and several times before I chose to respond. I answered some of your questions and asked a few of my own in regards to abortion. Maybe you can clarify what part you think I missed. Thanks.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus, the ONLY Way to the Father!

posted January 1, 2011 at 5:01 pm


nnmns says:
Infanticide would be murder.
Mr. Incredible says:
Murder of a person. The unborn child is an infant at the later stages of pregnancy. What is absent one minute before birth that is present at birth that makes him a person at birth but not one minute before birth?
nnmns says:
The final line is at birth.
Mr. Incredible asks:
What happens at birth, in the baby, that make him a person. So far, all we have is a change of address.
nnmns says:
We give babies and children the protections some of you want to give bzefs.
Mr. Incredible says:
As I have pointed out, the law already recognizes the unborn child’s interests beginning at conception.
nnmns says:
And I didn’t advocate unlimited right to abortion.
Mr. Incredible says:
So, now, you say there are exceptions.
Why not, if the mother has the Right to choose and, as YOU say, it’s her Right alone? Why the flip-flop?
nnmns says:
I think Roe v. Wade is a very wise decision.
Mr. Incredible says:
Then you agree with the Roe Court that the State has an interest in regulating abortion. What would that interest be?
nnmns says:
Over nine months a human being is developing…
Mr. Incredible says:
Beginning at conception, it is, as you say, a human creature. Development, as you say, begins at conception. The unborn child cannot develop unless he is alive. Only living things develop.
And, by the way, if all life began, as evolutionists say, with one cell, why is it that all human life begins with one cell in the womb??
nnmns says:
…and it’s gaining the rights the state it’s in chooses to give it consistent with that decision…
Mr. Incredible says:
Either a person has Rights, or he doesn’t. A person doesn’t “gain” Rights as he goes along.
nnmns says:
… and the fact it’s not a person yet…
Mr. Incredible says:
So, you disagree with the law. We get that.
nnmns says:
… and the mother is.
Mr. Incredible says:
Roe didn’t take up “personhood” cuz a legal definition of “person” wasn’t presented. Justice Blackmun says, in Roe, itself, that, had the suggestion of “personhood” of the unborn been established — by a law — the Court woulda had t’rule the other way and given Fourteenth Amendment protection to the unborn.
Since, in Roe, the only person was “Jane Roe,” she is the only one to get Due Process. Were a definition of “person” in place and before the Court, the unborn, as Justice Blackmun says, would be entitled to Due Process cuz ALL persons get Due Process.
So, all we need is for the Legislative to define “person” as beginning at conception.
But, hold on!
Inheritance law already treats the unborn as persons, saying that, beginning at conception, the unborn child has “future interests.” That means the mother is a guardian, responsible for the care of the unborn child so that he survives to enjoy what interests he has coming.
Luke 2:5, by the way, says that Mary was “great with child,” not “great with fetus.” In so saying, the Word of God tells us that the unborn are children, not “feti.”

JESUS IS LORD ! THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD OVER THE HILLS AND THROUGH THE VALLEYS, TROUNCING GIANTS !



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus Who came in Grace and Truth!

posted January 1, 2011 at 5:08 pm


JESUS CHRIST — THE WAY, THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE — THE ONLY WAY TO THE FATHER !

nnmns says:
A fetus becomes a human being when it’s born…
Mr. Incredible asks:
Forty-six chromosomes makes a human creature. The unborn child has forty-six chromosomes at conception.
What happens at birth that makes him human creature at birth that isn’t present before birth?
nnmns says:
But it’s been gaining rights for some time before that.
Mr. Incredible asks:
What legal mechanism tells us that Rights are gained a little at a time?
nnmns says:
There’s no evidence for a soul.
Mr. Incredible says:
There’s no evidence that you have a soul.
nnmns says:
I take it you believe in them anyway.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Believe in whom?
nnmns says:
In and of itself wishful thinking doesn’t necessarily hurt.
Mr. Incredible says:
Your wishful thinking hurts this society.
nnmns says:
Earlier popes had varying ideas of when “ensoulment” happened, though the RCC doesn’t want y’all to be aware of that.
Mr. Incredible says:
I don’t care what the Church thinks about it, except that it aligns itself with the Word of God. The Word of God is the final Authority.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus Who has overcome the world and, through Him, we, too!

posted January 1, 2011 at 5:33 pm


nnmns says:
A fetus surely “experiences” and feels pain.
Mr. Incredible says:
Something that isn’t alive doesn’t experience, nor feel, pain. You acknowledge that the unborn child experiences and feels pain. Therefore, you understand that the unborn child is alive, and that is forty-six chromosomes makes him human, and that, beginning at conception, he is developing. Birth is nothing but a change of address. There is nothing in the makeup of the child that changes at birth. All the components for life are present at conception. They don’t all of a sudden show up at birth, and you can’t prove that they do.
nnmns says:
That’s one reason late term abortions can and should be more constrained.
Mr. Incredible says:
However, YOU say he isn’t a person until he is born. Partial-birth abortion takes place before the child is born. That would be according to you. So, why the exception?
nnmns says:
But let’s be clear – an abortion is far different from a murder.
Mr. Incredible says:
You have-ta belief that in order to justify abortion.
nnmns says:
In the typical murder the victim has a chance to fear for her life and may experience a lot of pain for a long time.
Mr. Incredible says:
Those are not elements of “murder.” “Murder” is an illegal act accompanied by the intent to do the illegal act. The appropriate component of this intent is “malice aforethought.” It’s this “malice aforethought” that separates first-degree murder from second-degree murder and manslaughter. The requirement of intent, however, doesn’t change. The quality of intent does.
nnmns says:
Neither of those is true of an aborted fetus.
Mr. Incredible says:
Irrelevant. Those items are not components of murder. The murder victim may be utterly unaware of being murdered.
nnmns says:
Also a murder victim may have time to mourn for those who depended on him and feel anguish that he won’t get revenge on his killer.
Mr. Incredible says:
That any other items are not required components of life. A ninety-two-year-old woman in a coma experiences none of that. She is still alive. She may still be a murder victim, and not even know it.
nnmns says:
And his family and friends will miss him and mourn for him.
Mr. Incredible says:
The family and friends of the unborn child killed by his mother and an abortionist will miss the child and mourn for the child.
nnmns says:
Few if any of those things apply to an aborted fetus.
Mr. Incredible says:
Still irrelevant.
nnmns says:
If a woman has a miscarriage she may reasonably mourn for the child she might have had, but if she agrees to an abortion she at least has good reasons.
Mr. Incredible says:
Like saving her social life. Therrrrrrre’s a reason to kill somebody.
nnmns says:
And no one does her any favors by trying to make her feel guilty.
Mr. Incredible says:
You’re trying to make US feel guilty.
nnmns says:
You believe in souls…
Mr. Incredible says:
No. I don’t trust in souls. However, souls exist. I believe that they exist.
nnmns says:
… and a god I think.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Which “god”? I don’t believe in a “god.”
nnmns says:
Would your god…
Mr. Incredible asks:
Which one? We have only One, and He ain’t “god.”
nnmns says:
… take it out on the soul of a bzef because it was aborted?
Mr. Incredible says:
The unborn child has no opportunity to know and to continue in the Word of God – that is, Christ. He is utterly innocent. Can’t be held accountable. Therefore, if the child dies before the day of accountability, he goes to Heaven automatically.
In any case, God doesn’t take anything out on anybody. The old Hebrew of the Old Testament is in the permissive sense, not the causive sense. Those who disobey Him, are left in jeopardy of evil elements in the world.
nnmns says:
What happens to the souls of miscarriages?
Mr. Incredible says:
See the answer above.

AND THE LIGHT SHINETH IN DARKNESS; AND THE DARKNESS COMPREHENDED IT NOT.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus Who does not take His eye off the Righteous!

posted January 1, 2011 at 5:41 pm


JESUS CHRIST – LORD OF LORDS, KING OF KINGS!

Anthony R says:
nnmns,
The problem is when laws are passed that reflect the protection of fetuses in the animal kingdom, yet do not protect the fetuses of humans. Does this strike anybody else as odd that it is criminal offense to purposefully destroy or harm the fetus of many animal and bird species, but not those of a human?
Mr. Incredible says:
“Odd” is a kind word for it.
Anthony R says:
So, just to clarify your [nnmns’] thoughts – are you saying that a fetus (as long as it does not experience protracted pain throughout the process of the baby’s murder) can be brought out into the world with the exception of the baby’s head, then have a doctor drive a metal instrument into the base of his/her skull, open up the hole and suck out the baby’s brain, then finally crush the skull of the little boy or girl??!!
Mr. Incredible says:
That’s what I get.
Anthony R says:
This is the basic definition of what happens in a partial birth abortion.
All for the sake of their head being in the open, this is still to be considered a fetus with no soul and no rights or protection? Welcome to a world where murder in the name of research is acceptable. Sounds a lot like a country in Europe around say the early 1940’s.
Mr. Incredible says:
That thought occurs to you, too, huh?
Anthony R says:
I do believe in God and I believe He is gracious beyond all measure. From my own study of Scripture as a minister, I believe that souls of all babies who are killed are taken to be with God forever.
Mr. Incredible says:
Absolutely! They are utterly innocent cuz they don’t have the chance to read, know, understand and continue in the Word of God. Therefore, abortion takes that opportunity away from them.



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted January 1, 2011 at 6:00 pm


Ok Anthony you are concentrating on the most extreme and quite unusual form of abortion, which occurs quite late in pregnancy and which Roe v. Wade would allow the most restrictions on.
Many Christians seem to think the important thing is not this life but the fabled afterlife. You say your god would reward the souls of aborted fetuses are rewarded with being with him forever. So why are you particularly concerned about abortions? If those doing it are willing to take whatever chance they think is involved why do you care so much? It would seem the “unborn baby” could avoid the problems of this life and go directly to heaven. That should be a win for them, by your “logic”. The woman or family gets what they need and the bzef goes directly to heaven. Win-win. Could it be you are really more concerned with controlling the woman involved than helping out the bzef?
Where do you stand on contraception, Anthony? Do you think effective contraception should be available to all who want it? Keeping in mind that abstinence often fails in that people often stop abstaining at unfortunate times and don’t have a backup.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus Who is the True Light!

posted January 1, 2011 at 6:27 pm


nnmns says:
Ok Anthony you are concentrating on the most extreme and quite unusual form of abortion, which occurs quite late in pregnancy and which Roe v. Wade would allow the most restrictions on.
Mr. Incredible says:
You say that the unborn child is not a person until he is born. In partial-birth abortion, the child is not born, you would say. Otherwise, why does the abortionist leaves most of the child inside the mother? Therefore, you would say there should be no restriction.
Where, in Roe, itself, Justice Blackmun says that the State may regulate abortion, if the State has what he calls a “legitimate interest” in regulating abortion, what do you think is that “legitimate interest”?
nnmns says:
Many Christians seem to think the important thing is not this life but the fabled afterlife.
Mr. Incredible says:
The life hereafter is not a fable.
nnmns says:
You say your god…
Mr. Incredible says:
We don’t have “a” “god.”
nnmns says:
… would reward the souls of aborted fetuses are rewarded with being with him forever. So why are you particularly concerned about abortions?
Mr. Incredible says:
Cuz He is not God of death. He says “choose life.” [Deuteronomy 30:19]
nnmns says:
If those doing it are willing to take whatever chance they think is involved why do you care so much?
Mr. Incredible says:
Cuz He cares so much. We are like Him. We are His kind.
nnmns says:
It would seem the “unborn baby” could avoid the problems of this life and go directly to heaven.
Mr. Incredible says:
That’s the way the worldly think.
nnmns says:
That should be a win for them, by your “logic”.
Mr. Incredible says:
However, He created that life, and you wanna take it away. He didn’t create that life in order to take it away. He is not God of death. He is God of life.
nnmns says:
The woman or family gets what they need and the bzef goes directly to heaven. Win-win.
Mr. Incredible says:
That’s worldly “logic.”
nnmns says:
Could it be you are really more concerned with controlling the woman involved than helping out the bzef?
Mr. Incredible says:
No.
nnmns says:
Where do you stand on contraception, Anthony?
Mr. Incredible says:
Pregnancy control, or thought control?
nnmns says:
Do you think effective contraception should be available to all who want it?
Mr. Incredible says:
Depends on whether people will use it to bypass Morality, corrupting their hearts.
nnmns says:
Keeping in mind that abstinence often fails in that people often stop abstaining at unfortunate times and don’t have a backup.
Mr. Incredible says:
That doesn’t mean abstinence fails. It means that people fail.

JESUS CHRIST — THE WAY, THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE — THE ONLY WAY TO THE FATHER !



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted January 1, 2011 at 6:57 pm


RobertC—BTW, no incense floating about. A few candles maybe.
And I never claimed to be in the middle. I’m happy just where I am.
“I”–what the heck are you on? Ramble meds?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus Whose Grace is sufficient!

posted January 1, 2011 at 7:06 pm


pagansister says:
“I”–what the heck are you on?
Mr. Incredible says:
High on God, through Christ!
pagansister says:
Ramble meds?
Mr. Incredible says:
The kind of “meds” only God, through Christ, has. What a deal!

There is more than me, in Christ. We are one, in Christ! The Voice of One in many! Many voices as One! Blessed, and blessing, in Christ!



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted January 1, 2011 at 7:09 pm


Better you than me, “I”.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus, the Son of God!

posted January 1, 2011 at 7:23 pm


pagansister says:
Better you than me, “I”.
Mr. Incredible says:
God gave you the Right to choose. To choose life. You choose otherwise. It doesn’t impact me.

EVERY valley FILLED ! EVERY mountain and hill BROUGHT LOW ! The crooked MADE STRAIGHT ! Rough ways MADE SMOOTH ! All this AND MORE in El Shaddai — through Christ! WHAT A DEAL !



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted January 1, 2011 at 8:10 pm


Whatever floats your boat “I”. I have no complaints and wouldn’t change my decision at all. My boat is floating beautifully. LIFE is certainly good.
You’re right, it doesn’t impact me either. I have a really hard time with fanaticism,and your “posts” scream of it. Actually I don’t read them as they are toooooo long and really make no sense, to me anyhow. You just seem to want to take apart other’s posts, and insert little replys. No point seems to be made, only pushing your fanatical beliefs. Wouldn’t convert me, if indeed I wanted to be converted.



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted January 1, 2011 at 8:19 pm


Hi ps. I don’t read his ramblings either. If he could make cogent points concisely, I would.
Haven’t seen you post for a while; I’m glad you’re here. I hope you had good holidays.



report abuse
 

white tiger

posted January 1, 2011 at 8:41 pm


The article does not provide sufficient facts for the reader to determine the real reason for the murder of the innocent, unborn child. Why was the mothers’ life so severely threatened? What other options, if any, obtained? Was this condition known prior to conception? Lets have all the facts! Were the doctors attempting to alleviate a medical condition and, in so doing, unintentionally killed the baby? Give us the details before asking us to opine on a situation of which we remain essentially ignorant.
Abortion is homicide. Homicide can be excusable, justifiable, malicious or a crime of depraved indifference or of passion. The fit depends on the facts, and we don’t know them.



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted January 1, 2011 at 9:16 pm


Hi! nnmns.
Traveled to north Florida, to visit our children and 9 month old grandson! Returned to the NE on Wednesday. Did a little bit of posting while gone but mostly played with the grandson. After all, that is what Grandparents are supposed to do! We had a super holiday, thanks for asking and I hope you and yours did also. It is good to be back.



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted January 1, 2011 at 9:26 pm


White Tiger:
If you had read previous articles on this situation, it explains that the woman’s life was indeed in danger of being lost if her pregnancy continued. The decision to terminate the 11 week pregnancy was made by a panel who studied the facts and with everyone weighing in, the Sister approved the procedure (asobviously the woman did too—ultimately it was her choice–she had 4 children at home to mother).n No homicide here, Dude. And in your opinion, abortion is homicide. The procedure isn’t forced—and opinions vary. The law says it is legal.



report abuse
 

Dr Vicki

posted January 1, 2011 at 9:49 pm


The headline for this article is rather incendiary. “Drop Dead”.
If you bother to read the links, even those are pretty sketchy on why performing an abortion on someone who is suffering from hypertension would save her life. I’ve never heard of an eleven week pregnancy causing someone to have life threatening high blood pressure. Secondly, this decision by the hospital was just one of the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. They had already engaged in multiple procedures to which the Catholic Church is opposed. It just made for a better headline to say the church wanted a woman to die rather than have an abortion as opposed to saying “Hospital dropped from Catholic church because it performed voluntary vasectomies and tied too many tubes.” I’m not a Catholic, but this article pretty much panned out like I thought it would in typical politically correct left leaning crapola.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus

posted January 2, 2011 at 2:34 am


pagansister says:
I have no complaints and wouldn’t change my decision at all. My boat is floating beautifully. LIFE is certainly good.
Mr. Incredible says:
For now. THAT’s the deception.
pagansister says:
I have a really hard time with fanaticism…
Mr. Incredible says:
YOU prefer to call it that, even though it isn’t. That’s another deception.
pagansister says:
…and your “posts” scream of it.
Mr. Incredible says:
That’s YOUR perception. But so what?
pagansister says:
Actually I don’t read them as they are toooooo long…
Mr. Incredible says:
Yes, you can’t handle it.
pagansister says:
…and really make no sense, to me anyhow.
Mr. Incredible says:
You won’t let them make sense.
pagansister says:
You just seem to want to take apart other’s posts, and insert little replys.
Mr. Incredible says:
There are arguments in the major arguments, and each argument deserves a reply.
pagansister says:
No point seems to be made…
Mr. Incredible says;
A point can’t be made to one who doesn’t listen.
pagansister says:
…only pushing your fanatical beliefs.
Mr. Incredible says:
They called Jesus a fanatic. I’m in good Company.
pagansister says:
Wouldn’t convert me, if indeed I wanted to be converted.
Mr. Incrfedible says:
Not MY prob.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus

posted January 2, 2011 at 3:52 am


There are live, frozen embryos in clinics all over the place.
Were they born? Yes. Then, according to the pro-kill-the-unborn crowd, they are persons.
If, at their stage of life, they are persons, they can be in the womb at their stage of life and they are still persons.
If they are persons now, and they are planted in some womb, do they go back to being non-persons???
Change of address means nothing to their makeup.
If they are persons, they are protected by the Constitution which protects ALL persons, regardless of their address.
See how easy that is?



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted January 2, 2011 at 6:47 am


Dr. Vicki it sounds like you judged the article before you read it. Uh, what kind of doctor are you?



report abuse
 

Thomas Collins

posted January 2, 2011 at 2:03 pm


I am Catholic, and I am in total agreement with Dr. Vicki (a non-Catholic) in her comment that the headline here is inflammatory. I would go a bit further; it is misleading, and even anti-Catholic. My first impression on reading this brief article was, maybe the bishop acted precipitously; there just wasn’t enough information presented here on a very complex issue to make a judgement about his action. Dr. Vicki states she has never heard of an 11-week pregnancy causing life-threatening hypertension in the mother. So the circumstances were suspect. Plus as she also points out, this may have been the “last straw” after a number of other highly questionable procedures in a “Catholic” hospital. At any rate, the Catholic Church must continue to act courageously in defense of life, otherwise it fails to remain true to scripture, and the integrity of the faith. Catholic hospitals are entirely right to recognize that when a pregnant mother becomes ill, the medical mission is always to do everything possible to save two human lives. It is always a grave matter, and fortunately quite rare, when this cannot be achieved and the mother’s life must be chosen first (unless she, like a particular Italian saint in the 1960s, who also happened to be a Dr., happens to direct medical preference in favor of the infant). There appears to be evidence emerging that the case presented in this article may not have presented such real danger to the mother, or that otherwise the abortion may not have been truly necessary. The title of this article is disrespectful — both to the Catholic faith, and to the complexities and nuances sometimes faced by medical staff.



report abuse
 

Henrietta22

posted January 2, 2011 at 7:48 pm


The article I read in our newspaper had the Title: Hospital loses Catholic status over surgery. The Associated Press. Dec. 22, 2010
Linda Hunt, president of St. Joesph’s, said doctors performed a necessary procedure on a patient who was getting worse by the minute and was in imminent danger of death. “If we are presented with a situation in which a pregnancy threatens a woman’s life, our first priority is to save both patients. If that is not possible, we will always save the life we can save, and that is what we did in this case.” Hunt said. “Morally, ethically, and legally, we simple cannot stand by and let someone die whose life we might be able to save.”
This paragraph states the actual reality of how things transpired. This Hospital is recognized Internaionally for its neurology and neurosurgery practices. To fault them in anyway is fanatical, and this Religion should seriously be checking themselves against ignorance and reality.



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted January 2, 2011 at 8:42 pm


Thanks for posting that, Henrietta. The fuss over their decision is unreal. The hospital did what was necessary.
HAPPY NEW YEAR! to you!



report abuse
 

Robert C

posted January 2, 2011 at 9:34 pm


Been away and haven’t had a minute to respond to Pagan an NN, but I will. But Henrietta I really need to point you back in the direction of one of my previous posts. I stated ” At St Joseph’s, Sister McBride unfortunately accepted the rap for Linda Hunt, the hospital’s CEO and her bosses in San Francisco. Indications are that Ms. Hunt made a personal political and corporate decision in the matter of this patient, fully intended to push the envelope in this case with this archbishop, and that subsequently she was aware that the information would be leaked to the media. How much influence the ACLU has had in these decisions is questionable yet pertinent as they have moved to enjoin religious facilities from refusing to perform abortions under guise of enforcing EMTALA and the COP, citing the civil rights of the mother, but conveniently ignoring the civil rights of the child. I find it rather distasteful that CHW would seek to protect its ‘assets’ under potential Joint Commission sanctions forced by ACLU actions at the expense of the aborted child, the mother, the mother’s remaining children, Sister McBride and the Archbishop. There is no easy choice in circumstances such as this, but conducting a lottery doesn’t make the results any less offensive.”
I wasn’t postulating there. I know. In one of my prior professional incarnations I held the position of VP for a major metropolitan hospital. One of my CEO’s was a former CEO for CHW. We’ve spoken. There is way more to the story than has been reported. Hunt’s statement is not the reality of how things transpired. The criticism is not fanatical. Politics played a significant role and I think you need to temper the bluster.



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted January 2, 2011 at 10:17 pm


He blusters.
Now let’s split these issues. One is, did things need to be done this way in this instance? The other is, is it indeed Catholic Church policy that the bzef’s life comes before the woman’s life if a choice must be made. My understanding is, the second answer is “Yes”. Anyone want to deny that?



report abuse
 

Robert C

posted January 3, 2011 at 12:36 am


LMAO If you want me to bluster, i will. To answer your 2nd, no. Both lives are precious according to teachings. But in a perfect world irregardless of the RCC the 1st on the list should be the uber leftists who can’t see the forest through the trees.



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted January 3, 2011 at 3:52 am


The wise course is to leave it in the hands of the medical professionals who were there. Which, happily, is what happened.
Now the wise course is for the hospital to go on without the confounding RC medical directions and do what’s best for their patients, as they apparently did in this case. And the RC can feel better that it’s not related to this hospital that’s serving patients rather than Church doctrine.



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted January 3, 2011 at 9:02 am


What I think hasn’t been addressed here is that, if the RCC gets its way, the hospital and doctors will have to worry about a lot worse things than losing Catholic sponsorship for doing their best to save their patients’ lives. They’ll have to worry about going to jail.
Keep that in mind when you vote.



report abuse
 

Robert C

posted January 3, 2011 at 12:57 pm


I can assure you that the medical professionals didn’t make anywhere near the final decisions. You are sadly ignorant of internal hospital mechanics, let alone the politics behind this issue. In this case the decision was made in CHW’s corpoarte office in San Fran.
Don’t pontificate. You don’t have the qualifications or the insight.
nnmns as far as using the RCC as a bogie man for political hacking, that is rather pathetic. Your man in the WH is crapping out and you need to find a fall guy for his miserable failure. You seem to blame everyone except where the blame lies. The DNC. It is your buds there that need to take the rap for the nation’s right turn. You have no credibility in discussing the RCC anymore since we know now that your a socialist apologist.



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted January 3, 2011 at 3:03 pm


Omg I’m disqualified from everything! Alas, you are too Robert. You are a right wing reactionary. So there!
And as far as judging the RCC’s morals, you don’t need much of a smeller to catch the stench of your church.



report abuse
 

Robert C

posted January 3, 2011 at 4:37 pm


Far far from right wing nnmns. Gay Democratic operative for many many years. Former SDS member. A Founder of the GLF, original member Boston Pride, and many other organizations. Dragged out of Arlington Street chuirch by the heels during several of Spock’s Sanctuary protests, organized anti Nixon/Cambodia/Kent state student strikes in ’72, worked for more than a few political campaigns. My leftists creds are long and solid. And one more time for the obtuse, hard of hearing, Aleut speakers, or simply those who refuse to listen to anything but their own voice…..I do not practice any religion.



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted January 3, 2011 at 5:29 pm


And you think that being left when it comes to a woman’s right to have an abortion is too far left? From one who stood up for his gay rights, and critizes someone (me, a woman) for believing that saving the pregnant woman’s life (mother of 4 children)instead of an 11 week old fetus is not moral (or someting). Interesting. As to not practicing a religion—I’m with you on that.



report abuse
 

Robert C

posted January 3, 2011 at 6:28 pm


Maybe it’s a case of the older I get, the wiser I become, or not. Maybe I am now more Libertarian than anything else. Maybe I’ve seen too much back room crap so I now know there isn’t really a hairsbreadth of difference between the Dems and the Repubs when you get right down to it. Maybe it’s because I am sick to death of political correctness, other people trying to regulate how one should lead one’s life, the callous stupidity and outright lying of Michael Moore and ilk, how Donna Brazile can be soooo sweet to your face and then knife you in the back like a longshoreman on acid. I’ve done more traveling in my business and have broken bread with the likes of all sorts of shady characters and realized that I should be able to sit down with Christian fundamentalists in Texas without losing my grip. As far as abortion I’ll give you the life of the mother in many cases if you repeal the wanton butchering done because the condom broke, or the taxes are due, or daddy would get mad, or I can’t feed another, or my work as an escort would interfere. Give me a break. And as I’ve said don’t beat that dog to death in Phoenix. The real story was vastly different, the medical alternatives were there and you picked the wrong martyr to make a case around. And because I don’t practice a religion doesn’t mean I don’t see the absolute value to human society that it holds. But I’ll give you one; I would have been burnt at the stake a few hundred years ago for more reasons than one. LOL.



report abuse
 

Robert C

posted January 3, 2011 at 6:31 pm


btw Happy New Year Pagan



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted January 3, 2011 at 8:19 pm


RobertC: Obviously don’t know how old you are, but I’m in my 60’s so I’m in the older and supposedly wiser(have my doubts) catagory too, but age hasn’t changed my mind on a woman’s right to terminate. I also am not a member of any political party.



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted January 4, 2011 at 7:00 am


Heck I’m that old and also wiser. I grew up a conservative Republican; member of Young Republicans. Maybe that’s why I see their hands in places others don’t, yet. It’s good to know a little about you, Robert. But please don’t claim I’m far left; it’s just the mainstream news media’s slanted coverage that might make me look that way.



report abuse
 

Observer

posted January 4, 2011 at 9:48 am


The fact that you give the baby only 3 vaguely constructed code words (life-threatening pregnancy) explicitly reveals your bias.



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted January 4, 2011 at 10:35 am


What baby?



report abuse
 

Brian

posted January 4, 2011 at 12:00 pm


If a hospital has the means to save my loved one and choose not to because of ideology, know this, I will hunt you like an animal.



report abuse
 

Robert C

posted January 4, 2011 at 1:13 pm


Pagan. How old do you think I was in 1969 when the cells of the GLF were being formed? Fourteen? LOL
And Brian I strongly suggest that you not bring any woman foolish enough to partner with you, who may be low risk but unfortunately having an entopic pregnancy, to a facility that has religious affiliations.



report abuse
 

Robert C

posted January 4, 2011 at 1:14 pm


oooppps typo. make that ectopic.



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted January 4, 2011 at 3:42 pm


Brian ignore the insult. You’ve got the right idea. But you, and everyone else who loves a woman, should avoid Catholic health care.



report abuse
 

Brian B

posted January 4, 2011 at 4:05 pm


Does anybody really think this hospital got in trouble for this one event? The Catholic church is running hospitals all over the world and these jerks think that having a temper tantrum and whinning to the press is going to change the fundamental teachings of the Catholic church? This hospital was perfectly aware of what they were doing and knew full well what the price will be. Good luck with their volunteer support now.



report abuse
 

sue campbell freivald

posted January 4, 2011 at 6:00 pm


No one forces a patient to go to a religious hospital for care, be it Catholic, Adventist, etc. There are in every state public, generally University based, hospitals.
No one should force a religious hospital or other facility to violate it’s fundamental beliefs in providing care. If one doesn’t share those beliefs or disagrees, go elswhere.
No one should either force a person to go to a public institution, or accept treatment/care that violates the person’s fundamental beliefs. As a long time health care professional in the public sector, I have chosen to go to another field rather than be required to violate my conscience.



report abuse
 

SeekingtheTruth

posted January 4, 2011 at 7:43 pm


Nicole, if you’re seeking to arouse opinion, congratulations, you are successful; but at what price. To distort the position of Bishop Olmstead with a flamboyant headline and outrageous conjecture borders on libel. And this behavior on a religious blog? Do everyone a favor—cease using rhetoric and stick to the facts—to what the diocese and the bishop actually said and you may gain respect and readers.



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted January 4, 2011 at 9:43 pm


It’s not a big deal, I think, that the RCC disassociated itself from one of it’s best (and most conscientious) institutions. The RCC and the hospital will both survive.
The big deal is that if the RCC has its way (which could easily happen if more Republicans are elected) such policies will become law and doctors who try to protect their patients may end up in jail or worse.



report abuse
 

Virginia Mom

posted January 4, 2011 at 10:35 pm


Wow, first time to this site and I find anti-Catholic bigotry. As a former Evangelical Protestant( who myself used to be very anti-Catholic), I am not surprised, but I am saddened. Hospitals began as religious institutions. In Europe, you can find buildings, now museums, usually, that have carved into stone above the doors words like “Hotel de Dieu” – that meant it was a hospital. In much of Europe, until the 19th century, members of religious orders were the only ones who would risk their lives to tend to the sick. As a child here in the US, Catholic hospitals were the only hospitals caring for the poor. Also, as a Catholic, I am proud of bishops who stand for the least among us, the unborn babies who cannot defend themselves.



report abuse
 

Robert C

posted January 4, 2011 at 11:45 pm


Ignore NNMNS Virginia, she is on her own personal crusade that typically has no bearing in anything factual.



report abuse
 

Robert C

posted January 5, 2011 at 12:34 am


BTW with the passing today of Gerry Rafferty, the great Scottish singer/songwritter,Its only fitting to take a moment to link to one of my favorites, somehow so ironically appropriate for this thread.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMAIsqvTh7g&feature=related



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted January 5, 2011 at 12:40 am


You are soo wrong in that post RC; maybe even more so than usual.
Virginia it’s not a baby. It’s a fetus.
I fail to see the bigotry some of you are whining about, but I guess anything objective is bigotry to the true believer.



report abuse
 

MARY richards

posted January 5, 2011 at 1:47 am


It’s not just a fetus it’s LIFE. Say anything you want but it doesn’t change the fact that the end result is a live,breathing baby; soft,warm and cuddly and no danger to anyone. You really should be thankful your mother considered you more than a fetus, but in your case it would have been right. Abortion is just a lazy cheap means of birth control most of the time, how hard did the doctors try to save the mother and the baby( if she really wanted it). If this mother really wanted her baby she will mourn and feel guilty for the rest of her life. It isn’t just a fetus to those of us who want our babies. I don’t condemn her but I have knoen women who have had nervous breakdowns and some who become serious pro-lifers to deal with it. You sound like a man who could not possibly understand.



report abuse
 

MARY richards

posted January 5, 2011 at 1:53 am


The most beautiful sound is the sound of a newborn baby’s first cry of life,It’s that rush most of us get that sends a deep warm feeling through us making us mother. It’s unbelievable and indescribable.



report abuse
 

Daniel

posted January 5, 2011 at 3:03 am


While i would not agree with Mary about what a beautiful sound is, I would believe that we as a society could find a means OTHER that murder to control unwanted pregnancies. How about trying to PREVENT unwanted pregnancies in the first place? How about trying to curb the rampant sexual casualness that our children see in our movies and television. How about for a moment try to RAISE our children instead of shuffle them between day-care and schools and let our current society raise our young? If a young woman and man consent to engage in sexual activity then those young people should be required to assume responsibility of what results. Not give them a way to toss it in the trash just to do it all over again. I wish so much that my mother would have been far tougher on me when i was young. Perhaps i wouldn’t have made so many mistakes in life (not on the topic of unwanted pregnancies but rather in general) and have to work to fix them now. A child or a teenager does not know what is in their best interest. How could they. Experience. Patience. Understanding. These are the qualities of a parent.



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted January 5, 2011 at 9:09 am


Mary when you eat a hamburger you’re helping destroy a LIFE. One with far more sentience than an 11 week fetus. Oh, and I see you’d like to retroactively kill someone who disagrees with you. How Christian. Happily I’m safe from that because no person is ever aborted.
People have always needed abortions and always will; apparently many don’t realize that. Some powerful people have done a successful job of working on impressionable peoples’ emotional responses to babies and children, and transferring those responses to blastocysts and zygotes and embryos and fetuses. And of course some religious leaders have found it convenient to channel peoples’ impulses toward morality away from, e.g. supporting living wages and health care for all and keeping a livable planet – all inconvenient for the business interests making major “donations” – to just obsessing about abortion and homosexuality.
The well-to-do can always get abortions and can work around many of the financial problems ordinary homosexuals have from being denied marriage. They suffer a lot more if the companies they own have to pay decent wages and clean up their effluent or if they have to help the poor get health care.
I lived before Roe v. Wade and saw the desperation of women and families and the results of their having to use back-ally butchers. That will happen again if the RCC and its cronies get their way, but the old men in charge there won’t be inconvenienced at all.
When abortion is legal no one is forced to get one. When it’s illegal many people who need them are forced to not get them, legally anyway. Some women will die over that.



report abuse
 

Kathleen

posted January 5, 2011 at 9:35 am


Have any of you thought of the way you are speaking to each other? First of all, let’s start with one word. Understanding. I am an avid pro-lifer and will fight life issues until I am blue in the face. I am also a teacher in a public, liberal school. I am on the forefront of this everyday. This is not an issue of who is right and who is wrong. You all need to take a deep breath and realize you are talking to human beings, not just computers.
I feel, and many of you will disagree, our society’s MAIN problem is FAMILY. What is a family at this point? No longer are children raised by their parents. Day cares do that for them for the first few years. Then after the day care days, they are off to school, to us, the teachers. You want to know why our schools are failing? It’s because schools have to be homes for children. These children don’t know respect because their parents don’t respect them, they don’t respect themselves, therefore, we find no respect in school. If a revitalization of FAMILY were to happen, we would see, LIFE in it’s fullness is of the utmost value. As a pregnant mother (isn’t that what we call pregnant women, MOTHERS), it is your obligation to keep your child safe. If that means losing your life for your child, so be it. When you CHOOSE to engage in sexual activity, you are accepting the obligation of caring for your child and the MANY sacrifices it brings with it.



report abuse
 

Danny R Milligan

posted January 5, 2011 at 1:05 pm


Being pro-life myself, it is difficult to assign black and white values to this particular case. For one, we have a hospital that is affiliated and supported by an organization that is definitely pro-life. From my reading of the article, this is the only abortion that was performed in that hospital, so one wonders what exactly was going on that a PRO-LIFE hospital would see no alternative but termination of the pregnancy?
One has to remember, little girl grow up playing with dolls, practicing being “Mommy”, almost as an instinctive thing. I don’t say instinctive in an evolutionary sense, but as an in-ground basic part of nature. It is horrifying to note the numbers of women yearly who blow off the “Mommy Reflex” and consign their offspring to dumpsters behind some abortion clinic. What is going on in our society and culture to encourage this?
One may say ANY abortion is wrong, but if the mother dies, the baby dies, too. Was this such a case? Was the option to lose the baby or lose the mother AND the baby?
I would like to know more on this case before I can make a determination or point a finger.



report abuse
 

Danny R Milligan

posted January 5, 2011 at 1:22 pm


Connie – You are like those who paint all cops as bad because 1 percent are dirty. There are over 100,000 practicing Catholic Priests, and of that number, 5,000 were pedophiles. I am not Catholic, but I know of many protestant pastors that obviously went into the ministry because they thought it would be easy work. Preach on Wednesday and Sunday, do a few hospital visits, and fish the rest of the week. Tell me, do you think the protestants are the only ones with clergy who should never have gone in? I can almost guarantee you that of those 5,000 Catholic Pedophiles, not one entered into ministry to Serve the Lord. They did it for the prestige of being a “Father”, for the guaranteed paycheck, and possibly even to have access to young children. There is no way to screen such people out beforehand, because we cannot read their minds and tell what they are really thinking about.
As I said, I am not Catholic, and have nothing to lose if the RCC goes down the drain, but WHY must the whole church be branded as monsters and destroyed financially and socially, because a five percent minority snuck in through the back door?
You are wrong to paint all Priests with the Pedophile brush, Connie, and if you’re a woman of integrity, you will make a public apology.



report abuse
 

Robert C

posted January 5, 2011 at 3:00 pm


You’ve outdone yourself NNMNS Fetus = Hamburger. You are on a crusade. You take every opportunity to pillory catholics and christians. soon you’ll be walking into cathedrals with C4. Roe v Wade was decided in the dark ages before their were viable alternatives and the stigma of pregnancy was awful. These days it’s the stigma of having an abortion that brands a woman as an unthinking, careless and superficial. How about woman who aborts = tainted meat? Same style of analogy.



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted January 5, 2011 at 3:12 pm


As much as folks disagree with this statement, I still will write it yet again. NO ONE forces a woman to have an abortion, and if one disagrees with it, don’t have one. However, those people do not have the right to tell another woman NOT to have one IF she feels it is necessary in her case. If it once again became illegal, then the butchers would return. Like nnmns, I remember that time. Some one above mentioned that it is a cheap form of birth control? That would be NO. In the early 1990’s it was $300 in the doctor’s office and I expect that has risen. Also, if one has had one—-it isn’t a comfortable procedure, so doing is “casually” for birth control would be a woman who likes physical pain—and I personally don’t know any who do.
You have a right to express an opinion, offer alternatives (are you going to pay for a child that a woman can’t afford?) but not push it on me if I felt it necessary to end a pregnancy. (IF that had ever happened I would have done so right away—)
As for the RCC—they are who they are, and though I disagree with them on a lot more than one issue, they arn’t going to change. However they don’t have the power over the RC people that they used to,as I know many who didn’t have more than one or two children, and I can almost be sure those couples weren’t using the NFP method, also known as Catholic Roulette.
Education and teaching responsibility is great, and should be given at an early age, but there will always be a need for alternatives if an unwanted pregnancy occurs.



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted January 5, 2011 at 5:23 pm


ps a lot of abortions are performed on Catholics; it’s been that way for decades maybe centuries. Perhaps less so now that Catholics have, by and large, wised up about using real birth control instead of listening to their fulminating priests. But you probably know this.
I suspect several of the folks responding here are either clergy or among the truest believers who think the Church should control everyone’s lives. Certainly they all think their religion, whatever it is, should control everyone’s lives.
Robert Fetus ? Hamburger. Hamburger less than 11 week Fetus less than Cow. Cows feel fear and pain when they are slaughtered, cows have friends. Cows are smarter than 11 week fetuses. Let’s face it; on the spectrum of life 11 week fetuses aren’t so advanced. Older fetuses are farther advanced and deserve more protection but don’t deserve the same rights as the women carrying them.
Now for those of you righteously saying pregnant women need to be ready to give up their lives for their zygotes, what gives you the right to make that decision for them? And where in your religion does it say women who aren’t ready to give up their lives for their blastocysts or embryos or fetuses should avoid pregnancy at all costs? Shouldn’t that warning be part of the wedding ceremony?



report abuse
 

molly cruz

posted January 5, 2011 at 5:56 pm


the only thing more egregious than killing an unborn infant is forcing a woman to give birth against her will.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted January 6, 2011 at 12:47 pm


To comment on Danny R Milligan’s post:
DRM, the fact is, we don’t actually KNOW how many priests are pedophiles, mainly due to the grotesque and enabling cover up of the godheads, but equally to be considered, the nature of the act and the shame of the victims, who often never come forward.
However, pedophilia is hardly the only scab w/in the church regarding predatory sexual abuse.
As for criticizing the men of the cloth, under any trademark, it is not normal or natural for humans to take vows of celibacy, and those factions who do, priests, monks, etc., are plagued throughout written history by the scandals, incredible self abuse and mutilation, and giving into “temptation”, a term that does great disservice to the genuine victims. This is, as we have seen in the past few decades, often covered up by the larger religious corporation to save face. Unfortunately, the cover up only creates more victims, so when you use the reductionism you choose to use, I wonder how you arrive at what you do percentage wise with any confidence, given the facts regarding sexual abuse in general, given the history of sexual issues regarding men and women of the cloth (that often, they are NOT celibate – did you know a study showed priests have 4x the rate of AIDS than the general populace? Google it.). Knowing what we know about human sexuality, knowing what we do about the hypocrisy of the people of the cloth, how dare a religious person who has taken an unnatural vow celibacy have ANY voice over the medical procedures available to women. How dare the Church or any religious corporation have any voice in the matter. To give these social rejects power over women is obscene, nothing less.
Those criticisms are hardly unfair criticisms. It’s time for people to stop enabling a group of filthy rich, corrupt men who wish to control the populace for their own benefit. These people have nothing to do with God, and far more to do with Corporate religious marketing.



report abuse
 

rememberme

posted January 6, 2011 at 3:37 pm


Your story is not completely correct. The hospital in question is/was a CATHOLIC hospital. As a CATHOLIC hospital run by CATHOLICS, it, ST Jesphs was to following he teachings of the church which is anti-abortion. THis woman could have gone to another hospital as I am sure she was well aware that abortion goes against Catholic teaching. Nobody said she could not have a abortion-it is legal. But is immoral for a practicing Catholic to provide abortions.



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted January 6, 2011 at 8:32 pm


rememberme:
How do you know that “this woman could have gone to another hospital”? Also, how do you know “she was well aware that abortion goes against Catholic teaching.” You don’t. Those presented with the evidence of this woman’s condition came to the right decision. She had children at home and she would have died had she continued this particular pregnancy. Was the Catholic hospital going to raise, feed and clothe her 4 living children? This hospital is better off without the RCC.



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted January 6, 2011 at 8:42 pm


rememberme:
You claim “this woman could have gone to another hospital”. How do you know? You also claim you are sure “she was well aware that abortion goes against Catholic teaching.” Again, how do you know? You don’t. The group in the hospital that made the decision to end her pregancy did the right thing. Allowed to continue, she would have died and left 4 living children. Was the RCC going to raise, feed and clothe her 4 children or worse, would they have entered the foster care system? This hospital is better off without the RCC.



report abuse
 

robertc

posted January 7, 2011 at 2:36 pm


Where did you dig up that drivel no name? Another pack of redundant anti-clerical bigoted gobbledygouck.



report abuse
 

robertc

posted January 7, 2011 at 2:39 pm


Pagan don’t you read what I post? Banner Hospital in Phoenix was less than a half mile away. The husband had the option. End of story. And you have it backwards. The church is better off without that hospital or CHW’s politcal corporate self interests.
PS….anyone else being censored?



report abuse
 

robertc

posted January 7, 2011 at 2:41 pm


test



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted January 7, 2011 at 6:21 pm


OOPS! on the double post! The site timed me out —-something about how the servers weren’t talking, so I didn’t think either post was “posted”. Didn’t mean to repeat myself!



report abuse
 

Pingback: Nicole Neroulias: I Was A Virgin On Birth Control « Political « Politigian

Pingback: Nicole Neroulias: I Was A Virgin On Birth Control – - HealthNewsX - Health News AggregatorHealthNewsX – Health News Aggregator

Pingback: Nicole Neroulias: I Was A Virgin On Birth Control – - LadyNewsX - Women News AggregatorLadyNewsX – Women News Aggregator

Pingback: Nicole Neroulias: I Was A Virgin On Birth Control | Screw Cable

Pingback: Please Stop Telling Me Why You Use Birth Control | Fem2pt0

rental and sale of cranes

posted May 7, 2013 at 6:54 am


My brother suggested I may like this blog. He was totally right. This submit actually made my day. You can not consider just how a lot time I had spent for this info! Thanks!



report abuse
 

david

posted October 31, 2013 at 3:21 am


Hi
I am David William , a member of some Medical coding & Billing community. I had landed on your site “http://blueconsultingservices.com/” and found the articles really worth reading. The quality of your content is so good, that it made me request you something. I love to write medical coding and billing articles and would like to contribute something for your site. I can give you an original guest post and if you want, you can suggest me the topic also and I will write accordingly. Not only that, I will give you the total rights to edit the article and modify it as per your needs.

In response I expect you to give a link back to one of my endorser who helps me to continue my passion and serve individual sites and blogs like yours.

Please let me know your thoughts. Waiting for your positive.
Thanks
David
david.willimes@gmail.com



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More Blogs To Enjoy!
Thank you for visiting Belief Beat. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy:   Beliefnet News   Good News Happy Reading!  

posted 4:57:28pm Feb. 14, 2012 | read full post »

Fun Friday: Atheist Temple Planned for UK's Nonbelievers
Author Alain de Botton has announced plans to build an Atheist temple in the United Kingdom, presumably so nonbelievers have a place to gather and share their philosophies. Um... isn't that what Starbucks is for? Also, I can't wait to see how the architect will handle this kind of project. May

posted 2:53:42pm Jan. 27, 2012 | read full post »

Alaska Airlines: High Payers No Longer Offered Sky Prayers
Alaska Airlines, now the country's seventh-largest airline, has announced it will stop offering prayer cards with its in-flight meals. (It's just raining religion news in the great unchurched Pacific Northwest lately.) I've flown Alaska several times since moving to Seattle, but I confess that I'

posted 11:07:56am Jan. 26, 2012 | read full post »

Washington's Gay Marriage Debate: Clergy vs. Clergy
I reported for Reuters at the Washington state Capitol yesterday, covering the public hearings on a gay marriage bill -- and in between, the breaking news that the state Senate now has enough votes to pass the bill. (The House already had enough votes.) It now appears that Washington's lawmakers wi

posted 11:24:39am Jan. 24, 2012 | read full post »

What Israel's Domestic Policy & Santorum Supporters Have in Common
Hope everyone had an introspective Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day, whether observed as a faith-related holiday, a nice break from the work week or something else entirely. Check out this story from Religion & Ethics Newsweekly about how mandatory sentencing for drug crimes and non-violent offens

posted 1:32:44pm Jan. 18, 2012 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.