Not at the hospital in question. I personally know a gay physician who is agnostic on staff right now at St. Joseph's. Uh...and you work there because they have a good medical staff, offer good benefits INCLUDING to gay life partners.

But you wouldn't know that because you don't know anything about hospitals or the fact that they can't discriminate in their employment practices because they take LOTS of federal money!!!

Have fun guys...I'm driving home from work now!

HER CHILD WOULD HAVE DIED EITHER WAY. You seem not to grasp that. There is no saving the baby in this situation with current technology. Also, what if she wanted to kill her baby with fire? Hypotheticals are useless here.
Late term abortions to save the life of the mother are not outside the legal window even if typically abortions are only allowed up to a certain point. Laws may vary based on state. If the fetus was viable as mentioned below, NICU and hope he or she lives.



She's assuming a whole hell of a lot.

I didn't post conspiracy theories, you implied them. Dan Brown is a shitastic writer.

For your reference: Your post
My reply

I'm not sure you understand what sort of agreements people make to work at a Catholic hospital. They are primarily prohibitions on providing abortion, contraceptive sterilization, birth control and in vitro fertilization. Your average doctor may disagree with some of those prohibitions but never have to deal with them in his or her position at a hospital. Others simply refer out.

This! I'll keep the thread warm for you.

Your assumption is one of ignorance, and one does not need to read catechism and encyclicals to understand and disagree with the Church's prohibition on abortion.

There is within the Church, but to the average outsider, and colloquially in English nun is used for all. As well as plain-clothes nun for those not in habit. I don't really care what you call brothers, though they probably do.

You weren't originally talking about social teachings, you were talking about the child sex abuse scandal and criticizing "newspapers" as if there was another source of THAT information. Because, you see, the newspapers print what the Church says, as well as what the victims say. Have your read the Ryan Report? The John Jay report? The Murphy report? Seen the findings? Do you have to have read them to have a discussion about child sexual abuse within the Church?


You deleted your post?

Do you really want to play the if-you-only-really-understood-it-you'd-agree-with-it card? Because it is possible to really understand something and reject it.

And why do you keep assuming that people are relying on the MSM? (Although count me with those Catholics who are saying that the Catholic Church owes the media a big thank you for reporting on the child abuse scandal.)

Hope I wasn't misquoting or miscontruing you. I was referring to this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by AOII Angel (Post 1932348) The way they are the same is that both will kill the mother, and both require a termination of the pregnancy to save the life of the mother. By calling it a "salpingectomy", catholics have given themselves a little out, like, oh, I'm not really terminating the pregnancy, I'm just cutting out the fallopian tube.

Like I said, I think we come down in the same spot on this one; it's just the lawyer in me want's precision in arguments and accurate understanding of other's positions. :o

And you couldn't spring for another one for me? :p

If I bought another burrito I would be eating it.

(not really, I'd be ill)

I completely agree that you can understand something and reject it. But I would personally prefer to understand something before rejecting it rather than rejecting something that I understood only on hearsay - then again, that's me and I was told I needed to stop making assumptions in this thread (which is what I have had a tendency to do in this thread and as such am excusing myself - and I did delete more than simply that post because I wanted to, for no other reason than that. . . )

And as far as mainstream media (which is what I am guessing MSM is standing for. . .), my experience has lead me to the conclusion MANY people rely on them for all information rather than doing their own research and making up their own minds. Sadly, the mainstream media tends to like sensationalism and not reporting all sides of the story. Did they bring the child abuse scandal to the attention of many? yup. Was that a good thing? yup Did they neglect to mention all the abuse going on in (and went on) in other denominations, schools, etc? yup Why? because the Catholic Church has seemingly deep pockets.

QFP in case she wants to delete again.

True. But "many people" doesn't necessarily include the people posting in this thread.

I've seen a number of stories about other denominations, schools, Boy Scouts . . . . I'm afraid what I haven't seen is that the leadership/hierarchy in most other denominations failed to deal with the problem when it was brought to their attention.

I agree that the MSM loves sensationalism. I also think there is a tendancy to blame the media for reporting on things that never should have happened, and the tendancy starts to look a lot like denial. "We didn't do anything wrong; the media is just out to get us because . . . ." No good comes of tacking that tack.

This. The problem the Church has is not the deep pockets, the media's not getting any of that money, it's that there IS a hierarchy and that the hierarchy participated in covering it up. "Deep pockets" mean the victims might get some recompense.

Okay....now I understand what you're trying to say! I was completely on a different page than you!;)
How is "we're going to save the mother's life/our goal is not to terminate a pregnancy" when performing an abortion for an ectopic pregnancy and different than "we're going to save the mother's life/our goal is not to terminate a pregnancy" when performing an abortion for a patient dying from right heart failure? That's where I get lost in all this.

If I tried to do research for every opinion I had or hoped to have beyond what's reported in the media I would only have 2 or 3 opinions.

People research based on what's important to them. One can not expect people to all find Catholic teachings or even just their stance on abortion important enough to do the research. One also can not expect only those who have done the research to have an opinion. If you could, you could also expect people who believe the Catholic teaching to also have done research into the pro-abortion argument. Most have not.

In an only semi-related note, I went to a Catholic University (and certainly not INO) and there were flyers posted in the ladies rooms about post-rape, post-abortion, post-STD diagnosis counseling. They certainly weren't advertisements for Planned Parenthood. When I was running Freshman Orientation we had a parent flip her shit over those flyers - it took us forever to explain to her that post-abortion counseling was not against Catholic teachings (I've never known the Catholic Church to turn ANYONE away from counseling).

I don't know that it is different -- it's not to me. I think we were just on two different pages.

That said, if I understand the principle of double effect correctly, the problem comparing the ectopic pregnancy and removing the fallopian rubes (I understand there are different/better medical procedures) with an abortion for the patent dying from heart failure is that, applying that principle, the method used cannot itself be immoral (which the Catholic Church would consider the abortion to be). Removal of the fallopian tubes would, standing alone, be considered morally neutral. Under that principle, the means has to be, at worst, morally neutral, the intent has to be morally good, and that moral good must outweight the unintended, even if inevitable, morally bad consequence.

When you, with all your medical mojo :D, put forward the possibility of dealing with ectopic pregnancy by inducing an abortion rather than by removing the fallopian tubes, you -- if I understand the principle of double effect accurately -- put forward the possibility of replacing an acceptable way of dealing with the pregnancy with an unacceptable way. So while the inducing of an abortion might be preferable from a medical standpoint, it would not be preferable (or permissible) from an ethical/moral standpoint framed using the principle of double effect.

To be honest, I think probably it is a principle that was first articulated to help in what would otherwise be hard cases like this. I'm just not sure the philosophy underlying the principle of double effect has kept up (or adjusted) to take into account medical advances.

Here is the problem, as I see it:

Do Nothing: Mother and fetus die
Do Something: fetus dies

In doing nothing, you are aborting the baby and killing the mother. Is action the only way to abort? No. In this case, inaction would also result in an abortion, albeit, a spontaneous one. It is a passive abortion.
In doing something, you are only aborting the baby. This is an active abortion.

Is it better to have a passive abortion and lose another life or have an active abortion? Either way, there is an abortion.