WIP Posted March 8, 2009 Report Share Posted March 8, 2009 Anytime an abortion thread starts, there will be an endless stream of drivel about respecting life of the unborn. I've mentioned ludicrous situations in the past where pro life dogma is enforced by law, rather than mere rhetoric -- El Salvador comes to mind, as a fanatical Catholic country where there have been cases of young women who have gone to hospitals because of internal bleeding, have been tied to hospital beds to await a forensic examination of the uterus to see if an abortion has been performed....and now we have this story from Brazil, where a doctor and the mother of a nine year old girl, have both been excommunicated by the Catholic Church, after the doctor performed an abortion on the girl after being raped. http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/5375029...xcommunication/ A senior Vatican cleric has defended the excommunication of the mother and doctors of a nine-year-old girl who had an abortion in Brazil after being raped. Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, head of the Catholic church's Congregation for Bishops, told the daily La Stampa on Saturday that the twins the girl had been carrying had a right to live. "It is a sad case but the real problem is that the twins conceived were two innocent persons, who had the right to live and could not be eliminated," he said. Re, who also heads the Pontifical Commission for Latin America, added: "Life must always be protected, the attack on the Brazilian church is unjustified." The row was triggered by the termination on Wednesday of twin foetuses carried by a nine-year-old allegedly raped by her stepfather in the Brazilian state of Pernambuco. The regional archbishop, Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, pronounced excommunication for the mother for authorising the operation and doctors who carried it out for fear that the slim girl would not survive carrying the foetuses to term. "God's law is above any human law. So when a human law ... is contrary to God's law, this human law has no value," Cardoso had said. For those of you who have just come from church today, this is the price to pay when you take church dogma too seriously, instead of using common sense to make ethical decisions. Fortunately in Brazil, the guys who wear the dresses have no legal authority outside of their churches, so they can only threaten people who believe their fairy tales with hell fire. At least they don't have similar legal authority that they are wielding in Central America! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melanie_ Posted March 8, 2009 Report Share Posted March 8, 2009 Did the stepfather get excommunicated for raping the 9 year old girl? What kind of moral condemnation does the church have for him? They're probably too focused on punishing a child for doing the only thing that made any kind of sense in this situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted March 8, 2009 Report Share Posted March 8, 2009 The Vatican was NEVER pro-life - they were always pro-poor. They depend on there being as many submissive poor as possible in the world in order to keep up their numbers _ If the Vatican was pro-life they would up hold the ancient Christian charter and sell off some of their wealth and feed the poor thus sustaining life and promoting life and being truely pro-life - what institution ritually demoralizes and cripples young boys and girls though sexual abuse and sodomistic rape? I have had enough of these guys - and enough of the fools who actually believe Catholics are pro-life - they are pro-death...ever been in a Catholic temple - it smells of death. They are blood and virgin worshippers - of virgins that are not virgins --- The truth is that they do the opposite of what the Christ commanded - that would make them practicers of anti-christism ...and that pope ------------what you see is what you get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted March 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 Did the stepfather get excommunicated for raping the 9 year old girl? What kind of moral condemnation does the church have for him? No, the 23 year old stepfather was not excommunicated by the Church: He (the Archbishop) also said the accused stepfather would not be expelled from the church. Although the man allegedly committed "a heinous crime ... the abortion - the elimination of an innocent life - was more serious". Keep in mind that the Archbishop is fully aware of the medical reports that the girl had too narrow a pelvis to survive the delivery of a baby, let alone twins. The likely outcome was that the girl and the twins would have all died if a normal delivery was attempted - so who's life was the Church trying to save? If they continued her pregnancy, and desired to save the girl by performing a caesarean, it would have also been a waste of time since the operation would have had to be performed well before the 23rd week - the usual limit that a fetus can survive outside the womb - so what the hell would have been the good of putting her through this either? The last paragraph of the story, which mentions an 11 year old girl who is 7 months pregnant by her stepfather - is actually referring to a different case in Southern Brazil, where a 51 year old man has impregnated his daughter, and intends to have the baby, according to a newslink I misplaced on this story - according to the report, the doctors monitoring this girl also consider this one to be a high risk pregnancy. If the girl dies during childbirth, she will be exalted by the Church, along with her mother or whoever the guardian is who has advised this girl to be faithful and endanger her life to keep the Church fathers happy! They're probably too focused on punishing a child for doing the only thing that made any kind of sense in this situation. They tried to punish the child! They were going to kill her in the name of "God's Law!" The mother is being excommunicated for finally doing the right thing and saving her daughter's life. If the Catholic Church had any semblance of real ethics, they would have excommunicated her for leaving her daughter in a situation where she had apparently been sexually violated by the stepfather since she was 6 years old.....but that's not a mortal sin.....not even for the stepfather raping little girls! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted March 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 The Vatican was NEVER pro-life - they were always pro-poor. I have to agree with you here. They are generally love poverty too much to want to help the poor......but once again, you are way off topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 Rape is wrong. Raping a 9 yr old is wrong. Abortion is wrong. Tough dilemma, no matter what position the church took on this one they'd be criticized by opponents. People get into some pretty sick situations, and then the church gets blamed no matter what they do. It seems to me the family should have the raper arrested and if they don't they are doing something far worse than whatever the church is accused of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 (edited) Rape is wrong. Raping a 9 yr old is wrong. Abortion is wrong. Tough dilemma, no matter what position the church took on this one they'd be criticized by opponents. People get into some pretty sick situations, and then the church gets blamed no matter what they do.It seems to me the family should have the raper arrested and if they don't they are doing something far worse than whatever the church is accused of. The thing is ,, it is not a tough dilemma. If life is valued, then the current life of the 9 year old child is more important than the children that the child will have. IF life is valued, we need to take care of the people that are alive right now. Not ones that could be alive. Feed and clothe the current hungry and destitute. Value the life we already have. If the church is going to put this on the child, then the Church should take care of the newborns after birth. But I doubt they are willing to pony up. Abortion is not wrong. Forcing the girl to have these kids could kill her, that is wrong. The mother did the right thing, and any one of you would probably do the same. Your child first, everything else second. I am not a mother, nor a parent. But to most mothers, the current living child is more important than the possible unwanted rape babies. Edited March 9, 2009 by GostHacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 The thing is ,, it is not a tough dilemma. If life is valued, then the current life of the 9 year old child is more important than the children that the child will have. IF life is valued, we need to take care of the people that are alive right now. Not ones that could be alive. Feed and clothe the current hungry and destitute. Value the life we already have. If the church is going to put this on the child, then the Church should take care of the newborns after birth. But I doubt they are willing to pony up. Abortion is not wrong. Forcing the girl to have these kids could kill her, that is wrong. The mother did the right thing, and any one of you would probably do the same. Your child first, everything else second. I am not a mother, nor a parent. But to most mothers, the current living child is more important than the possible unwanted rape babies. Say this took place in the wild kingdom - say within a herd of wolves - the male (rapist) wolf stocks an immature puppy (equivelant to the 9 year old) and mounds and somehow impregnates the puppy wolf..............well this would NOT happen in the wild because the male wolf would never consider copulating with for all intent and purpose is an infant - YET humans are deviate and anti-nature and some will have sex with a 9 year old. Sounds like the superiour human mind and intellect is not that superiour - infact it's inferiour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 It would happen in the animal kingdom because a 9 year old that's capable of being pregnant would be "in heat" in the animal kingdom. Regardless, drawing comparisons between humanity and the animal kingdom in an argument about ethics and morality is a little stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 It would happen in the animal kingdom because a 9 year old that's capable of being pregnant would be "in heat" in the animal kingdom. Regardless, drawing comparisons between humanity and the animal kingdom in an argument about ethics and morality is a little stupid. A 9 year old human in dog years would never be in heat - nor was this human in heat. Drawing the comparrison between the animal kingdom is not stupid - that was my whole point - only pure stupified evil on the part of a human being would create the scenero you decribed - a dog or wolf would never attempt to mount a puppy one tenth his size and maturity ----again - my point is that animals are not stupid to the point that we are - they do not abort and they do not attempt to have sex with infants...we are not taking about ethics or morality - but about what is intelligent and what is not - evil is stupidity...and we are stupid...no creature on earth is as stupid as we are to rip an offspring by force form the womb - what the hell is that? Smart or stupid? I say stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 It would happen in the animal kingdom because a 9 year old that's capable of being pregnant would be "in heat" in the animal kingdom. Regardless, drawing comparisons between humanity and the animal kingdom in an argument about ethics and morality is a little stupid. The rest of the animals on this planet have no clue what morals are. They could care less about ethics, legal law, abortion, religion, ect ect .. animals simply do not give two shits .. actually they don't have the capacity to give a shit about humans and their petty laws and definitions. So why do we have these morals and ethic?? And why are our beliefs of what ethics and morals vary so differently among us humans .. when it is quite black and white within the rest of the animal kingdom. No, being in HEAT means that it is the BEST time for animals to procreate because that is the time you will have the best chance of getting pregnant, Heat means ovulation. Humans go through it too, just differently. A 9 year old girl can still have all the equipment to get pregnant (this is quite obvious) but does not have the 'heat' that animals go through. Humans are animals, and we do go through this 'heat' phase as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted March 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 Rape is wrong. Yes. Raping a 9 yr old is wrong. Absolutely. Abortion is wrong. Why? You can't build a logical argument with a series of declarative statements. As long as you are using examples that have general agreement i.e. raping nine year old girls is wrong, you can use it to make your case. But, you can't expect that no one is going to notice you inserting the "life begins at conception" card into the deck! Before you build this rickety stage even further, you have to do something you've never been willing to do before: make a valid case that having the potential to develop into human life means we should give it equal value to actual, existing human life. Right now, all of these theologians in the Catholic Church and at the Vatican, who have spent their lives studying theology, science and philosophy, are tied in knots and wish this story would disappear, because it demonstrates the invalidity of giving a fertilized egg the same value as a child or an adult.....something that common, everyday people can instinctively realize is wrong without having to go to university to take courses in ethics and metaphysics. A simple thought problem used during the U.S. stem cell debate three years ago demonstrates that even people who try to adhere to this nonsensical doctrine in the end cannot justify it -- briefly, the fire at the fertility clinic -- you have two choices, and only two choices: 1. save a container of 10,000 frozen embryos or 2. save a baby, or young child. -- you can't do both! I never came across anyone who answered that 10,000 "lives" were more important than the baby; instead the question was met with indignation and obfuscation, but never a straight answer! Likely because at a gut level, they can't justify this belief. Tough dilemma, no matter what position the church took on this one they'd be criticized by opponents. It wouldn't be a tough dilemma if they hadn't built this bridge to nowhere on the premise that a newly fertilized embryo has to be given human rights. My long-held suspicion is that the concern over abortion, combined with indifference to natural abortion (miscarriage) betrays a hidden agenda behind the pious talk of sanctity of life -- that marking the beginnings of human life at fertilization becomes a convenient excuse for exercising control over the behaviour of women, whom the Church has always held in suspicion of tempting men away into a life of sin if they are not kept busy having babies. People get into some pretty sick situations, and then the church gets blamed no matter what they do. Let's review -- the Brazilian Archbishop, who was yesterday backed by the Vatican, publicly declared that the mother and the doctors were guilty of greater sin for saving the life of a nine year old girl by having an abortion performed, than the husband of the mother, who had been sexually using this girl since she was six years old, and also her 14 year old disabled sister for that matter -- he was not excommunicated because according to official Church ethical policy, his offense, though criminal, was not great enough to condemn him to hellfire.....and you are surprised that Catholic Church leaders are being heaped with scorn by me and others? It seems to me the family should have the raper arrested and if they don't they are doing something far worse than whatever the church is accused of. That's beside the point, since the stepfather was arrested when news of the girl's pregnancy was revealed. Again, the Catholic Church does not consider his sin to be as great as the doctors who had to perform the abortion to save the girl's life.....doesn't that tell us something about how useless these so called perfect standards are for making moral decisions in the real world? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melanie_ Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 Rape is wrong. Raping a 9 yr old is wrong. Abortion is wrong. Tough dilemma, no matter what position the church took on this one they'd be criticized by opponents. People get into some pretty sick situations, and then the church gets blamed no matter what they do.It seems to me the family should have the raper arrested and if they don't they are doing something far worse than whatever the church is accused of. Abortion is not wrong, particularly in this case. In the Abortion Reform Poll thread, we had pretty much unanimous agreement that abortion was justified in the case where the woman's life was in jeopardy, which would apply here. This girl is better off being excommunicated - who wants to be part of an organization that protects the pedophile and condemns the victim? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 The rest of the animals on this planet have no clue what morals are. They could care less about ethics, legal law, abortion, religion, ect ect .. animals simply do not give two shits .. actually they don't have the capacity to give a shit about humans and their petty laws and definitions. So why do we have these morals and ethic?? And why are our beliefs of what ethics and morals vary so differently among us humans .. when it is quite black and white within the rest of the animal kingdom.No, being in HEAT means that it is the BEST time for animals to procreate because that is the time you will have the best chance of getting pregnant, Heat means ovulation. Humans go through it too, just differently. A 9 year old girl can still have all the equipment to get pregnant (this is quite obvious) but does not have the 'heat' that animals go through. Humans are animals, and we do go through this 'heat' phase as well. I don't need a lesson on biology here. I know what heat is. And after having a brood of children and a few wives I understand when a human is in heat also. _ You missed my point - animals are not about morals or ethics. They function via the law - natural law. What I was saying that we big brained humans have so much capicity and room in our big mischievious skulls to come up with all sorts of imaginings that may manifest into the real world as preversions of NATURAL LAW. Because of this mismangaged and over powered intellecutal capcity we need sets of ethics and morals - to guide us because we are so smart we can be insane - we are not gods and we are not animals we are some where in between and we are not adjusting well. Under natural law and animal can no and will not mate with a creature that is to young - because this guarentees failure to propagate - where as human beings are so crazy - and out of touch with natural law that the do not know what the meaning of sex is and why it was primarily designed - TO REPRODUCE - TO CREATE - NOT TO DESTROY ....AND TO HAVE SEX WITH AN INFANT OR ABORT ARE BOTH DESTRUCTIVE ACTS THAT ARE CONTRARY TO THE NATURAL LAWS THAT GOVERN LIVE... need I go on - humans are stupid...clever and imaginative but don't quite get it - looked at the natural environment lately - or our brilliant economic system ? S T U P I D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted March 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 The thing is ,, it is not a tough dilemma. If life is valued, then the current life of the 9 year old child is more important than the children that the child will have. A principle that actual life should be given greater value than potential life would make sense to most rational thinking people. In this case however, it's likely that death would have been the result for the girl and the twins if the Church had its way. During a discussion of this story on NPR last night, a medical expert declared that the age of the girl, combined with her small size (36 kg.) would have meant that for a caesarean to be performed in time to save her life, it would have had to have been before the fetuses were 22 weeks old, and old enough to survive.....so what the hell was the point of this, aside from rigid adherence to dogma. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted March 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 I don't need a lesson on biology here. I know what heat is. And after having a brood of children and a few wives I understand when a human is in heat also. It appears that you do need a lesson in biology...at least in the differences between humans and other primates! What women have you had sex with that went into heat? This is not a human trait, and something that was selected out by evolution to make pair-bonding (something few mammals share) possible; since women who are available for sex all or most of the time would be more likely to keep a man around to help raise the children. Other apes, like dogs, have a limited estrus cycle because they don't want males around the family group when they are raising their young. I learned this stuff over 40 years ago when a zoologist named Desmond Morris wrote "The Naked Ape," which shocked polite society at the time because he trashed the conventions of philosophy and psychology at the time which presumed that humans were too different from our ape cousins to be the subject of a natural study like other animals. It was a very informative book about nature and our similarities with other animals -- I would suggest you read it before posting more crazy statements like wolves being superior to us because a wolf wouldn't rape a prepubescent pup. A little understanding of biology would show you that dogs (whether wolves or domesticated dogs like my own) respond to the scent of females in heat, and that's why this sort of crime would be rare or nonexistent in the dog or ape worlds....not because they are morally superior, or because of some divine natural law that exists only in the minds of people who give human attributes to animals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 Abortion is not wrong, particularly in this case. In the Abortion Reform Poll thread, we had pretty much unanimous agreement that abortion was justified in the case where the woman's life was in jeopardy, which would apply here. This girl is better off being excommunicated - who wants to be part of an organization that protects the pedophile and condemns the victim? Look folks, I'm not here to convince anyone anything about abortion. I was merely speaking from the point of view of the church's position. I'm not naive enough to think that people can be persuaded anything about abortion, something you seem to think you can do to me. I could care less what went on in the abortion reform poll thread. Good grief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 Look folks, I'm not here to convince anyone anything about abortion. I was merely speaking from the point of view of the church's position. I'm not naive enough to think that people can be persuaded anything about abortion, something you seem to think you can do to me. I could care less what went on in the abortion reform poll thread. Good grief. You two have fun and no biting - dad's got to go out now..I will be back in 8 thousand years and I expect a solution to this problem.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted March 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 Look folks, I'm not here to convince anyone anything about abortion. I was merely speaking from the point of view of the church's position. I'm not naive enough to think that people can be persuaded anything about abortion, something you seem to think you can do to me. Then what is the point of joining the debate on any issue? Since most people entrench their beliefs deeper and deeper, the longer they seem to work for them. Fine if you don't want to defend the Catholic Church's position on abortion, but since you are claiming that they are being unfairly persecuted, why not try to defend their reasons for excommunicating the mother and the doctors for having the abortion performed, and noexcommunicating the stepfather who had been raping this girl since she was six years old, and if that wasn't enough, also her 14 year old disabled sister. Are their reasons for not excommunicating the woman's husband valid? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 Then what is the point of joining the debate on any issue? Since most people entrench their beliefs deeper and deeper, the longer they seem to work for them. Fine if you don't want to defend the Catholic Church's position on abortion, but since you are claiming that they are being unfairly persecuted, why not try to defend their reasons for excommunicating the mother and the doctors for having the abortion performed, and noexcommunicating the stepfather who had been raping this girl since she was six years old, and if that wasn't enough, also her 14 year old disabled sister. Are their reasons for not excommunicating the woman's husband valid? It's policy to defend those that rape children and it's policy to persecute those that take actions to nullify the rape through abortion. What do you expect from the church? Holyness? Secularist society and those that want to seek revenge against the church by having an abortion as the only option to push evil away - It's pitiful but if the church sanctions rape of boys - then you have to do what you have to do include killing your own children to show them that that THEY DO NOT OWN YOU>..Reminds me of the dream sequence in USUAL SUSPECTS - where the gangster kills his own family to free himself from the coersion of the mafia - I see a parallel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 I've noticed, WIP, how you are always very critical of Christianity in general, and have been on that side of many debates. I noticed yet again, in this thread which you started, you've dug out an extremely rare occurrence (pregnant 9 yr old) and are beating the church up over it. Like I said, I'm not naive enough to think that someone can be converted to the opposite side in the abortion debate, or deeply held positions regarding their church as you seem to think, merely by reading opinions on a forum. But by all means, swing away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 Then what is the point of joining the debate on any issue? Since most people entrench their beliefs deeper and deeper, the longer they seem to work for them. Fine if you don't want to defend the Catholic Church's position on abortion, but since you are claiming that they are being unfairly persecuted, why not try to defend their reasons for excommunicating the mother and the doctors for having the abortion performed, and noexcommunicating the stepfather who had been raping this girl since she was six years old, and if that wasn't enough, also her 14 year old disabled sister. Are their reasons for not excommunicating the woman's husband valid? It's policy to defend those that rape children and it's policy to persecute those that take actions to nullify the rape through abortion. What do you expect from the church? Holyness? Secularist society and those that want to seek revenge against the church by having an abortion as the only option to push evil away - It's pitiful but if the church sanctions rape of boys - then you have to do what you have to do include killing your own children to show them that that THEY DO NOT OWN YOU>..Reminds me of the dream sequence in USUAL SUSPECTS - where the gangster kills his own family to free himself from the coersion of the mafia - I see a parallel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melanie_ Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 Look folks, I'm not here to convince anyone anything about abortion. I was merely speaking from the point of view of the church's position. I'm not naive enough to think that people can be persuaded anything about abortion, something you seem to think you can do to me. I could care less what went on in the abortion reform poll thread. Good grief. If you're not trying to convince anyone anything about abortion, why make a statement like "abortion is wrong"? I'm simply pointing out that many would agree that, in this case, abortion is right. If you disagree, you are free not to have an abortion next time you're pregnant and you're likely to die if you continue with the pregnancy. Others will choose differently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 I don't need a lesson on biology here. ..... Oleg my friend, unless you were responding on cybercoma's behalf .... the lesson was not for you !!! WIP ...so what the hell was the point of this, aside from rigid adherence to dogma. That is really all it is .. an adherence to dogma ... and religous tradition. Society, and civil law for the most part has advanced and left old dogma behind them. Religion still wants to hold on to them even when they don't have relevance in today's society. Logic does not play a part in religious dogma, you just need to believe. Compassion does not seem to be found anywhere either. Sharkman I've noticed, WIP, how you are always very critical of Christianity in general, and have been on that side of many debates. I noticed yet again, in this thread which you started, you've dug out an extremely rare occurrence (pregnant 9 yr old) and are beating the church up over it. Um, it is a CATHOLIC church. Or are they Christians too?? Way too many religions going around in my opionion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted March 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 I've noticed, WIP, how you are always very critical of Christianity in general, and have been on that side of many debates. Yes, I am very critical of Christianity in general, since I feel the need to fight the tide of prevailing opinion that religion is good - Christianity is the best religion - you can't be good without being a Christian etc. But, if it makes you feel any better, if this story of the nine year old girl had played out in most Muslim countries (and I'm sure it does!) she would have been forced to carry on with the pregnancy, and die during childbirth, along with the twins, and the rest of the world would have never heard anything about it. I noticed yet again, in this thread which you started, you've dug out an extremely rare occurrence (pregnant 9 yr old) and are beating the church up over it. Sure it's likely an extremely rare occurrence......I hope it's extremely rare for 9 year old girls to be raped and impregnated! And that's why it is a good model to examine this concept that life begins at conception. According to Catholic, and all other pro life dogma, no distinction can be allowed between life at any stage of development. This shocking situation is the simple result of applying that absolute, rigid belief in the real world. In this case, following that dogma to the letter means endangering the life of a nine year old girl, and condemning her mother for seeking a way to save her life. Real morality should reach the best outcomes for most people, but these so called transcendent systems based on "God's Law" are never compared or adjusted to achieve better outcomes for people. And that's why this sort of thinking belongs in the past. Another example of how this pro life position causes unnecessary death and suffering, has occurred a number of times in different countries where doctors have to separate conjoined twins. Whenever a medical team determines that only one twin can be saved, the Catholic Church steps in and declares that deliberately allowing one of the twins to die is murder -- if the family follows Church dictates, there are two deaths instead of one......but at least they are following God's Law! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.