I wouldn’t call my perception of how the CC operates bigoted. Is it bigoted to simply acknowledge what I believe to be true (as long as it’s based on a reasonable perception)? Of course not … so the “bigot” card won’t work, sorry.
Your perceptions are way off base, Yank.
If this logic is true and all the Catholic doctors resign, then where do I find a Catholic doctor that is licensed to practice. The non licensed doctor cannot practice legally which would mean it would be moral for him to do so. So he would not be able to practice anyways.
Are they? That recent episode where the 9-year-old who was pregnant by being raped by her stepfather suggests otherwise to me: she and the fetus would have simply died if she had tried to carry it to term, but everyone involved in her abortion was criticized loudly by the Church and (IIRC) just about all of them were excommunicated.
As I pointed out to Josie, there are many medical specialties that don’t perform abortions simply because they’re not part of the job. Just as a dermatologist would never perform brain surgery on a patient, a family physician or an oncologist (or doctors from most disciplines) would never have need to perform an abortion.
“All of us - beginning with the parish priest of Alagoinha (undersigned) - treated the pregnant girl and her family with all charity and tenderness. The Parish priest, making use of his pastoral solicitude, when aware of the news in his residence, immediately went to the house of the family, in which he met the girl and lent her his support and presence, before the grave and difficult situation in which the girl found herself. And this attitude continued every day, from Alagoinha to Recife, where the sad event of the abortion of the two innocent [babies] took place. Therefore, it is quite evident and unequivocal that nobody thought in “excommunication” in the first place. **We used all means at our disposal to avoid the abortion and thus save all THREE lives. The Parish priest personally joined the local Children’s Council in all efforts which sought the welfare of the child and of her two children. **In the hospital, in daily visits, he displayed attitudes of care and attention which made clear both to the child and to her mother that they were not alone, but that the Church, represented by the local Parish priest, assured them of the necessary assistance and of the certainty that all would be done for the welfare of the girl and to save her two children.”
Usually, a doctor who’s sensitive to the views of a Catholic is Catholic. I personally have no respect for doctors who abort (unless it’s to save the mother’s life and there are no other viable options) this goes against their hippocratic oath to save all lives.
Does my answer from a previous post make sense? Also note that Josie pointed out that the Church is more than willing to find a solution that aims to save the child and her children. Also the mother who brought the daughter to the abortion clinic did nothing to stop these assults on her daughter. The husband has been known to be abusive as I remember. The one everyone forgets is the true evil act is the assult, abuse, and rape of the child. Death through natural means is a natural thing in human existance. Preventing death is great if there is no evil done to prevent it. In this case a child was killed before natural death. Please read my quote and see if it make sense.
Here is a news article. Tell me what you think. A nurse who is not in the job of aborting babies or any thing of the sort was lied to. During the operations, she could not leave. I would give her the benefit of the doubt and consider that if she leaves at the moment she would risk the life of the mother.
Well, why do you expect others to get rights but not Catholic. Why would Catholic mothers, there are a lot of Catholic mothers, not allowed to see a doctor that can adhere to Catholic teachings in their entire practice? Whether the doctor states he is Catholic or not, if he adheres to Catholic teachings then he can fully aid these mothers. When one adheres to it but is not nominally Catholic, they are to us Catholic at heart because they are listening to the rules God gave us. There are plenty of non-Catholic doctors and non-Catholic hospitals, all over the nation. Many Catholic hospitals in the past has due to state and local government had to divide up their facilities to allow non-Catholic health provides facilities to work in. These non-Catholics who took over, due to political, not economical or medical reasons, can do the emergency abortions if they wish. Do not oppress us Catholics by force Catholics themselves to go against their conscience.
Not really.
I don’t forget it at all. However, I recognize that abuse is a difficult thing and I’m not prepared to automatically condemn the mother without knowing all the facts.
The problem I have with this argument is that I recognize that it’s inconsistent with other Church doctrines, especially the doctrine of “just war”. If it can be moral to, say, bomb a target despite knowing that it’s surrounded by civilians, many of whom will inevitably die in the attack, how can you say that preventing death is only moral if “there is no evil done to prevent it”?
Her protected right was the right to quit.
I didn’t say they didn’t have the right; I just find the idea of refusing to see a non-Catholic doctor to be very odd.
Why is the writer so sympathetic to the nurse?
Okay, go find other articles. Please look at the whole context. She had a formal agreement with he hospital superiors that she will not participate in abortion, refer patience, nor anything that could be entangled. She has worked there for a number of years and this issue has not come up because they have found other people. She was not told before entering the room that this would be an abortion. She only found out after she has prep the operating table. She could not leave because it was an emergency at that point. Before this, before she even entered the room, when she was asked to go to this OR, she was NOT told it was an abortion. If she was, she could have easily taken over the position of any other nurse there and free up that nurse. No, the information came down to her when she was prepping. It was not a case of a normal surgery becoming an abortion because as she found out it was an abortion on the prep. Not during the surgery. However, at this time there is great risk to the patient if she suddenly leaves.
Now if you look at all of those, Just War has as requirements that not only is their no other means of ending the conflict, the aggressors will do more harm then the legitimate defense force will. Also, the war must have serious and factual prospects of success. And lastly, the use of weapons must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. This is exactly against the “wholesale slaughter of people” as you so stated.
The article you linked to mentioned nothing about a formal agreement with the hospital.
I don’t have enough medical knowledge to say that this is definitely false, but it sounds fishy to me.
I’m trying to, but it leaves more questions than answers.
Well, it’s only now that you brought up anything about an agreement.
I didn’t neglect it; you failed to mention it.
I understand you think that, but as I pointed out above, I have serious questions about this claim.
I’ve heard the justification before; I still think it’s inconsistent.
So then, why is it that, if the reason is good enough, it can be permissible to follow a course of action that you know will kill that mother and fetus with shrapnel, but it is never, under any circumstances, permissible to “kill” the fetus alone with a scalpel?
Because, for most people, life is better than death.
No, yet they, rather than attempting to save the lives of all three, went and took the expedient course by aborting two devoloping human beings. These doctors disregarded the Church even though they were Catholics and had many times before practiced abortion on women.
Just because the Church supported the war, doesn’'t mean they accepted the civilian casualities that resulted in Dresden (this was wholesale slaughter of civilians and completely unjustified), for example? This would in effect nullify the understanding of “Just War”. The Church does not wish for the innocent to die in war, yet soldiers I assume would do their utmost to prevent civilian casuality (sometimes this of course is not feasible) and this is the hope of the Church. And another thing you must remember a baby in development has the right to live; if nothing is in the way of it’s progress except the choice of the mother to abort it, then this is a far cry from the necessity of a “just war” which can at times cause civilian casualities. Furthermore, the Church cannot stop evil men like Hitler from doing harm to the world per se (that is up to good men and women who put their lives on the line to protect humanity from such lawlessness and immorality) but it sure as heck can do its utmost to protect the unborn form being killed.
The other information is found in other articles. I’m sorry the original link I had got reset when I scrolled my mouse. I did not type this in a separate notepad as I should have .
This was the first article I can retrive again and did not realized it did not have all the information. Yes this one is very supportive of her. There are other ones though I hope you will read into. There was knowledge of both her religious views and a background of hospital policy in agreement with her views.The first part of what you said is true, not the second since her agreement derived from the hospital and her understanding of how the conscience clause apply to here. This is not a Catholic hospital in terms of holding to all Catholic views. It is one where she is working at and knowing of her background there was an agreement that it would be respected.
From what I gather from the articles I read, she was not told what it was honestly. She was always told it is a particular procedure. I do not know the name, but it involves aiding a mother with certain post-cleaning for a miscarriage.
There are multiple steps to procedures in an OR often the doctor comes in from another procedure and the nurses come in from another area. They are well trained to work immediately with each other and have plenty of interactions in the past. Basically she could have been told what the real procedure was instead of a fake name. The procedure given to her was a non abortive procedure, fairly routine. So everyone continued as they should in the prep till the second state of prep where the instruments and doctors were different than what she expected. At this point the mother might still be safe if she left the room immediately and another nurse is called in. But obviously the doctors felt she was needed and told her so at the moment.
I’m glad. What questions do you have about abortion and just war that I can either answer if I understand or find sources for you.
Once again, I apologized. My original response got lost when the page refresh and that site is one of the site with typical Catholic news. The agreement was according to another article. That one might also be the one with the procedure, I’ll look into this. Sorry about that.
Typo =). I have met plenty of loving Muslims during school. Mostly I met girls and they tried to teach me Syriac (I think that’s what it was called). But sadly I’m not a language person. In particular they were very helpful in my French courses.
Well, the final details should come out of the court hearing or any publications the nurse and her lawyers will make after the trials. If what I read was untrue then yes my credibility would be weaken. I apologize again for the mistake.
I’m glad you are familiar with how the Church is opposed to this war. If you are familiar with Jesus, he eats and dines with sinners people exhort. Well these Pharisees do not understand why Jesus does this. He is here to save all of us to love all of us and to call all of us to him.
Yes, you are exactly right. The Church teaches never to *choose *to take one’s own life. The Church teaches us that our lives are gifts no matter how difficult it may be. For me, personally, my mental difficulties are a gift from God. If I never scream and broke down my bedroom door and shriek like a man man in the corner of my mothers room many years ago, my mom would have not snap out of her own craziness that moment. She stopped hurting others and immediately work up and ran to my side and hold me. She apologized a great deal, but we know it’s not entirely her fault when she becomes unstable. So while it was painful, that moment of tenderness between her and I was a gift.
Okay… then, like I said, it’s a matter of breach of contract. The hospital promised they’d treat the nurse in a particular way, but broke their promise. The religious nature of the promise doesn’t have to be part of the legal justification for why the promise should be enforced.The other information is found in other articles. I’m sorry the original link I had got reset when I scrolled my mouse. I did not type this in a separate notepad as I should have .
The link you gave said that she was told that the procedure was a “D&C” or dilation and curettage. It can be used post-miscarriage, but it’s also used as an abortion procedure. In any case, a nurse going into such a procedure would have no reason to conclude that it wasn’t an abortion unless specifically told. At the very least, knowing that it was a D&C should’ve raised questions in her mind.
Which makes me wonder how the details that are public managed to become so.
No, a D&C can be either abortive or non-abortive.
I meant that I’ve got questions about the plausibility and credibility of the story about the nurse as it’s been presented to me. Certain details of it don’t seem to make a whole lot of sense.
After reading about the procedure it does state that it is rarely used as an abortion procedure. As an aside, what a painful way for a baby to go
. However it is stated as rarely. And so the nurse either concluded that the hospital had the understanding and did not tell her so or the hospital intentionally deceive her. I guess this truth may come out in the courts to determine liability. Note that it is rarely done.