J
jmcrae
Guest
You could always log off.
- Status
C
Cowfold
Guest
I can see no arguement for her keeping the child if it against her will.
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
You could always address the arguments rather than the arguer?You could always log off.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Excuse me, but you are not allowed to ‘switch horses in the middle of the stream’, so to speak. In the post that I made and to which you responded, the issue was not in regard to addressing 'formal arguments. You were asked a question; you don’t want to respond to it and so you want to change the whole thing into a demand that we argue on ‘your terms’. That’s not ‘kosher.’
J
jmcrae
Guest
Perhaps it is you who is too emotional, and are taking our responses too personally, instead of realizing that we are against your ideas - not against you as a person.
D
davidv
Guest
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
You’ve lost me to be honest.
This thread has become farcical.
J
jmcrae
Guest
I am beginning to doubt that you have a Doctoral degree in anything at all.
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
I am beginning to doubt that you have a Doctoral degree in anything at all.
I’ve seen you use this tactic before jmcrae
old news
you resort to logical fallacies very often
in this case argumentum ad hominem
The only way to deal with people like yourself is to ignore them.
You’re a shining example of Catholic virtues, well done:thumbsup:
A
Apryl
Guest
Hang on:
To Doc’s defense, I doubt very seriously that any one with more than an 8th Grade Public School education will look at his posts and think that he is really some ‘smart guy with a doctoral degree’.
But I do agree that too often, people who are not paying a lot of attention could be swayed, esp if they want to be swayed.
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
More Christian virtue Apryl - well done:thumbsup:
this is so persuasive to the pro-choice brigade, seeing all this Christian love
Don’t be offended if I ignore you as well
…and most bizarrely, you complained that my posts were above your head
I understand how these tactics work, believe me - seen it many many times
so I’m not falling for this one
this is so persuasive to the pro-choice brigade, seeing all this Christian love
Don’t be offended if I ignore you as well
…and most bizarrely, you complained that my posts were above your head
I understand how these tactics work, believe me - seen it many many times
so I’m not falling for this one
R
Rence
Guest
Yeah, that’s what I thought before joining this forum. But others have told me that that’s not an official document from the vatican and that CC is opposed to EC in the ER after a rape. I don’t know if they’re ultra conservative or what. That’s one of the reasons why choice is so important to me.
Thank you, thank you, thank you for hunting that down for me. It means a lot to me
Now if “Catholics” would come to an agreement as to whether this is a correct teaching or not, it would be even more helpful However, if this is truly an official treatment, why are some Catholic hospital denying it for rape victims?
K
kage_ar
Guest
This is not any hidden document, it is a USCCB document from 2001. It is not a Vatican document, it is a set of guidelines for the US.Yeah, that’s what I thought before joining this forum. But others have told me that that’s not an official document from the vatican and that CC is opposed to EC in the ER after a rape. I don’t know if they’re ultra conservative or what. That’s one of the reasons why choice is so important to me.
Thank you, thank you, thank you for hunting that down for me. It means a lot to me
However, if this is truly an official treatment, why are some Catholic hospital denying it for rape victims?
Point 36 is the section on rape. Bold added.
usccb.org/bishops/directives.shtml
- Compassionate and understanding care should be given to a person who is the victim of sexual assault. Health care providers should cooperate with law enforcement officials and offer the person psychological and spiritual support as well as accurate medical information. A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. **If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.**19
R
Rence
Guest
The following excerpt was from the first article:
catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0566.html
**Therefore, before administering contraceptives to a rape victim, health care providers must ascertain first her medical history (including menstrual history, recent sexual activity, and contraceptive usage). A pregnancy test should be performed. If she is not pregnant but her medical history suggests the possibility that ovulation may have occurred, then health care providers ought to administer a Luteinizing Hormone urine dip test or a progesterone blood level test. These tests would indicate if ovulation has indeed occurred and thereby a child was possibly conceived. If these tests are not available in a timely way or at all, treatment should proceed as long as there is a reasonable doubt that ovulation has occurred.
Here again is a key point. If there is a reasonable doubt that ovulation has taken place, the right of the woman to prevent the pregnancy should be favored, even if this unknowingly and unintentionally expels a conceived ovum. **
I can’t tell you how much resistance I got to the above from some pro-lifers on this forum, when in fact, it came from the Bishops.
And I admit, it makes me feel a whole lot better.
catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0566.html
**Therefore, before administering contraceptives to a rape victim, health care providers must ascertain first her medical history (including menstrual history, recent sexual activity, and contraceptive usage). A pregnancy test should be performed. If she is not pregnant but her medical history suggests the possibility that ovulation may have occurred, then health care providers ought to administer a Luteinizing Hormone urine dip test or a progesterone blood level test. These tests would indicate if ovulation has indeed occurred and thereby a child was possibly conceived. If these tests are not available in a timely way or at all, treatment should proceed as long as there is a reasonable doubt that ovulation has occurred.
Here again is a key point. If there is a reasonable doubt that ovulation has taken place, the right of the woman to prevent the pregnancy should be favored, even if this unknowingly and unintentionally expels a conceived ovum. **
I can’t tell you how much resistance I got to the above from some pro-lifers on this forum, when in fact, it came from the Bishops.
And I admit, it makes me feel a whole lot better.
S
SugarMagnolia
Guest
After reading these threads and trying to understand the pro-life ideology, I have come to the conclusion that the pro-life movement is not merely anti-choice; it’s anti-life. Pro-choice advocates are the ones who are really pro-life. The pro-life movement doesn’t care about any life that’s not inside of a uterus.
You pretend to care about life and then you criticize Roy’s story of a family who struggled to make the best choice possible for a suffering family. All you care about is your precious ideas; and you don’t care who suffers as a result of those ideas.
And as if that’s not bad enough, you say the most horrible things.
I’m not surprised to find myself attacked here. But I am surprised at the perverse nature of some of the attacks.
Maybe you should take a good hard look at yourselves. You escalate from attacking me as a person, to attacking my spirituality, to attacking the image of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Nothing is sacred to you; except of course fertilized eggs.
I want no more part of this discussion.
You pretend to care about life and then you criticize Roy’s story of a family who struggled to make the best choice possible for a suffering family. All you care about is your precious ideas; and you don’t care who suffers as a result of those ideas.
And as if that’s not bad enough, you say the most horrible things.
I’m not surprised to find myself attacked here. But I am surprised at the perverse nature of some of the attacks.
To be called “nuts” is a generic and impersonal insult and as such doesn’t much bother me.
On the other hand, to have my devotion to the Blessed Virgin attacked is deeply personal and downright depraved.
frogmarch Mary To invent such a disrespectful image of the Blessed Virgin is inexcusable. How could your imagination come up with such an image? I never would have thought any Catholic would stoop so low as to defile the name of Mary to win a message board debate.
Maybe you should take a good hard look at yourselves. You escalate from attacking me as a person, to attacking my spirituality, to attacking the image of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Nothing is sacred to you; except of course fertilized eggs.
I want no more part of this discussion.
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
SugarMagnolia - I totally agree.
Maybe some people here should read the book “How to win friends and influence people”?
Maybe some people here should read the book “How to win friends and influence people”?
J
jmcrae
Guest
The horror of killing the most innocent people in the whole world doesn’t bother you at all, does it?
They will continue to be a suffering family. Killing off the next generation will not cause their suffering to end, except in the deaths of all of them, at which point, the family itself (having no heirs) will also cease to exist altogether. (Genocide.) Killing the child will not make his grandmother’s MS go away, or cause his mother to be cured of her illnesses.
I have seen innocent young women bundled into cars and driven away to abortion clinics to “get rid of the problem.” They didn’t even know what was happening to them, or where they were being taken. Once they got there, they were “asked” to make a choice, but really, they knew they would be walking to the women’s shelter (*not *home - they would have been kicked out of their homes) if they decided against the abortion. If these young women had been unable to explain how the pregnancy occurred, they would have been deemed to be far too stupid to decide for themselves, and yes, they would have been frogmarched into the abortion clinic. I have personally seen this happen.
CHILDREN are sacred, no matter how young they may be, and it is the job of adults to take care of the children, yes, even if it may be inconvenient in some way.
L
Lethe
Guest
Woah this argument has gone doooownhill…
*The horror of killing the most innocent people in the whole world doesn’t bother you at all, does it?
That wouldn’t be St Augustine’s view… And anyway, what makes a baby more innocent than someone who has tried to do right all their life? Babies, whilst I love them and don’t think their lives should be belittled in any way, are ignorant of both bad and good at the beginning. There’s nothing wrong with that, maybe it is your view of innocence. But I don’t think this innocence is more important than a non-innocent life.
*they would have been frogmarched into the abortion clinic.
I dont think anyone agrees with this. Agreeing with abortion being legal isn’t the same as agreeing with it being forced upon people - I live in the UK, and I’ve never seen or heard of someone being given an abortion here against their will - it is all down to how the doctors, families and society approach it.
*All the people who have commented on the ‘inconvenience’ of babies being a factor for abortion
This may be a general reason for abortion in society, but remember this is a thread on RAPE. That is more than just inconvenience, and saying that it is relly belittles the emotional and physical distress of women who have been raped.
*The horror of killing the most innocent people in the whole world doesn’t bother you at all, does it?
That wouldn’t be St Augustine’s view… And anyway, what makes a baby more innocent than someone who has tried to do right all their life? Babies, whilst I love them and don’t think their lives should be belittled in any way, are ignorant of both bad and good at the beginning. There’s nothing wrong with that, maybe it is your view of innocence. But I don’t think this innocence is more important than a non-innocent life.
*they would have been frogmarched into the abortion clinic.
I dont think anyone agrees with this. Agreeing with abortion being legal isn’t the same as agreeing with it being forced upon people - I live in the UK, and I’ve never seen or heard of someone being given an abortion here against their will - it is all down to how the doctors, families and society approach it.
*All the people who have commented on the ‘inconvenience’ of babies being a factor for abortion
This may be a general reason for abortion in society, but remember this is a thread on RAPE. That is more than just inconvenience, and saying that it is relly belittles the emotional and physical distress of women who have been raped.
L
LindaSK
Guest
** But I don’t think this innocence is more important than a non-innocent life.** Right. All life is precious. The rapist has rights. He will be represented by legal counsel and go to trial. The unborn have no voice but ours. The unborn have committed no crime. Don’t they deserve legal protection of their rights?
** I’ve never seen or heard of someone being given an abortion here against their will - it is all down to how the doctors, families and society approach it.** There are no teenage girls whose parents tell them to get an abortion or get out? No women who have boyfriends or husbands who want nothing to do with a baby, and threaten to leave unless she gets an abortion? No women who have been raped, and, while under great stress and personal torment, are persuaded by well-meaning friends and medical personal to get an abortion - women who, given proper support and time to heal, would never have made such a choice? People responding under duress do things contrary to their will, because their will has been compromised. A woman who was raped did not will to be raped] They have a feeling of helplessness, and lack of control over the situation, and make choices they normally would not have made.Those choices are all against their will, because their will has been violated.
That is more than just inconvenience, and saying that it is relly belittles the emotional and physical distress of women who have been raped. A woman who has been raped has been traumatized. Keeping her mental and physical distress in mind, to further add to that emotional turmoil the taking of a life is far from helpful. It only compounds the damage that has already been done. Just as the rape cannot be undone, neither can an abortion.
My concern is for all persons involved. All deserve our love and compassion. All are precious in God’s eyes.
N
Ne_OrangeKnight
Guest
Please tell me that I’m not the only one to get a HUGE kick out of such irony.
Sam, the Neon Orange Knight
- Status