Excommunication result of Brazil Girl's abortion

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

My point NCJ is that I know for myself that the evidence provided is not proper evidence. Of course you and anyone else do not know what I am or am not, but clearly I do. And this “evidence” is nonsense, anyone with much introspection knows that one doctor’s medical opinion that the girl wasn’t in imminent danger is in no way a refutation of the better supported medical evidence that a 9 year old pregnant with twins would be at risk.
I’m sure you won’t understand this, based on past experience, but its a very cogent argument.

Lets suppose I give you the WIN on the medical argument and say at a minimum that she was going to be in danger at some future time. Not the day of the abortion, but later. As you pointed out I am no Doctor.

This is Catholic.Com which I for one take to mean that we are talking religious, moral and theological aspects of life. That being said taking away the entire medical argument since this is not a Doctors or Medical forum we can discuss the issue from a theological standpoint

Which life is more precious? I think you would agree that they could have waited a day for the abortion. They could have waited a week, maybe a month, maybe two months. Every minute, every hour, every day would have allowed for viability.

From a purely morale and ethical standpoint choosing death over the possibility of life says something, it means something. The simple fact that in the end the girl would have required medical intervention is a likely given and valid point, but it did not have to be that day.

Even with a WIN in the Doctor knows column killing babies, fetuses, human for me is wrong. In the event that it is necessary to take the babies out, at some future point, and they die then at least the attempt was made to save life, rather then kill life. Someday we, humanity, is going to be able to ensure that life can grow at conception and that will open up event more debate. Should a fetus that the mother wants to kill be allowed to mature in an artificial womb? Boy who has the right to kill then? Does the mother OWN the fetus?

These are all valid topics, the same as the Pygmy slant, in order to make us think how will we view life? Does it belong to the parents to kill? Does it belong to the state? Does it belong to the individual? Does it belong to God.

Personally I don’t trust men, as they have consistently let humanity down over history when given god-like powers. I myself would not give this choice to the state, or to Doctors to decide. In the future when a fetus can survive without the mother I think it should have that right? What about you? What side of life will you be on then? Why is it so different now?

 

[Doc_Keele]

Lets suppose I give you the WIN on the medical argument and say at a minimum that she was going to be in danger at some future time. Not the day of the abortion, but later. As you pointed out I am no Doctor.

This is Catholic.Com which I for one take to mean that we are talking religious, moral and theological aspects of life. That being said taking away the entire medical argument since this is not a Doctors or Medical forum we can discuss the issue from a theological standpoint

Which life is more precious? I think you would agree that they could have waited a day for the abortion. They could have waited a week, maybe a month, maybe two months. Every minute, every hour, every day would have allowed for viability.

From a purely morale and ethical standpoint choosing death over the possibility of life says something, it means something. The simple fact that in the end the girl would have required medical intervention is a likely given and valid point, but it did not have to be that day.

Even with a WIN in the Doctor knows column killing babies, fetuses, human for me is wrong. In the event that it is necessary to take the babies out, at some future point, and they die then at least the attempt was made to save life, rather then kill life. Someday we, humanity, is going to be able to ensure that life can grow at conception and that will open up event more debate. Should a fetus that the mother wants to kill be allowed to mature in an artificial womb? Boy who has the right to kill then? Does the mother OWN the fetus?

These are all valid topics, the same as the Pygmy slant, in order to make us think how will we view life? Does it belong to the parents to kill? Does it belong to the state? Does it belong to the individual? Does it belong to God.

Personally I don’t trust men, as they have consistently let humanity down over history when given god-like powers. I myself would not give this choice to the state, or to Doctors to decide. In the future when a fetus can survive without the mother I think it should have that right? What about you? What side of life will you be on then? Why is it so different now?

Speculating about what might be possible in the future is no help for us now, so let’s not go down a fruitless avenue.

What about the foetus means that its rights are deemed to automatically trump the expectant mother’s? Why is it more pro-life to let two people (in singleton pregnancies) die instead of one?

Token efforts to save non-viable babies intuitively don’t alter the morality of the act.

 

[St_Francis]

Speculating about what might be possible in the future is no help for us now, so let’s not go down a fruitless avenue.

But that is what your argument is resting upon, no?

What about the foetus means that its rights are deemed to automatically trump the expectant mother’s?

We are talking about two human lives, made in the image and likeness of God. The doctor’s efforts should be towards trying to save *both *lives, not killing off one of his patients. What about the mother means that her rights are deemed to automatically trump the baby’s? Their rights are *equal. *

Why is it more pro-life to let two people (in singleton pregnancies) die instead of one?

We cannot conquer death, which is an event; but we can conquer killing, which is an act. We do not “let two people die,” we try to save both and accept our human limitations.

Token efforts to save non-viable babies intuitively don’t alter the morality of the act.

Hmmm, if there is a patient close to death and I go in and shoot him, the result is the same: in both cases they would be dead. But you can see that the morality of each example differs.

And I would have thought that a person interested in, iirc, logical and philosophical discussion would not rely on intuition (while not accepting that it is intuitively difficult to understand the difference between trying to save someone and killing them off).

 

[Doc_Keele]

But that is what your argument is resting upon, no?

eh?

We are talking about two human lives, made in the image and likeness of God. The doctor’s efforts should be towards trying to save *both *lives, not killing off one of his patients. What about the mother means that her rights are deemed to automatically trump the baby’s? Their rights are *equal. *

Apparently not.

We cannot conquer death, which is an event; but we can conquer killing, which is an act. We do not “let two people die,” we try to save both and accept our human limitations

You let a rigid moral absolutism prevent mitigation of a tragedy.

Hmmm, if there is a patient close to death and I go in and shoot him, the result is the same: in both cases they would be dead. But you can see that the morality of each example differs

Not sure what your point is here,

And I would have thought that a person interested in, iirc, logical and philosophical discussion would not rely on intuition (while not accepting that it is intuitively difficult to understand the difference between trying to save someone and killing them off).

No so actually, StF - intuition is often mentioned in philosophical articles. Not listening to intuition leads one to bizarre positions eg saying salpingectomy is not direct abortion but salpingostomy is.

 

[sedonaman]

Rich irony, considering you still haven’t provided a source for the quote you posted upthread…

He doesn’t need sources; he thinks for himself.

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

Speculating about what might be possible in the future is no help for us now, so let’s not go down a fruitless avenue…

I am not going to let you get off that easily… because speculation of the future is EXACTLY what happened when they killed the two humans. Not acknowledge the cost does a disservice and will inevitably allow it to happen in the future unless those responsible for the killing look into their conscience to see if forcing these deaths was warranted on pure unadulterated speculation.

What about the fetus means that its rights are deemed to automatically trump the expectant mother’s? Why is it more pro-life to let two people (in singleton pregnancies) die instead of one? .

I never said that and in fact you are now trying to speculate on the future, but your opening sentence said that speculation was not allowed? But I am more fair then you and I will grant you the right to speculate since lives, human lives, might depend our your fairness and humanity someday. Lets say that in the future the girl needed a C section because of imminent danger. Then as the medical necessity dictates a C section could have been performed and if the children died it would have been a tragedy, something based on trying to preserve life, not a cold hearted decision, that did not need to be made on that day. They should have been allowed to mature, to give them a chance at life.

Token efforts to save non-viable babies intuitively don’t alter the morality of the act.

If I thought that it would only have been a token effort, something destined to fail you might be right, but that is not a given and to say so is neither compassionate or medically sound. As a doctor you know that the will to live has human beings surviving under extraordinary circumstances. If these babies had been given a little more time they might have survived just fine in a neo-natal unit. With even a 5% chance should we not have tried? Or do you believe in rationed health care?

If you were walking by an elderly man that has fallen and impaled himself on a spike what would your response be. What if you knew he only had a 2% chance of survival and he is already like 70 years old? Do you ignore him, and ration care that obviously could be used for a younger person or do you attempt to help him. You know that your attempt will not unduly risk you or anybody else in the attempt as your safety efforts are being watched and monitored by other professionals.

This discussion is not about the medical viability of the infants it is about the fundamental goodness of humanity. It is about the decision of rationed health care. The decision not to try in defense of life, but to wantonly kill because it was either the most expediant or the cheapest… and that is really all their is to this because they did not NEED to do it that day, they could have waited.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Prognostication is not what I was referring to when I mentioned speculation about the future - I was alluding to the comments about artificial wombs etc. Much of modern medical treatment is based on a knowledge of the natural history of various diseases, so diagnosis and prognosis are both important. Would a surgeon wait until someone’s 6cm abdominal aortic aneurysm burst before operating?

Rationing of healthcare is a completely different topic, so let’s not muddy the waters?

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

Jeff,

Please refrain from using sarcasm and smarm. Although everyone obviously does not agree on this issue, the majority of us on the forum are quite happy to respectfully engage in legitimate debate.

You give me far to much credit. I would have to actually know what a Smarm was to be able to either do one or not… Are those the cute little blue cartoons creatures my kids watch on Saturday?

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

Prognostication is not what I was referring to when I mentioned speculation about the future - I was alluding to the comments about artificial wombs etc. Much of modern medical treatment is based on a knowledge of the natural history of various diseases, so diagnosis and prognosis are both important. Would a surgeon wait until someone’s 6cm abdominal aortic aneurysm burst before operating?

Rationing of health care is a completely different topic, so let’s not muddy the waters?

Come on now you like to muddy the waters when it suits you… And withholding procedures happens all the time. What happens with a women with Preeclampsia? They monitor her until either it is too dangerouse for her or the child is far enough along so they can take it. That is what they do unless they want to kill it and then they make a death choice.

I know you don’t like internet sources, but you can check it out here, or even in your library?
highbloodpressure.about.com/od/preeclampsia/f/preeclamp_trt.htm

 

[Doc_Keele]

Come on now you like to muddy the waters when it suits you… And withholding procedures happens all the time. What happens with a women with Preeclampsia? They monitor her until either it is too dangerouse for her or the child is far enough along so they can take it. That is what they do unless they want to kill it and then they make a death choice.

I know you don’t like internet sources, but you can check it out here, or even in your library?
highbloodpressure.about.com/od/preeclampsia/f/preeclamp_trt.htm

Of course I need a tutorial on “preeclampsia” (or pregnancy-induced hypertension)…
your argument is flawed. What works for one condition doesn’t work for another.

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

Of course I need a tutorial on “preeclampsia” (or pregnancy-induced hypertension)…
your argument is flawed. What works for one condition doesn’t work for another.

My argument is not flawed. It posses a parallel with regards to time and necessity of a C section. They did not have to take the twins that day, they could have waited. They could have waited an hour, a day, a week, a month. They could have “attempted” to save the children. The simple fact is they decided not to. It was not medically NECESSARY to do so THAT day. Maybe in the future, but not THAT day.

You keep posting as if we are in a High School debating class with one side Pro-French fry and the other mashed. This for me is a fundamental concern when Doctor do not take the Hippocratic oath seriously. If they don’t care fine, but they should come out and say that they are pro-death and not pro-life. In this case with alternative choices you either agree that taking the lives on THAT day was ok or not and that pretty much decides which side of the oath you are on.

 

[Doc_Keele]

OK, find me ONE medical school that takes the original Hippocratic Oath?
You don’t know much about medical ethics, otherwise you’d know that this procrastination would not be considered ethical by most medics.Waiting for an emergency to develop is not even commonsense, leave alone good medicine.

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

OK, find me ONE medical school that takes the original Hippocratic Oath?
You don’t know much about medical ethics, otherwise you’d know that this procrastination would not be considered ethical by most medics.Waiting for an emergency to develop is not even commonsense, leave alone good medicine.

Nope… Even if I did find one, which is unlikely although a catholic university might have the sentence we both know I am talking about, you would not allow me to use it. Why? Because you refuse to accept any evidence.

Again this is about time… Can you agree they could have waited ONE day and not unduly risked the girl?

 

[Doc_Keele]

Nope… Even if I did find one, which is unlikely although a catholic university might have the sentence we both know I am talking about, you would not allow me to use it. Why? Because you refuse to accept any evidence.

Again this is about time… Can you agree they could have waited ONE day and not unduly risked the girl?

NOOO, I don’t refuse to accept any evidence clearly. I can absolutely guarantee that a Catholic University would not use the original Hippocratic Oath, and many medical schools use variants of the Geneva Declaration.

You come back to this procrastination thing. What would be the purpose in procrastinating?

dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1213168/Fawziya-Abdullah-Youssef-dies-labour-Child-bride-12-dies-Yemen-struggling-birth-THREE-days.html

 

[sedonaman]

My argument is not flawed. … In this case with alternative choices you either agree that taking the lives on THAT day was ok or not and that pretty much decides which side of the oath you are on.

He never explains why an argument is flawed or whatever is wrong with it in his opinion. In his mind, it is enough to make the statement for it to be true.

As far as alternative choices are concerned, in the mind of a pro-abortionist, there is only one choice, which is not a choice at all if there is no other. The answer is like the law in Reign of Terror France: “the punishment for theft was death; the punishment for the illegal opener of a letter was death”, etc. So the solution to any problem, moral, financial, medical, whatever, [even if only a potential problem] being faced by a pregnant woman, is abortion. Here is an example, taken from,

The Statement of Brenda Pratt Shafer, R.N.,
Before the Subcommittee on the Constitution
Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. House of Representatives
Hearing on The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (HR 1833)
March 21, 1996:

…I have been a nurse for a long time and I have seen a lot of death – people maimed in auto accidents, gunshot wounds, you name it. I have seen surgical procedures of every sort. But in all my professional years, I had never witnessed anything like this [abortion].
The woman wanted to see her baby [thought to have Down’s Syndrome, the reason for the abortion], so they cleaned up the baby and put it in a blanket and handed the baby to her. She cried the whole time, and she kept saying, “I’m so sorry, please forgive me!” I was crying too. I couldn’t take it. That baby boy had the most perfect angelic face I have ever seen.

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

NOOO, I don’t refuse to accept any evidence clearly. I can absolutely guarantee that a Catholic University would not use the original Hippocratic Oath, and many medical schools use variants of the Geneva Declaration.

You come back to this procrastination thing. What would be the purpose in procrastinating?

dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1213168/Fawziya-Abdullah-Youssef-dies-labour-Child-bride-12-dies-Yemen-struggling-birth-THREE-days.html

I NEVER said the whole oath… I said the sentence you KNOW I am talking about. That being said in our culture of death you would likely not have wanted to say that particular sentence anyway, would you?

As for the prograstination I want you to commit either way to ONE minute. Was her life in such danger that you could not have waited ONE minute, or was it safe to wait ONE minute. Please do not ride the knife edge answer the question for ONE minute or not.

This is easy…like swallowing…water…

 

[Doc_Keele]

Hey Sedona -

 

[Doc_Keele]

I NEVER said the whole oath… I said the sentence you KNOW I am talking about. That being said in our culture of death you would likely not have wanted to say that particular sentence anyway, would you?

As for the prograstination I want you to commit either way to ONE minute. Was her life in such danger that you could not have waited ONE minute, or was it safe to wait ONE minute. Please do not ride the knife edge answer the question for ONE minute or not.

This is easy…like swallowing…water…

Like I say, the Hippocratic Oath isn’t sworn for various reasons - so discussing it is pretty pointless.
Can you say what the point in procrastinating 1 minute would be?
NO.
This really is getting nowhere NCJ. If you haven’t got anything new and relevant to say, maybe we should leave it here?

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

NOOO, I don’t refuse to accept any evidence clearly. I can absolutely guarantee that a Catholic University would not use the original Hippocratic Oath, and many medical schools use variants of the Geneva Declaration.

You come back to this procrastination thing. What would be the purpose in procrastinating?

dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1213168/Fawziya-Abdullah-Youssef-dies-labour-Child-bride-12-dies-Yemen-struggling-birth-THREE-days.html

HOT DIGITTY DOG… we get to use posts… Here is one… for you.
dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1247889/Chinese-girl-9-gives-birth-health-baby-boy.html

I would not want either, but if the girl in Yemen had a decent Doctor, one that cared about both lives they probably would have both made it. I am not so one sided… I say lets TRY to save them both like in my story… Actually if you read done a little you will see the story of the 5 year old Peruvian girl that had a child by C section… They both lived…I guess life is too much to ask for some…

 

[Doc_Keele]

Who’s ever said that girls of that age cannot give birth? Not me.
There’s chain smokers who live to be 90 - it doesn’t prove that smoking isn’t bad for me:shrug: