Z
Zatzat
Guest
I’m here to discuss Sister Margaret and the life she saved. I wish you’d be so kind as to do the same. I’ve told you before, I’m a man. Why you continue to call me a she, is beyond me.
- Status
S
Soutane
Guest
You,ve NEVER denied being female to me-so don’t get your posters mixed up.The ramifications of this nuns errant decision goes far beyond a "life"which is completely uncertain was saved.You can’t murder someone to save yourself-that is eklementary even to those who live by natural law alopne.And no,you don’t get to dictate the parameters of these threads MISTER.I’m here to discuss Sister Margaret and the life she saved. I wish you’d be so kind as to do the same. I’ve told you before, I’m a man. Why you continue to call me a she, is beyond me.
Z
Zatzat
Guest
Truth…I can’t recall which poster kept calling me a woman…I thought it was you and if I’m mistaken, sorry.
We agree to disagree.
S
Soutane
Guest
“We agree to disagree”.
On MURDER???
I think that goes beyong the niceities of disagreement bubba.I’m sure that’s what a Nazi executioner probably told his concerned spouse but it didn’t work out too well for him in the end,did it?
This fight is just beginning and there are those who will be held accountable when the dust settles.Not small fry like you but the modern day Margaret Sangsters and their Kapos.
On MURDER???
I think that goes beyong the niceities of disagreement bubba.I’m sure that’s what a Nazi executioner probably told his concerned spouse but it didn’t work out too well for him in the end,did it?
This fight is just beginning and there are those who will be held accountable when the dust settles.Not small fry like you but the modern day Margaret Sangsters and their Kapos.
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Actually, you are wrong…absolutely wrong.
The Sister’s vote made no difference to the life of the Mother. Here is why.
1.Sister…absolutely knew that this would be a direct abortion… A direct attack ].
2.Treating the baby as if it was a disease. The baby was not the disease…Sister knew this ]
With these two facts alone…one doesn’t even have to look up Church Teachings. Canon law ]
Sister knew it would be wrong to give her consent or participate.
There were no hard choices to make.
She wasn’t forced to participate / consent… Her “conscious clause” prevents that ].she did so voluntarily and with full knowledge of the two above listed facts…gave her approval.
You see, the Mother’s health…need not be debated.
Canon Law need not be debated.
The Good Sister…didn’t have to give her vote. I’m sure if she had abstained under the Conscious Clause …**the ethics committee would have carried in without her. Instead, **
Good Sister promoted this Abortion as a “Morally Righteous Act”. She had a choice…a simple choice…“I abstain from vote under my Conscious Clause”. This would not have endangered anyone. She could also have voted no…and the ethics committee would over-rule her nay vote.
Her vote…was not needed to save the life of the Mother…but it might have helped sway doctors to save the life of the baby.
S
Soutane
Guest
Kimmie you are an absolute credit to the knowlege and orthodoxy of CA,Thank you for explaining it so logically and simply.After that retort Zatzat will disappear then reappear spouting the same inanitieson a different thread.that is HIS usual modus operandi.If you don
your years.Your parents have done a wonderful job and are to be congratulated.Kudos to you!
t mind me asking,how old are youyour wisdom beliesyour years.Your parents have done a wonderful job and are to be congratulated.Kudos to you!
E
Eric_Hilbert
Guest
stay on topic!
Z
Zatzat
Guest
I think the issue is that she chose to make a decision. She wanted to make a decision and I would suspect that she thought she was certain that she was doing the right thing.
P
phoenixrrt62
Guest
So, under the tenants of your religion, you do not kill a child, no matter what? Right?
I think I am understanding this.
So, if the sister didn’t have to vote…I’m guessing here that not all on the committee are RC.
That, yeah, I can understand. I am guessing she wanted to make a point that it was something that needed to be done, and that she was in agreement, and therefore she broke the tenant of your religion? and now she is no longer RC?
(darn, I have to get, my battery is dying on the netbook…)
O
OriginalJS
Guest
This whole scenario presents a classical ethics problem involving decisions that will save one person by sacrificing another. The Catholic answer is simply that under no circumstance (with exceptions, protection of others, self-defense, war etc.) may one person be deliberately killed to save another even if the result is that more may die. The rule is tough, but easily understandable and it avoids ethical pitfalls by keeping everybody on the same page. Those who disagree should avoid Catholic hospitals in certain circumstances.
O
Ockham
Guest
There are no laws of any kind regarding abortion in Canada. It is perfectly legal to stick a pair of scissors in a baby’s head as it comes down the birth canal.
President Bush outlawed partial birth abortions. President Obama repealed it.
Z
Zatzat
Guest
There ar no criminal laws governing abortion in Canada. Now, if you would be so kind as to please cite one case where medical satff stuck a pair of scissors into a babies head or otherwise deliberately prevented the baby from breathing as the baby came down the birth canal.
P
phoenixrrt62
Guest
with exceptions,*** protection of others***, self-defense, war etc.
-as I understand it, the mother’s life was protected, yes?
So…perhaps this is why the sister was in agreement?
(my head is swimming here…)
-and I can understand your comment that if someone does not agree with the tenants of the RC church, they should not use a Catholic hospital, but what if they have no choice in the matter, what if that was the nearest ER, and the person’s life was in danger?
I, I understand where you are coming from, least I think I do, but…I cannot say I agree. My head aches, and so does my heart…wow, just…wow.
I just keep thinking of that poor family…
Does the nun get to keep her job at the hospital at least, working in a secular capacity, or was her function strictly religious? I’m curious…
J
JReducation
Guest
O
Ockham
Guest
How are we to know when it isn’t a criminal act?
F
FidesSpesCarita
Guest
Protection of others comes into play only when there is a threat of physical violence. If someone has a gun to your head and is about to pull the trigger, I would be licitly allowed to stop them by any means up toi and including their death.
If someone is passing a disease (no threat of imminent death) it would be morally illicit to kill that person except as an ABSOLUTE last resort (i.e. if there is no way to contain them and they are doing it purposefully).
In this case, as kimmie put it, the child was not a disease, not the primary cause, there was no intent to harm on the baby’s part, etc. etc. Therefore it is NEVER morally licit to kill the baby.
Essentially it comes down to intent. Does the one being killed INTEND harm? If so it is morally permissible in some situations to kill them and spare another. If there is no INTENT of harm, it is never permissible to end their life. The ends cannot justify the means, else all things be allowed.
But thats just one man’s opinion.
FSC
P
phoenixrrt62
Guest
Protection of others comes into play only when there is a threat of physical violence. If someone has a gun to your head and is about to pull the trigger, I would be licitly allowed to stop them by any means up toi and including their death.
If someone is passing a disease (no threat of imminent death) it would be morally illicit to kill that person except as an ABSOLUTE last resort (i.e. if there is no way to contain them and they are doing it purposefully).
Ok, I get that…but…if the woman was in danger of losing her life, along with the child, I might add…this constitutes an ABSOLUTE last resort? Or no?
***I need to really read further into this, I just read the one article…was it one of those things they did in the ER to save the woman’s life right away?
In this case, as kimmie put it, the child was not a disease, not the primary cause, there was no intent to harm on the baby’s part, etc. etc. Therefore it is NEVER morally licit to kill the baby.
Essentially it comes down to intent. Does the one being killed INTEND harm?
***Well, no. It’s an unborn child. ***
Ok. So that would explain people saying the death penalty was justified, but this statement is pulling the conversation OT…so…
If so it is morally permissible in some situations to kill them and spare another.
If there is no INTENT of harm, it is never permissible to end their life. The ends cannot justify the means, else all things be allowed.
***Ok, yes, following that logic, yes, I see why you are coming to that conclusion.
However…I cannot bring myself to agree. Sorry, I cannot.
It makes you think, though. Really, it does.
Thank you.
Just…how sad. SO, so sad.***
But thats just one man’s opinion.
Yes. An informed one, for sure. I…well, I just can’t bring myself to agree.
If someone is passing a disease (no threat of imminent death) it would be morally illicit to kill that person except as an ABSOLUTE last resort (i.e. if there is no way to contain them and they are doing it purposefully).
Ok, I get that…but…if the woman was in danger of losing her life, along with the child, I might add…this constitutes an ABSOLUTE last resort? Or no?
***I need to really read further into this, I just read the one article…was it one of those things they did in the ER to save the woman’s life right away?
In this case, as kimmie put it, the child was not a disease, not the primary cause, there was no intent to harm on the baby’s part, etc. etc. Therefore it is NEVER morally licit to kill the baby.
Essentially it comes down to intent. Does the one being killed INTEND harm?
***Well, no. It’s an unborn child. ***
Ok. So that would explain people saying the death penalty was justified, but this statement is pulling the conversation OT…so…
If so it is morally permissible in some situations to kill them and spare another.
If there is no INTENT of harm, it is never permissible to end their life. The ends cannot justify the means, else all things be allowed.
***Ok, yes, following that logic, yes, I see why you are coming to that conclusion.
However…I cannot bring myself to agree. Sorry, I cannot.
It makes you think, though. Really, it does.
Thank you.
Just…how sad. SO, so sad.***
But thats just one man’s opinion.
Yes. An informed one, for sure. I…well, I just can’t bring myself to agree.
O
Ockham
Guest
What will this woman say to her child if by God’s mercy she meets him or her in Heaven?
St. Gianna pray for her.
St. Gianna pray for her.
Z
Zatzat
Guest
Perhpas something along the lines of;
I lived a good life, now let us enjoy eternity in heaven.
K
kimmielittle
Guest
You are welcome
I’m not supposed to tell that on line. But I have a long time till I get to vote
My Big Brother and my conservators…get the credit, for anything I get right
Thank you
- Status