The left and family separations

  • Thread starter Thread starter John1956
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Truly makes you think of 1 John 4

If anyone says, “I love God,” but hates his brother, he is a liar; for whoever does not love a brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. This is the commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother.
 
Last edited:
The ectopic pregnancy is an example of double effect, in the same way you can treat medical conditions with birth control or unintentionally kill a baby during a life saving procedure on the mother. I’m pretty sure castration to make you appear to be the opposite sex would oppose church teaching since the Catholic Church teaches that the sex you are born is never an accident. Another example would be the mental illness some people have where they think they are meant to be blind or a double amputee. I think “treatment” of such things by granting the wish would be considered sinful as well.
 
Yes, I read a post from a liberal Mexican American(through marriage) facebook “friend”(pretty sure not prolife in the least since she promotes the ACLU) that “just because something is illegal doesn’t mean its wrong, or legal doesn’t mean its right”. Um…yeah prolifers have been saying that for a long time, but they fall back on “SCOTUS said abortion is a right.” I’d say the right to life is more of an inherent right than forcing your way into my country and demanding another nation’s welfare funds for your children.
 
ZMystiCat answered this a couple of posts after the first time you posted this and more thoroughly than I.
40.png
The left and family separations Social Justice
Part of the issue with the Church’s language right now is that it appears to not make a definitive statement regarding sex reassignment surgery, at least within the catechism. According to CCC 2297: The thing is that most people seeking SRS would say that it is therapeutic, and there is evidence to show that it does have a positive psychological impact on the patient. Unfortunately, most Catholics who cite CCC 2297 to oppose SRS tend to forget that. That said, the Church in general does have …
Click to expand...
 
Again, we wait on science to determine the cause. If science proves that there is a genetic or other medical reason, then, the moral thing to do is to treat the condition. Mental illness is a real, legitimate illness and treating that illness may take many forms.
Gingersnaps4 said:
I think “treatment” of such things by granting the wish would be considered sinful as well.
Click to expand...
Treating a real illness is not simply “granting a wish”. While, yes, we with chronic illnesses do wish for a cure, to trivialize the treatment is rather cruel.
 
Last edited:
The Church hasn’t specifically addressed the issue of castration for men who think they’re women, or on the first Tuesday of the month, or when there’s a war on, etc.

The Church isn’t obliged to address every hypothetical variant of an immoral type of action.
 
My point is that someone can SAY something is therapeutic all they want to but that doesn’t make it a moral option. “Live your truth” is a very common line of thought these days that is often times wrong.
 
Yes sex change operations involve grave matter, full knowledge, deliberation and consent- the requirements for a mortal sin. They are hardly an impulsive decision.
 
So would you say that blinding and cutting off the legs of someone who feels they should have been born that way is morally neutral if it would make them feel better?

There really are cases of people whose brains were washed with the wrong hormones or at the wrong times in utero and so those people truly can be left feeling from birth that they are in the wrong body. But those numbers had been shown to be minuscule compared to the numbers of people who now identify as the opposite gender with the current popularity of this issue. I feel that people with this condition deserve compassion and there needs to be treatment that balances truly helping the person without radically mutilating their bodies in an irreversible way.
 
Last edited:
And my point is that SRS can be therapeutic even if you don’t like it or want it to be helpful.

Look, my mom had ALS and there was nothing controversial about her cares and treatment, but the well meaning suggestions and assertions about how she was experiencing the disease were unhelpful. Even though they were friends and family they chose not to so basic research and were ignorant about it. ALS may not get the exposure the GID does atm but most people are ignorant about GID, how it manifests differently, that persons living with it take different approaches. Not all want surgery but if it addresses severe dysphoria.
 
Gingersnaps4 said:
So would you say that blinding and cutting off the legs of someone who feels they should have been born that way is morally neutral if it would make them feel better?
Click to expand...
I don’t agree with how you’ve worded it so I’m not answering the question as you’ve phrased it but I think I know what you are asking and, yes, I think that is therapeutic also.
Gingersnaps4 said:
there needs to be treatment that balances truly helping the person without radically mutilating their bodies in an irreversible way
Click to expand...
And until then? With out knowing the cause or coming close to a treatment that works for all it will take a very long time, and it won’t be in our lifetime.

A have friends who live with various autoimmune diseases. One is often called the snowflake disease because how the disease manifests from one patient to the next, plus their treatment is as different as snowflakes.

I think it is unwise to take one treatment off the table because you still think it’s a sin even though the catechism says otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Yes I understand what you mean. I have 2 pretty severe autoimmune diseases and get “advice” about treatments all the time. I really believe that one day this period in time with SRS will be looked back on the way lobotomies are now. There may be cases where radically mutilating a persons body will cure them but I believe those cases are few and far between. Can everyone agree this whole issue can be a very slippery slope? It started out as a very rare thing with adults only and now children are given drugs to stop puberty if they feel this way, and underage teens are given hormones etc many times against parental wishes. Psychiatrists can even get in trouble at times if they don’t affirm a child’s desire to be the opposite sex and rather try to treat the real problems instead. Right now this is more of a political issue than a scientific one, for sure!
 
And ok bear with me now but the thing that is most telling about the nature of the issue being political rather than scientific is the fact that it is fine and acceptable to identify as the opposite sex but it is NOT fine and you will be mocked and bullied and blacklisted from society…basically treated the way homosexuals used to be treated…, if you happen to identify as a different race. When scientifically, you are much closer to being genetically closer to different races of people than you are to someone of the opposite sex and people can legitimately become immersed another culture or life experience and feel that they were meant to have been born in it.
 
Last edited:
Even if it were 100% scientifically sound, physical mutilation would still not be a morally justifiable response to psychological issues.
 
I don’t think so. Lobotomies were often done against the patients will, were often done to make things easier for everyone but the patient, and created more problems for the patient.
 
I equate transitioning children and teens whose brains aren’t fully developed to the way lobotomies were addressed in the past. It’s the “easiest” in the climate of our society.
 
I don’t have a problem with puberty blockers but I think hormones/ HRT should be delayed. But medical professional should considere these on a case by case basis.
 
In my opinion, people who give harmful drugs to children should be put up at state expense for the rest of their lives. YMMV.
 
I see the same dichotomy with the far right, who scream about the rights of the unborn but complain about every dime that goes to the poor. In my view, those who object to helping and caring for those in need are not pro -life. They are simply pro-birth. In the case of the children at the border, I see no need for us to turn our heads from one humanitarian crisis because of another humanitarian crisis. We should never allow ourselves to be distracted from the tasks that attend the preservation of a decent society, where the well-being of all children (young or old) is never a matter of debate.
 
Gingersnaps4 said:
So would you say that blinding and cutting off the legs of someone who feels they should have been born that way is morally neutral if it would make them feel better?
Click to expand...
I would leave that decision to the medical professionals. If they determine this is the only treatment, the last resort, that is the when it becomes therapeutic.

Would you link me to these studies?
Gingersnaps4 said:
There really are cases of people whose brains were washed with the wrong hormones or at the wrong times in utero and so those people truly can be left feeling from birth that they are in the wrong body. But those numbers had been shown to be minuscule
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top