Transgender Suit Against Catholic Hospital Moves Ahead

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, I think that the hospital’s rationale was that it was not willing to remove a perfectly healthy organ simply on a whim.
 
I don’t understand why this confused person can’t just go to a different hospital. Why force your beliefs down the Catholic hospital’s metaphorical throat? It’s the Christian bakery vs the couple whos sin cries out to heaven all over again.
 
Last edited:
Actually, the patient did go to a different hospital and got the hysterectomy a few days later. But they are still suing the Catholic hospital because they were refused.
 
The case ought to be thrown out than. There is literally no claim of damages to this person.
 
Don’t lawsuits end when there is no “injured person”. What would the court rule - that the hospital has to allow a hysterectomy for the plantaive? They’ve already had one.
 
Exactly. Some of those people love taking the opportunity to destroy the Church’s reputation. They seem to feel that any institution that doesn’t support their wanting to “change” their sex must be humiliated and embarrassed. Well, having just been watching a film about how St John Paul II and his fellow Catholics suffered under the Nazi regime, I know that the Church will never give in.
 
I honestly don’t get this if someone wanted there arm cut off because they didn’t like it the person wouldnt be taken seriously. This is perfectly alright though. It makes me made that Catholics have to conform to this nonsense.
 
This has gone too far. We have boys working in girls powerlifting competitions and track competitions and cleaning up. We have this situation. It’s all happening because progressives have narrowly defined being tolerant and non discriminatory as having to allow anything anyone wants so long as they are identifying as a different gender.

I read a bit yesterday about Australian psychologists saying that it might be proper to force a parent to let their minor child transition.

This is going to take courage and an asbestos suit to stop. I have tremendous sympathy for those suffering from gender dysphoria. They should be treated with dignity and respect. That does not mean that it is right, or even healthy for them to completely cater to them.
 
Exactly, we should love them like God calls us to do, but we shouldn’t enable them. You don’t give a heroin addict permission to do heroin and hope he will come to his senses eventually.
 
I’m not sure the logic here. If the premise of the lawsuit is that the surgery wasn’t done because the patient is transgender, and if the hospital wouldn’t perform the surgery for anyone, how so the even have a case? The premise is fundamentally flawed?

“Don’t attribute to malice what can be reasonably attributed to ignorance.”
 
Last edited:
Only a matter of time before a biological woman insists on receiving a transurethral prostatectomy.
 
Because it’s not about the operation, the cake, or any “rights”. It’s about attempting to force the Church to cave in and support the dumpster fire that is modern culture.

I read elsewhere that the patient had difficulty driving to the other hospital. Something about having tranny problems.🤣
 
How do you perform an operation to remove what doesn’t exist. Give enough anesthesia to put it under, make scar, then PACU? The individual (no pronouns to hurt feelings) should get one incredible hospital bill. If this nonsense does not stop the US will find itself in a full fledged Civil War.
 
Yeah, well, Catholic schools might be the next to go. And Catholic doctors, Catholic Lawyers, Catholic teachers, etc. It just goes on from there.
 
We’re aren’t discussing whether or not people are terrible. We’re discussing whether or not it is appropriate to assume malice over ignorance in this case.

But if you really want to say that because people are terrible then this person must be acting maliciously, then I say that because people are terrible then you must rape altar boys. (Again, not literally saying that. Just making a rhetorical point, though if you demande I tone it down, then I’ll just say that you’re only assuming malice by self-projection, again under the same rhetorical point.)

False equivalence: Things like rape are, by their nature, mistreatment. Seeking a medical operation is not.

Being common knowledge among those who care deeply about the subject (in this case Catholic teaching) does not translate to common knowledge among the general population. One would think that it is common knowledge that the Church teachings the Eucharist is Christ’s literal body and blood, yet even many Catholics don’t know that that is what the Church teaches. For that reason, it seems awfully presumptuous to assume that this person was aware of this relatively less common teaching on hysterectomies, especially since we don’t know how much the doctor led on that it might take place, given that they were “barred”, at least according to the article. (And on a personal level, it wasn’t until college that I learned Catholics were against abortion, contraception, etc., and I only learned that because I started looking more deeply at what other Christian groups believed.)

Granted, if you can actually show that this is common knowledge, then I’ll grant you that. But again, you have to show that. You can’t just simply say it is, because studies on other “common knowledge” matters have shown that they weren’t as “common knowledge” as we thought.

Except this person, to my knowledge, hasn’t claimed to have sought the procedure so that they could sue, so your analogy hardly applies here, since they haven’t said anything in line with how we’d interpret malice.

One anecdote that barely delves into what was going on in the family’s lives beyond what suits your narrative hardly counts as a “pattern”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top