So you are changing your tune from “Wish I could do something about it, but I can’t” to “I could do something about it, but I don’t want to bother.”
You’re just medically wrong. A fertilized egg may mean a person. More often it means nothing at all. Go look up the terms aneuploidy, early miscarriage, chemical pregnancy and the rates of good eggs even in young women and get back to me.
The fact that your church feels comfortable telling women to go through an invasive medical procedure solely because they cannot distinguish between a person and fertilized egg incapable of life is revolting.
This is not about a philosphical disagreement. This is about women ill served by bad medicine practiced by people ludicrously claiming to hold the high moral ground.
How influential are the lay positions on the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops? Are there examples of public statements by any of them about the RCC should change? Were any of these changes made?
I meant that as a priest and catholic he has rights regarding any judgement ion canon law, and that as a citizen he also has all the protections of civil law esp. presumption of innocence. Cleaning up house would definitely entail some police action if criminals are found.
Sure. Because a person’s race is the exact same thing as belonging to an organization that has an ugly history of willfully shielding pedophiles. If the Catholic church has an image problem it has only itself to blame right now.
I’m not familiar with the canon rights you describe (feel free to elaborate) but in any case, other organizations can reassign or fire personnel with or without the involvement of the police.
Question, Bricker – what is the Church’s policy on an abortion for an already dead fetus? Like, if during an exam, it is discovered that the fetus has died in utero, surely an abortion is allowed in this case, right?
Believe me, Bricker, I get no pleasure from this thread. I was raised Catholic, and while I have fond memories of my friends and teachers from school, I’ll be damned if I ever raise any child of mine in the Church. And if I ever get married, I’d always wanted to do so in the church I grew up in – I was baptised, confirmed, and had my communion there. But that’s impossible.
It isn’t the bashers turning against the church – it’s the Church turning the people away with their actions.
At least YOUR analogies make a bit of sense.
Medically wrong? Really?
Aneuploidy refers to missing and/or extra chromosones, IIRC. A person with Down’s syndrome is a victim of this disorder. Surely you’re not saying that, medically, a Down’s syndrome sufferer is not a person?
Why don’t you tell me what medically invalidates my claim that a ferticlized egg is not a person?
If I am, I would note it’s in response to you changing your tune and my wish to keep up with the melody.
The fact is, it doesn’t matter if the egg is a person, a cell, or the fifteenth Dalai Lama. The egg has got to go in this circumstance. If the egg does not die, person or not, then the mother is going to die AND the egg is still going to die. This egg is on its way out one way or another. Now, there are a few ways the egg can die - the church requires that you take the more dangerous, more invasive one for no reason other than some weird work-around of their rules. That is some whack shit.
Well, actually, Down Syndrome is one of the very few aneuplodal conditions that allow survival at all. Most such disorders leads to spontaneous abortion or death shortly after birth.
I’m just mentioning this for the heck of it.
I thought that bore some repeating. If the embryo is dying, or will die, it makes no sense to risk the mother’s life and thereby cause her death too.
The vast majority of Catholic priests never abused anyone and I’m sure most of them were not directly involved in the coverups or had any knowledge of them. While I think their religion, like all religions, is fucking retarded, I can at least appreciate the sentiment of a person who wishes to dedicate their life to serving others, which is in theory what a priest does, and was the goal for many if not most of them. So for you to treat every single priest like a potential pedophile because of the actions of their institution is, IMO, almost as grossly unfair as treating every Black man like a potential thief. (Look, I’ll even bring some choice into the scenario: you can feel comfortable with a Black man in business casual, but one with oversized jeans, a lot of jewelry, and several tattoos would have you locking cabinets.)
The Catholic *Church *is absolutely to blame for its own image problem. *Individual *priests, however, do not automatically deserve that kind of disgust.
Grain of salt: I know some truly awesome Jesuits whom it would make me very sad to see you treat in this way.
Welp, I was raised Catholic, and up through high school spent a good amount of time trying to make all this shit fit together in some sort of logical way. So while I’ve been very atheist for years now, all the old framework is still kicking around in the back of my head–I don’t agree with it, but I can at least see why they think the way they do.
Right; but that wasn’t exactly my point.
Here we have a citation for a case of a successful full-term tubal gestation. Thus, we have evidence that there is a vanishingly infinitesimal chance x that a tubal pregnancy may be carried to term safely.
What happens if the RCC decides that x is an acceptable level of risk and withdraws its sanction for even partial salpingectomy?
Conversely, in the case in the OP, would the RCC have deemed it acceptable had they performed a total hysterectomy (with the fetus in situ) rather than an abortion?
Right, I got your point. I’m just saying that it doesn’t appear to be valid. The RCC currently allows procedures that have the secondary effect of killing the fetus if they’re reasonably necessary to save the mother’s life and can’t be postponed until after the delivery. Unless you could present some evidence that an ectopic pregnancy was somehow magically not hugely dangerous (as opposed to some 100% to 99% fatal shift), I doubt their policy there would change.
I’ve wondered about that myself. Given precedent, I would assume that a hysterectomy would be acceptable. But who the hell knows.
TRUE.
TRUE AGAIN
ALSO TRUE, but dammit, how many thousands of cases, and repeat offenses etc does it take, over how many generations, before it was even mentioned, let alone acknowledged, and how “endearing” is it when the highest officials try to lash out against the accuses and victims?
Also true. The priests and nuns in my church and my schools were above board and ethcial, and honest etc. They do not deserve blame. However The Institution or upper hierarchy does need to examine itself a hell of a lot closer. The old “we know what is best for you” doesn’t fly, when they get caught up in worse things than we “sinners” would ever think of doing. Defiance doens’t work so well, once you’ve been busted.
And, they too deserve better from the church they serve.
Oh fer Christ’s sake.
I’d love to see you attempt to define a person without being philosophical. You really don’t know what you’re talking about here.
What would it take for the RCC to fail, anyway? Hypothetically.
I think the Catholic Church (my church) has handled the scandal horribly, and I don’t and didn’t disagree that they’ve often reacted in a manner and tone so out of sync with the facts that I was furious. But they have, finally, installed a policy that going forward realistically and responsibly deals with situations should they occur. This says nothing of how they did in the past or if all officials have reacted in a way consistent with the shame and remorse that they ought to feel. They haven’t.
But SteveG1 is moving the goalposts in our exchange. He indicated that the Church, unlike BP, has done nothing to correct the situation. Not “too little” or “too late.” Nothing:
This is clearly wrong. Someone’s outrage over the scandal does not permit them to make up their own set of facts. The RCC has, finally and way too late, but from a point going forward, installed the types of policies and controls that address the scandal. So, my reply to his contention that the RCC has done nothing, was this:
SteveG1 responded, “Well, they did compare their detractors to the Nazis,” ignoring the point and twisting our exchange into a debate into something he’d prefer it to be, simultaneously getting a fun little dig in. “Of course the Church has done nothing, remember when they compared their detractors to Nazis?” seems to be the logic. Kills two birds with one stone–ignores the facts conveniently and bashes the RCC. That means, somehow, that it’s my responsibility to defend the Church’s past comments, when I do not hold that position, and it had nothing to do with the point I raised. But I recognize that while this thread has scattered elements of attempts at debate and to gain clarification, it’s essence is RO and for the most part, anyone who doesn’t wade in here to join in the chorus of, “The RCC sucks! Everything they do is evil!” is spoiling the party.