Time. The RCC is down to basically two geographic areas (Latin America & Africa) with it only being dominant in LA. In contrast the decline in its former bastion, Europe, is not just noticeable, but from their perspective alarming – and not trending their way either, what with empty churches and seminaries.
And I look forward to a decade of contrition and responsibility that’ll show the RCC absolutely will not let this sort of thing happen again. I’m setting a goalpost of ten years, minimum, as when I’d start to accept that the RCC is making amends.
Well, I have no sway over him. I’ve having enough trouble getting responses to my own questions, which I’ve tried to keep reasonable and nonhostile.
Question 1: which of the first two posters above made a medical claim?
Question 2: which of the first two posters above questioned the use of ‘medical’ to define personhood?
Bonus question: why is it I am the one the receives the scorching scorn of “You really don’t know what you’re talking about…” and the reminder that personhood is not a medical but a philosophical question?
An interesting thread - and some good info given as well.
If I might ask this to help understand more clearly - are females/women allowed to make any policy/canon-law changes? I know I do not use the correct terminology, and I apologize on that part. Essentially, are women involved above and beyond ‘suggesting’ changes through ‘conferences’ (or the like) - do they have a ‘ya/nay’ vote at any time that really matters? I do not mean participating in a conference where things are suggested to a ‘ruling body’. I mean are they ever part of a ruling body in and of itself (within the RCC)? I don’t want this to spin-off splitting hairs about what I am asking…
I am assuming that females are not allowed in such a role (as they are not priests and assume that priesthood is a requisite for membership and voting) - but I admit a near-total ignorance of canon-law procedure things. What little I know has been talked about here in the Pit (how odd, 'eh?)
Thanks.
Shooting a guy at the door of the execution chamber is murder.
Shooting a guy who’s just jumped from a very tall building is murder.
Directly killing the innocent is never right.
The rpcedure for removing an embryo would be very similar without having to kill it first.
Canon Law being far from my expertise, however most procedures a common as simple as presumtion of innocence and so on.
Definitely they can fire/reaasign personnel without the police, however if the accusation is also a crime the you need to call the cops.
Dead fetus = no abortion, so no moral issue here; except that the dead embryo/fetus has to be treated with dignity not dumped in the biohazard bin.
Except that there was a poster here (runner pat?) who stated that when she was found to be carrying a dead fetus, the Catholic hospital she was at refused to allow her doctor to perform a D&C. She was to wait until she actively went into “labor”. This seems more in line with what I know of Catholic hospitals than your post,** Aji**. I work in a Catholic hospital. She had to be discharged from the Catholic hosp. and admitted to a hospital where she could get the care she needed and deserved–you know the care that saved her life.
I am not about to wade through all this to find the post, but it’s there.
I also love the hair splitting: you can’t “kill” the ectopic pregnancy whilst it resides within the Fallopian tube, but you can excise it and what? watch it “die” on the table? There is no IT. It’s a menace to the woman who carries it. It will never become a baby or a person–it’s medical emergency. But again, the Church shows it inherent misogyny by putting the woman at risk for the sake of nothing. I can understand the argument that a fertilized egg has equal rights as a woman (I don’t agree with it and think it’s horrible medicine). But an ectopic pregnancy or a hydatiform mole are NOT precious, precious life. God knows that the Church lays down for the woman unfortunate to have a molar pregnancy.
For those who aren’t familiar with molar pregnancies, hydatiform mole
Time will tell, I agree.
I agree, you certainly have.
Not catching the guy who has just jumped from a very tall building isn’t murder. If a guy jumping from a building was going to land on you and you shooting him threw him off his trajectory so that he didn’t land on you and kill you, that wouldn’t be murder.
We also know that salpingectomy is bad medicine and causes permanent damage to the pregnant woman, increasing her risk of further ectopic pregnancies.
We also know that there is nothing “diseased” about a fallopian tube that contains an ectopic pregnancy.
But again, science only seems to come into the picture when it somehow supports the RCC position. When it doesn’t, who cares about science anyway?
What if you shoot him and it changes his trajectory so that he’ll land on and kill a guy about to fire a bazooka at you? Now suppose the guy with the bazooka is Hitler. And he’s ten minutes away from finding a cure for cancer. But if you do nothing, some other guy will fall off of a different building and kill Hitler on the way back to his laboratory (after he kills you with the bazooka). How about that, huh?
It depends. Is Hitler pregnant?
Believe it or not, yes. (NSFW!!!)
That is no doubt the Rule 34 corollary to Godwin’s Law!
===============
To take a more serious note, and addressing primarily Bricker, while I’m certain you have a point in that Catholics generally, and religious in particular, are expected to assent to the teachings of the Magisterium and to so conduct their lives that they comply to the greatest extent possible with them…
Nonetheless, there’s a point you seem to be missing: the abstract concepts of justice and proportionality. And I know both are integral parts of the Magisterium. To make it clearer:
You as a lawyer, and the canon lawyers, may delight in the pilpul of defining in minute detail just what precise combinations of actions and motivations make an act (e.g., termination of a nonviable pregnancy or attempts to have sexual intercourse without conceiving a child) acceptable or sinful under an assortment of circumstances – the purpose of law is not to give intellectual playing fields to lawyers but to conduce to the doing of justice. And frankly, most people outside the Catholic Church, and a growing number inside it, think that it frankly sucks at doing that.
Then, too, notice the differentiation between the cover-up of the molestation, allowed (and we both understand the lack of awareness of the nature of pedophilia 40 years ago, or even 20) to continue, with the apparent connivance of the hierarchy. for decades, compared, in this very thread, to the rapid public announcement of the latae sententiae excommunication incurred by this nun for the heinous crime of attempting to save at least one life as a hospital administrator dealing with a patient’s difficult pregnancy that bode likely to kill both mother and child if no action was taken.
Aji, your analogies are invalid. It is the attempt to save one life out of two that would doubtless be lost through inaction, not the taking of one early, no matter how innocent, that people are focused on. To rearrange your analogy, you are on a rooftop attempting to talk a suicidal mother holding her infant child out of jumping. When your efforts to keep both alive fail and she starts to jump, would it not be the moral course to grab the baby from her and save at least its life, even if you cannot save hers as well?
Let’s say he is. But his child will grow up and fall off of another building and kill Albert Schwietzer, while Schweitzer is in the act of performing an abortion on the Octomom. Now what?
It’s all perfectly legal. I know because I have right here the complete imaginary codified statutes of the State of Hypothetical Situations, in which this all obviously happened. 
If the report is true, then the hospital did something wrong and against the teachings of the church (it might be that D&C might’ve been the medically wrong procedure for that particular case).
You’re right there is no IT, it’s a he or a she. Is personhood dependent on it being harmful to the mother?
Ectopic pregnancy is life. Why isn’t it?
Hydatidiform moles are a complicated, case-by-case stuff, but non-viable. Again, no need to kill it before removal.
If not being in favour of killing is misoginy…then I’m a misoginyst.
No answering works for you apparently.
Agreed on your examples, though.
They are very valid insofar as they relate to the whole “it’s gonna die anyway so why bother” scenario.
Your rooftop scenario is actually a point for me. You cannot save both, save one but not kill the other.
Two people are drowning and I can only save one. I save John and the Jake dies. I still cannot shoot Jake because “he’s gonna die anyway”.
Okay, if you’re not going to take this seriously, then I won’t even bother. 
So be it. And the “IT” I refer to is "an ectopic pregnancy, not the gender, if gender could yet be determined, of said ectopic pregnancy. “IT” is not a baby, a viable fetus, even a zygote–it’s a ticking time bomb. As for your query re personhood being dependent on it being harmful to the mother, I say that’s a nonsensical statement. About the only thing in your post that does make sense is your admitting to be a misogynist. I disagree with your POV, but I appreciate your honesty.
I asked Bricker earlier what it would take for him to leave the church.
Read it.
And weep.
Serious question here, but why isn’t an ectopic pregnancy a zygote/fetus? It’s obviously not going to develop to term, but there’s no difference between the actual fertilized egg in the fallopian tube and the uterus, is there? If I took two fetuses, one from an ectopic pregnancy and one from a normal pregnancy, could you tell them apart?