Isn’t it a fundamental tenant of most religions that if somebody else tells you to do it, you don’t bear any responsibility for your own actions? We heretics need to be reminded of that, lest we mistakenly think that personal responsibility exists.
Context.
If you’all wanted to just “hey, Catholics teh suxx0r”, knock yourselves out.
If there is even a slight desire of knowing what was going on, then it is relevant. Particualrly when most people don’t actually know what excommunication is or how it works.
Can you hear me now?
What?
You’re right, Aji; I, for one, fully admit that I really don’t know what excommunication is or how it works. Mostly because I don’t give a shit. And again, I’m surprised at even the recreational outrage at this story.
The head of the club says, “No abortions no matter what.” So what’s to be shocked about when someone has an a abortion they get kicked out of the club. It’s not like we’re talking about reasonable people here.
What do you want to bet the rapist was not excommunicated? I’ll bet he is still OK as long as he goes to confession…
Well, there’s just SO MUCH to bash. We’re like political comedians faced with the Bush Administration. Where do you start? Where DO you start?
Okay, what part of the context here do you think gives an ethically defensible reason for the Catholic Church mandating death in child birth for a nine year old rape victim?
And, incidentally, I am aware of what excommunication entails: the excommunicants will not be able to take communion until they have reconciled with the doctrines of the church. I’m not sure precisely what is necessary for reconciliation, but I do know that the point of excommunication is to encourage that reconciliation, so the requirements are not likely to be terribly onerous. Regardless, the stance of the Church in this matter is morally reprehensible. Even granting the idea that abortion is immoral without argument, allowing this girl to die because she was violated by her own father is by any standard an even greater immorality, and moving to censure the people responsible for saving her life is an unambiguous act of moral evil.
Also, you’re an asshole.
I think they are just embarassed that the rythym method was shown to be ineffective…
“Hey did you see that? Steve just punched that guy for no reason! What an asshole!”
“Oh, well you have to put it in context. See, the guy was wearing a red hat. Steve has been punching people who wear red hats for the last 20 years. It’s part of his religious beliefs, which we must respect”
“Well, that explains everything. I’m sorry I called Steve an asshole. Thanks for educating me.”
If you wanted to just “hey, Catholics teh roxx0r” because they follow long standing troglodyte rules, okay then.
I do have a (very) slight desire to know what was going on though. I’d say you break an important enough rule or step on the wrong toes and get grounded by the church (they also used to burn people alive but don’t do that anymore, am I right?). What deep insights am I missing?
If you’re planning on turning this thread into yet another abortion thread more power to you.
Thanks for calling me an asshole, I’m sure mentioning it reminds you of the pleasure you get from it when you get fisted by stray dogs.
*“Hey did you see that? Steve just punched that guy for no reason! What an asshole!”
“Oh, well you have to put it in context. See, the guy was wearing a red hat filled with explosives and ready to set them off. Steve has been punching people who wear red hats filled with explosives and ready to set them off for the last 20 years. It’s part of his religious beliefs, which we must respect”
“Well, that explains everything. I’m sorry I called Steve an asshole. Thanks for educating me.”*
I didn’t say you have to respect it, please hate it, despise, tear it to pieces, simply do it knowing what you’re talking about…or not, whatever gets you through the night.
If the sign in the door says “we punch red-hatted people who enter” feel free not to enter.
Count me out on ever getting a pound puppy!
Stepfather: I could if I wanted have sexual intercourse with you…
9 Year Old Girl: …oh yes Daddy…
Stepfather: …and by wearing a rubber sheath over my old-fella, I could insure that when I came up, you would not be impregnated.
9 Year Old Girl: Ohh!
Stepfather: That’s what being a protestant is all about, that’s why it’s the church for me, that’s why it’s the church for anyone who respects the individual, and the individual’s rights to decide for him or her self. When Martin Luther nailed his protest up to the church door in 1517, he may not have realized the full significance of what he was doing. BUT 400 years later thanks to him my dear, I can wear what ever I want to on my John Thomas, and prodo- stantism doesn’t stop with a simple condom, oh no, I can wear French Ticklers if I want.
9 Year Old Girl: You what?
Stepfather: French Ticklers, Black Mambos, Crocodile Ribs, sheaths that are not only designed to protect, but also to enhance the stimulation of sexual congress.
9 Year Old Girl: Have you got one?
Stepfather: Have I got one, well… no, but I can go down the road anytime I want and walk into Harry’s and hold my head up high and say in a loud and steady voice, “Harry, I want you to sell me a condom, in fact today I think I’ll have a French Tickler for I am a protestant.”
9 Year Old Girl: Well why don’t you?!
Stepfather: But they, they cannot, because their church never made the great leap out of the middle ages and the domination of alien Episcopal supremacy.
oh , you have opened my mind to the waywardness of my life,thanks a mill!!!
I think the problem being brought up is not that context, as a general rule, is unimportant in judgement, but rather that in this particular case context doesn’t allow us to see a moral bad as a moral good. That is, context most certainly can be important, but that people are saying that in this case it doesn’t improve the Church’s position morally, not that context is unimportant. And that, I suppose would be the context on people’s views on this, not that you asked - perhaps in future you might try doing so knowing what you’re talking about… or not.
No problem. Now try opening a book sometime, but nothing too sinful or fancy. Baby steps all the way.
I don’t see what point you’re making by changing my hypothetical.
My point was this:
People were objecting to a hateful thing the Church did.
Your response was to post a link that said that doing these hateful things was part of church policy, and that they’d been doing it for years now.
My story was simply a way of pointing out how that actually makes your argument worse.
The little girl and the people who saved her life did nothing wrong. They shouldn’t be punished in any way, even a symbolic way rooted in superstition.
Or do you personally think it would have been better for the girl to die rather than have an abortion.
Does anyone else picture excommunication being like the discommendation ritual for Klingons?
People join a God club, don’t play by the rules and get kicked out. I don’t see the problem here.
Hi. I won’t be commenting on the whole catholicism discussion in progress here, to which I’m largely indifferent, but I’d like to clarify a small point in the OP.
In Brazilian law there is provision for two possibilities of legal abortion: when the pregnancy puts the health of the mother at risk and when the pregnancy is the result of rape (known as “sentimental abortion” for archaic and clearly sexist reasons). So, although I’m unfamiliar with the case under discussion, from your description of it the child was doubly qualified for the abortion. There maybe other possibilities for lawful abortion, a matter that has been extensively discussed recently; however the Supreme Tribunal has yet to make a ruling on it. The matter is tremendously complex, having both constitutional and international law ramifications. Anyways, a prosecution for unlawful abortion, when the procedure is voluntary and there is no malpractice or severe health consequences attached to it is almost unheard of nowadays, when everybody simply prefers to look the other way.
Also of relevance, I think, is that there need be no proof of rape for the authorization of a “sentimental” abortion, merely the mother’s statement of it. Most doctors do insist on a judicial authorization to perform it, though, but the authorization is also available through a relatively straightforward and quick procedure.
Sorry for the interruption of the thread, your pitting may now proceed as before. 