# Ladies, you are just too stupid **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 26, 2017, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-you-are-just-too-stupid/778260 "2017-01-26T21:15:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2017, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-you-are-just-too-stupid/778260/301 "2017-02-02T19:26:31Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > Okay, okay, okay. I’ll state “The Catholic Church excommunicated the mother who allowed a legal abortion and the doctor who performed it on a nine year old girl pregnant with twins, but not the stepfather who knocked her up.” > > Is that better? It’s at least factually accurate, although somewhat deceptive. Since that seems to be your mission, I’d say it works. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2017, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-you-are-just-too-stupid/778260/302 "2017-02-02T19:27:49Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > There are lots of activities that do not and can be argued should not get federal funding, but you’re crossing the line between not paying for something and actively interfering with it, unless you can show that this level of indirect-benefit scrutiny is normal for a wide variety of activities. Why can’t I apply it only to abortion, because abortion is so serious? Where did your rule come from? Why must I follow it? ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2017, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-you-are-just-too-stupid/778260/303 "2017-02-02T20:09:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I was presenting the two ends of a spectrum – at one end, the death of the pregnant mother as a result of pregnancy, and at the other, a mere inconvenience. If you read that as my attempt to argue that all pregnancies are mere inconveniences and do not ever threaten more serious health concerns, I apologize; that was not said nor intended. I know it must be hard for some men to understand this, but no pregnancy – wanted or not – is a “mere inconvenience.” A mere inconvenience is a seasonal cold. The best of pregnancies is a year of quite disruptive, uncomfortable physical changes, repetitive and frequent medical visits, a commitment to significant lifestyle changes, and results in lifelong physical changes that are not that desirable. Seeing a pregnancy to term is literally a life-changing experience whether or not the infant remains with the mother. There doesn’t have to serious health concerns for a pregnancy to rise to a level far above “mere inconvenience.” From a female perspective, I can’t begin to express how offensive that comment is. If you are not intending to offend, you’d be wise to never use that phrase again in conjunction with pregnancy. ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2017, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-you-are-just-too-stupid/778260/304 "2017-02-02T20:49:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s certainly not my intention to offend. But frankly, I say it’s you that is overstating the risks. While there’s no question that risks exist, and your own reminders of pregnancy are obviously long-lasting, yours is not the average case. > > [This story](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/us-birth-complications_n_2008771.html) mentions a CDC study showing an incidence of 590,000 complications in 11 years, out of nearly 45 million births, a rate of roughly 1.3%. > > So from a statistical perspective, I would argue the very likely outcome of a given pregnancy is indeed correctly described as ‘inconvenience,’ and I disagree that the use of the word means I have “no clue.” You seem to have a penchant for leaving words out when they don’t suit your narrative. The statistic cited in that article is not “590,000 complications” but rather 590,000 _ **severe** _ complications. So you seem to be suggesting that pregnancies lacking severe complications are merely inconveniences. Rather, you are ignoring any of the myriad of complications that arise during pregnancy that still constitute something that can’t simply be hand-waved away as inconvenient. Take, for instance, [pre-eclampsia](http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6564), a condition of elevated blood pressure that complicates 3-6% of pregnancies, is associated with “high risks of preterm delivery, intrauterine growth restriction, placental abruption, and perinatal mortality” and “sentinel marker for women who will experience premature cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases and other chronic illnesses later in life.” Either this condition is not considered “severe” by the CDC, or the statistics cited in that article are wrong, as this one complication alone exceeds the cited value. > [@](#): > > Obviously not every pregnancy is uncomplicated. And, equally obviously, I have nowhere claimed that every pregnancy is uncomplicated. But most are. That seems to be a factually safe statement. Do you disagree? Either way, to deem less serious complications, as well as the uncomfortable and life-altering symptoms of pregnancy as merely inconvenient is, at best, quite dismissive and makes you look like a total asshole. ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2017, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-you-are-just-too-stupid/778260/305 "2017-02-02T21:25:34Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > Okay, okay, okay. I’ll state “The Catholic Church excommunicated the mother who allowed a legal abortion and the doctor who performed it on a nine year old girl pregnant with twins, but not the stepfather who knocked her up.” > > Is that better? > [@Bricker](#): > > It’s at least factually accurate, although somewhat deceptive. > > Since that seems to be your mission, I’d say it works. Which part is “somewhat deceptive”? How can something “factually accurate” be deceptive? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2017, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-you-are-just-too-stupid/778260/306 "2017-02-03T00:16:54Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > Which part is “somewhat deceptive”? How can something “factually accurate” be deceptive? When words are literally accurate but create a false impression, they are factually accurate but deceptive. In this instance, your first telling of the story was that people were thrown out of the Catholic Church. That was both deceptive and factually inaccurate. Now you’ve modified the tale to use the accurate word _excommunication_, presumably because you have learned what you did not know before: that excommunication does not mean being thrown out of the Church. But your tale leaves the uninformed listener to make the same factual mistake that you did. Since you now know what actually happened, but continue to use the words that confused you, I assume you’re sanguine about the likelihood of confusing others in exactly the same way. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2017, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-you-are-just-too-stupid/778260/307 "2017-02-03T00:19:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > When words are literally accurate but create a false impression, they are factually accurate but deceptive. > > In this instance, your first telling of the story was that people were thrown out of the Catholic Church. That was both deceptive and factually inaccurate. > > Now you’ve modified the tale to use the accurate word _excommunication_, presumably because you have learned what you did not know before: that excommunication does not mean being thrown out of the Church. > > But your tale leaves the uninformed listener to make the same factual mistake that you did. Since you now know what actually happened, but continue to use the words that confused you, I assume you’re sanguine about the likelihood of confusing others in exactly the same way. Do you think the factual treatment of the girl’s family by the church was morally just? It strikes me as profoundly morally unjust, and even monstrously evil, if I correctly understand those facts. But I’m not Catholic, of course. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2017, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-you-are-just-too-stupid/778260/308 "2017-02-03T00:20:33Z")
> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > You seem to have a penchant for leaving words out when they don’t suit your narrative. The statistic cited in that article is not “590,000 complications” but rather 590,000 _ **severe** _ complications. In post 226 I noted that the study encompassed only serious complications. I see the actual word used was severe. I thought those two were synonymous enough for the level of detail in play here. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2017, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-you-are-just-too-stupid/778260/309 "2017-02-03T00:21:50Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Do you think the factual treatment of the girl’s family by the church was morally just? It strikes me as profoundly morally unjust, and even monstrously evil, if I correctly understand those facts. But I’m not Catholic, of course. What is your understanding of what a latae sententiae excommunication entails? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2017, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-you-are-just-too-stupid/778260/310 "2017-02-03T00:23:44Z")
> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > From a female perspective, I can’t begin to express how offensive that comment is. If you are not intending to offend, you’d be wise to never use that phrase again in conjunction with pregnancy. I was quoting my wife, who is by all accounts female. She does not agree it’s offensive when she said it, or when I repeated it. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2017, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-you-are-just-too-stupid/778260/311 "2017-02-03T00:24:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What is your understanding of what a latae sententiae excommunication entails? From my [30 seconds of googling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latae_sententiae#Excommunications), it means that one is automatically cut off from receiving the Sacraments, and thus if they are unfortunate enough to die before this is reversed, they will be prevented from ascending to heaven upon their death. Plus, I assume, for very devout Catholics, this would be profoundly emotionally unsettling and painful, especially for a family that experienced what this family just did. Is my first paragraph correct? Is my second reasonable? What are you feelings about the morality of this particular result/treatment/sentence for the family of the little girl? ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2017, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-you-are-just-too-stupid/778260/312 "2017-02-03T00:25:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I was quoting my wife, who is by all accounts female. She does not agree it’s offensive when she said it, or when I repeated it. So your wife does not feel it rises above a mere inconvenience? several other women have disagreed – did your wife have any complications at all? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2017, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-you-are-just-too-stupid/778260/313 "2017-02-03T00:38:36Z")
> [@raventhief](#): > > So your wife does not feel it rises above a mere inconvenience? several other women have disagreed – did your wife have any complications at all? No serious ones. We were told the doctor was watching her blood pressure as being slightly high but it never reached the pre-eclampsia threshhold. Naturally other pregnancies differ. She certainly did not suggest, nor did I, that there is no such thing as serious complications. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2017, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-you-are-just-too-stupid/778260/314 "2017-02-03T00:39:41Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > From my [30 seconds of googling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latae_sententiae#Excommunications), it means that one is automatically cut off from receiving the Sacraments, and thus if they are unfortunate enough to die before this is reversed, they will be prevented from ascending to heaven upon their death. > > Plus, I assume, for very devout Catholics, this would be profoundly emotionally unsettling and painful, especially for a family that experienced what this family just did. > > Is my first paragraph correct? Is my second reasonable? What are you feelings about the morality of this particular result/treatment/sentence for the family of the little girl? Did you happen to follow the meaning of “Latae sententiae?” ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2017, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-you-are-just-too-stupid/778260/315 "2017-02-03T00:47:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Did you happen to follow the meaning of “Latae sententiae?” That it was automatic, right? That would be exculpatory (morally speaking), I suppose, if it were immediately rescinded by a higher authority, but I don’t believe it was in this case. If I’m wrong, please correct me. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2017, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-you-are-just-too-stupid/778260/316 "2017-02-03T00:56:32Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > That it was automatic, right? That would be exculpatory (morally speaking), I suppose, if it were immediately rescinded by a higher authority, but I don’t believe it was in this case. If I’m wrong, please correct me. It’s applied automatically, without any process. No trial, no judge, no finding of fact. It just happens, the instant the operation is done. Above in this thread, I likened it to a rule that you might apply to a self-defense killing. We can imagine a state that has a law that says, “Every killing, even if in self-defense, must be investigated, and the person who did the killing is required to explain the self-defense or be charged with murder.” Here, the same concept is in play: canon law provides that the instant you kill an unborn child, you are excommunicated. But that only means that you must follow the church’s process to lift that excommunication - to visit a priest and explain what the circumstances were, and show that there was no sinful conduct in this particular instance. When George Zimmerman used Florida’s lax self-defense law to his advantage, many people suggested that a more appropriate framework would be an automatic charge, with the person who did the killing obligated to at least explain why he acted in self-defense, instead of requiring the state to prove he did NOT act in self-defense. That’s how this works. No council met to excommunicate anyone. The law simply says that an automatic penalty is in place, and it is lifted by approaching a priest and explaining what the facts were. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2017, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-you-are-just-too-stupid/778260/317 "2017-02-03T00:58:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s applied automatically, without any process. No trial, no judge, no finding of fact. It just happens, the instant the operation is done. > > Above in this thread, I likened it to a rule that you might apply to a self-defense killing. We can imagine a state that has a law that says, “Every killing, even if in self-defense, must be investigated, and the person who did the killing is required to explain the self-defense or be charged with murder.” > > Here, the same concept is in play: canon law provides that the instant you kill an unborn child, you are excommunicated. But that only means that you must follow the church’s process to life that excommunication - to visit a priest and explain what the circumstances were, and show that there was no sinful conduct in this particular instance. > > When George Zimmerman used Florida’s lax self-defense law to his advantage, many people suggested that a more appropriate framework would be an automatic charge, with the person who did the killing obligated to at least explain why he acted in self-defense, instead of requiring the state to prove he did NOT act in self-defense. > > That’s how this works. No council met to excommunicate anyone. The law simply says that an automatic penalty is in place, and it is lifted by approaching a priest and explaining what the facts were. Yes, this is what I understood by “automatic”. Was it lifted, in this case? If so, how long did it take? ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2017, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-you-are-just-too-stupid/778260/318 "2017-02-03T00:59:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s applied automatically, without any process. No trial, no judge, no finding of fact. It just happens, the instant the operation is done. > > Above in this thread, I likened it to a rule that you might apply to a self-defense killing. We can imagine a state that has a law that says, “Every killing, even if in self-defense, must be investigated, and the person who did the killing is required to explain the self-defense or be charged with murder.” > > Here, the same concept is in play: canon law provides that the instant you kill an unborn child, you are excommunicated. But that only means that you must follow the church’s process to lift that excommunication - to visit a priest and explain what the circumstances were, and show that there was no sinful conduct in this particular instance. > > When George Zimmerman used Florida’s lax self-defense law to his advantage, many people suggested that a more appropriate framework would be an automatic charge, with the person who did the killing obligated to at least explain why he acted in self-defense, instead of requiring the state to prove he did NOT act in self-defense. > > That’s how this works. No council met to excommunicate anyone. The law simply says that an automatic penalty is in place, and it is lifted by approaching a priest and explaining what the facts were. So in the case of the child it was lifted without any problem I assume? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2017, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-you-are-just-too-stupid/778260/319 "2017-02-03T01:02:31Z")
> [@raventhief](#): > > So in the case of the child it was lifted without any problem I assume? > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Yes, this is what I understood by “automatic”. > > Was it lifted, in this case? If so, how long did it take? The specifics of lifting a latae sententiae excommunication are not made public, unless the person chooses to discuss his own case… But I know of no reason it would take longer than five minutes. ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2017, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-you-are-just-too-stupid/778260/320 "2017-02-03T01:02:37Z")
Huh wiki says the girl was not excommunicated, not her mother, because minors can’t be excommunicated and the mother acted to save her daughter’s life. > **[2009 Brazilian girl abortion case](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Brazilian_girl_abortion_case)** > > In 2009, a 9-year-old Brazilian girl was repeatedly raped by her stepfather and became pregnant with twins; the girl's mother helped her procure an abortion, and the pregnancy was terminated. José Sobrinho, a Catholic archbishop, said that the girl's mother and the doctors who performed the abortion had been automatically excommunicated under canon law. This prompted an array of national and international criticism for the archbishop's actions. In response, the National Conference of Bishops o The National Conference of Bishops of Brazil repudiated Sobrinho’s initiative.[17] At a press conference, Bishop Dimas Lara Barbosa, Secretary General of the Conference, said that the girl’s mother was not excommunicated, since she had acted under pressure to save her daughter’s life, and that there were no grounds to declare the doctors excommunicated, because (automatic) excommunication depended on each one’s degree of awareness and only those who were “aware and contumacious” were excommunicated.[17][18] At the press conference, a document on excommunication written by canonist Enrique Pérez Pujol, who stressed that the penalty should not be applied amid a polemic, was distributed to journalists.[17] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-you-are-just-too-stupid/778260.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-you-are-just-too-stupid/778260.md?page=17)