# Unwanted kids and AIDS patients save money! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 18, 2011, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwanted-kids-and-aids-patients-save-money/571860 "2011-02-18T22:42:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Cat\_Fight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/90ced4/32.png) [@Cat\_Fight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Fight)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2011, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwanted-kids-and-aids-patients-save-money/571860/41 "2011-02-22T14:25:58Z")
> [@Beniamino](#): > > Maybe it was the right decision, but maybe there were other options that they had not considered. That’s really the point, isn’t it? I would love to know what options hadn’t been considered in this somewhat famous case of a [nine-year-old rape victim pregnant with twins](http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1883598,00.html). I mean, I’m sure everyone involved knew that the alternative was letting a nine-year-old bring two fetuses to term (or at least attempt to), but beyond that I’m just not sure what could have been brought to the discussion. > [@](#): > > Archibishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho of the coastal city of Recife announced that the Vatican was excommunicating the family of a local girl who had been raped and impregnated with twins by her stepfather, because they had chosen to have the girl undergo an abortion. The Church excommunicated the doctors who performed the procedure as well. “God’s laws,” said the archbishop, dictate that abortion is a sin and that transgressors are no longer welcome in the Roman Catholic Church. “They took the life of an innocent,” Sobrinho told TIME in a telephone interview. “Abortion is much more serious than killing an adult. An adult may or may not be an innocent, but an unborn child is most definitely innocent. Taking that life cannot be ignored.” ---
**Author:** ![margin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/65b543/32.png) [@margin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/margin)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2011, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwanted-kids-and-aids-patients-save-money/571860/42 "2011-02-22T14:31:10Z")
> [@](#): > > Again, this was a statement made months after the fact, and nobody knows what her chances of survival actually were because of confidentiality issues. The doctors might have opined later that she had a 0% chance of binging the child to term safely, but nobody knows what the diagnosis was _ **before** _ the hospital lept into damage-control mode. Gee, I know who I’m going to listen to! Why, it’s the sanctimonious anti-choicer who thinks a woman’s life is salvageable only if she’s a life support system for a fetus. > [@](#): > > …and there’s a good chance they were wrong. As I said, if all available options had been considered, and if they hadn’t hid the fact that the hospital had performed an abortion for several months, none of this would have ever happened. Now, the Bishop should have known that his letter to the hospital would have been made public, so perhaps his admonition should have been made between he and the Sister privately but Bishops are people too – some are rash, others are more prudent, such is life. Funny how you’re eager to grant everybody but the woman in the case that very same humanity. Lump of cells? Here’s your social security number, your passport, your w2. Female? Nah. > [@](#): > > Maybe it was the right decision, but maybe there were other options that they had not considered. That’s really the point, isn’t it? I can’t give much credence to statements made by hospital staff after the investigation had already commenced, as any such statements would necessarily be self-serving and of limited validity. I doubt we’ll ever have all the facts to be able to say one way or another. Maybe because the only acceptable outcome for you is the _fetus’_ continued existence, whatever it costs the woman. Tell me, are you just okay with killing women? Or do you realize that in this case the fetus would have died too? And you’re desperately grasping at straws to find excuses to continue that pregnancy. > [@](#): > > As for me, I’m glad that my children were born in a Catholic hospital, because to think that the same doctor might, on one floor, be bringing a child into the world and, on another floor, taking a child out of it is, at the very least, unsettling. Your persistence in granting actual life to the fetuses while shrugging it away for women is striking. And pretty disgusting. I hope to God you don’t have daughters. ---
**Author:** ![overlyverbose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/9dc877/32.png) [@overlyverbose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/overlyverbose)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2011, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwanted-kids-and-aids-patients-save-money/571860/43 "2011-02-22T16:56:16Z")
> [@Beniamino](#): > > Yes. From what I’ve read, not all available options were considered before a _ **direct** _ abortion was performed. Maybe the procedure they performed would ultimately have been the appropriate one, but not as a _ **first** _ resort. > > \ > > As for me, I’m glad that my children were born in a Catholic hospital, because to think that the same doctor might, on one floor, be bringing a child into the world and, on another floor, taking a child out of it is, at the very least, unsettling. I remember hearing about this case on NPR. Apparently the reason that it came before the director or administrator of the hospital was because the doctors could find no way around an abortion to save the woman’s life and needed her to make the call to allow them to perform it. Furthermore, the last part of your post really, really disturbs me for many reasons. And for what it’s worth, having a child in a Catholic hospital isn’t security that they won’t be performing surgery that results in the termination of a pregnancy. My surgery was performed at [one of the largest Catholic hospitals in the U.S.](http://www.stjohnsmercy.org/sjmmc/) Every hospital has different policies - you might want to check yours if that’s a concern. ---
**Author:** ![WolfpackJeep](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpackjeep/32/2921_2.png) [@WolfpackJeep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WolfpackJeep)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2011, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwanted-kids-and-aids-patients-save-money/571860/44 "2011-02-22T17:50:28Z")
> [@margin](#): > > Your persistence in granting actual life to the fetuses while shrugging it away for women is striking. And pretty disgusting. I hope to God you don’t have daughters. Agreed. And the Catholic church thinks a nine-year-old girl who has been raped is no longer an “innocent child”? Ugh. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2011, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwanted-kids-and-aids-patients-save-money/571860/45 "2011-02-22T20:15:43Z")
> [@Beniamino](#): > > Yes. From what I’ve read, not all available options were considered before a _ **direct** _ abortion was performed. Maybe the procedure they performed would ultimately have been the appropriate one, but not as a _ **first** _ resort. Cite? Or let me put it another way - I’ve produced multiple statements and numerous citations from actual doctors that this was the necessary procedure. You’ve produced absolutely nothing to back up your claims about your supposed recollections. You might be mistaken. I think your lying. > [@](#): > > Again, this was a statement made months after the fact, and nobody knows what her chances of survival actually were because of confidentiality issues. The doctors might have opined later that she had a 0% chance of binging the child to term safely, but nobody knows what the diagnosis was _ **before** _ the hospital lept into damage-control mode. The only one in damage control mode here is you. The doctors have nothing to apologize for. > [@](#): > > Please play nice. I know this is “the pit”, but we’re all mature adults here, and getting all hot and bothered about what strangers say on the internet is not a productive enterprise. I put a lot of energy into finding citations for my posts. It pisses me off that you ignore everything I wrote and blather on about your vague memories of the event as if they were same thing as actual facts. Again - I’m bringing the facts. You’re bringing the handwaving. The fact that I can do it without getting the vapors over a simple piece of Anglo-Saxon makes me the grown-up here. In short, go clutch your pearls somewhere else. > [@](#): > > Right, the key word is “automatic”. That is, by permitting the direct abortion, she automatically excommunicated herself. The private letter from the Bishop to the hospital declaring that fact is not a legal “act”. The Bishop didn’t _ **do** _ anything. You’ve sure got that hand-washing tactic down, don’t you, Pilate? I’ve cited repeated where the Bishop rebuked her, publicly and privately. The Bishop’s the one who dragged this all out to the newspapers. > [@](#): > > Maybe she was reassigned, but when I heard about this story last year, I seem to recall that she ended up back at the hospital eventually. I could be wrong, and if I am, _mea culpa_. Again: My citations \> your vague recollections. > [@](#): > > The canon law expert at NPR appears to be mistaken. As I stated before, excommunication _laetae sententiae_ (or something like that) is not an act of the Bishop, but of the actor. > > \ > > Respectfully, I am not. Consult a Canon Law expert if you like, but I’m pretty sure about this one. I believe you are referring to the distinction of Latae or Ferendae Sententiae > **[CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Excommunication](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm)** > > Exclusion from the communion, the principal and severest censure, is a medicinal, spiritual penalty that deprives the guilty Christian of all participation in the common blessings of ecclesiastical society Laetae excommunication is the type where someone is excommunicated by the act of doing something forbidden (okaying an abortion, for instance. Ferendae sententiae is where someone (a bishop or other official) performs an excommunication ceremony. Here’s the thing - 1. Every one of my cites specifically said that Bishop Olmsted declared that Sister Margaret was excommunicate because of her act - that is she was laetae excommunicated. So your insistence on this distinction is not news to us. 1. Unlike you, I and the many, many people who wrote those cites, do not see the Bishop’s actions in rebuking Sister Margaret and making announcements about her state of excommunication to the newspapers, as the irrelevant remarks of a casual bystander. It’s clear that by his public remarks & actions - his very own words, which I’ve repeated - Bishop Olmsted was attempting to shame Sister Margaret, pressure the hospital into follow his orders, and finally, convince Catholics that they should be wary of the hospital. > [@](#): > > …and there’s a good chance they were wrong. Cite? Because I have the actual doctors and hospital saying this was necessary. You’ve got nothing but your imagination. > [@](#): > > As I said, if all available options had been considered, and if they hadn’t hid the fact that the hospital had performed an abortion for several months, none of this would have ever happened. Cite that the hospital didn’t consider all the options? Cite that the hospital “hid” anything? Cite that the Bishop deserves to have personal accesses to all the medical files of the hospital patients and final approval on their treatment? Because I got multiple cites of the doctors and hospital staff themselves saying this was 100% necessary. > [@](#): > > Now, the Bishop should have known that his letter to the hospital would have been made public, so perhaps his admonition should have been made between he and the Sister privately but Bishops are people too – some are rash, others are more prudent, such is life. The hospital didn’t release his letter. He himself released a statement to the press, followed up by statements from the Dioceses head of Medical Ethics, Father Ehrich. Go read my cites, since I’m not going to bother to repeat them for a third time. He (and you) have no one to blame but themselves for looking bad here. > [@](#): > > Whenever there’s an interested third party involved (the baby), the medical decision involves more than just the doctor and the patient. In a Catholic hospital, where a decision is to be made to end a life, that decision cannot be made in a vacuum. 1. It -wasn’t- made in a vacuum, as I said (and repeatedly cited) last time. There was a whole ethics committee involved, which is how Sister Margaret got dragged into this mess. 2. This right here is why I said that women should avoid Catholic hospitals - because medical decisions have to involve non-medical personnel for religious reasons. > [@](#): > > Maybe it was the right decision, but maybe there were other options that they had not considered. That’s really the point, isn’t it? I can’t give much credence to statements made by hospital staff after the investigation had already commenced, as any such statements would necessarily be self-serving and of limited validity. I doubt we’ll ever have all the facts to be able to say one way or another. Again - the doctors don’t have to apologize to anyone here. They’re not under investigation. They did what they did for the good of their patient. The Bishop can’t threaten them. They weren’t punished. Well, the Bishop can _try_ to threaten them, I guess, which is what he did by threatening to withdraw Catholic endorsement for the hospital unless they would promise to never do that again, but the doctors and the hospital told him to get lost. Also, you know what? No one forced the doctors to perform the abortion. If they thought it was wrong, they would have just refused to do it in the first place. Pretending like the doctors know they got caught doing something wrong, and therefor are issuing ass-covering statements, is just you making things up. So, to recap: 1. You attempts to insist there were other options is nothing but you desperately trying to whitewash this. 2. You attempts to paint the doctor & hospital statements as being self-serving are completely false. 3. Stop making stuff up and expecting other people to buy into it. > [@](#): > > Maybe she was transferred, but my recollection was that she ended up resuming her former position. Now, the hospital itself, I believe, was decertified as a “Catholic hospital”; maybe that’s what you’re thinking of. But as far as the “excommunication” goes, that was not a punishment imposed from without. My citations are more worthwhile than your vague unsubstantiated memories. Especially since you can’t seem to remember cites and paragraphs from the actual post to which you’re responding. > [@](#): > > If you’d like to continue this conversation, why not start a new thread outside the pit? I don’t really see the point in hurtling _ad hominems_ back and forth. you and I are strangers to each other, and to accuse me of “lying” is a bit uncharitable, don’t you think? I’m fine here. In fact, I think I’ve pretty much said all I need to say on this topic. If I were to start another thread on the subject, I’d do it in GD, where your complete lack of citations would be an even bigger disadvantage to you. I think you’re lying based on what you’ve said in this thread and the way you seem to just ignore the actual words of my citations and quotes. I think it’s obvious that you’re just desperate to make the Catholic church look good here, so you’ll ignore things like the actual words the Bishop said and make up a bunch of stuff in order to pretend the doctors are the bad guys. My personal relationship with you didn’t factor in my assessment that you were lying. But on reflection, it’s possible that you’re not lying - you’re just desperate. > [@](#): > > This is not the case. It is not “misdirection” to contextualize the situation for the purpose of clarifying why the Bishop was particularly bothered by this incident. The difference between an isolated incident and a pattern of past practice is a big one. If you have actual evidence of a pattern of past practice, I might concede the point (depending on the evidence, of course.) But you don’t. And the Bishop himself never refers to past practices in his quoted statements. That means it’s not context, it’s just something you made up. ie: misdirection. > [@](#): > > Again, I don’t think that’s the case. It appears, rather, that other options were not considered. Cite that other options weren’t considered? Cite that there _are_ other options that were appropriate? Cite that the doctors & the hospital ethics committee rushed to judgment on this? > [@](#): > > I do not believe that it is Church doctrine that, given the option of two lives ending and one life being saved, a Catholic hospital would choose the former. Now, we’ve heard from an employee of a Catholic hospital that this might be the case, which is why I’d like to consult with a knowledgable priest. Once I’ve done so, I’ll report back, I promise! (thought not likely in the pit), but until then, unless somebody else has firsthand authority from a Bishop, we’re just going to go around in circles. Dude. I’m quoting an actual Bishop, his actual words, which he has released, himself, to the press, in person. This is all actually happened. This is a real event. I don’t care if you find _five_ random priests to come here and say, “well, you know, Church doctrine says …” I’m talking about a real life event. Bishop Olmsted, a real live Bishop - an actual, not-make-believe person - has said, _repeatedly_, that the life-saving procedure of an abortion, was wrong and should not have been performed. Unless you call up Bishop Olmsted’s boss and get _him_ to issue a press statement saying that Bishop Olmsted went a little overboard and abortion’s ok if there’s absolutely no other choice Otherwise, don’t waste our time. > [@](#): > > [The Seattle Times | Local news, sports, business, politics, entertainment, travel, restaurants and opinion for Seattle and the Pacific Northwest.](http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2013729992_apusbishophospital.html) > > Right, that’s what I recall as well. About the Bishop withdrawing Catholic certification? Ok. > [@](#): > > No, just that other options should have been investigated more thoroughly. Cite that there were other options? Cite that they weren’t investigated? > [@](#): > > Right. Contraception and sterilization have no place in a Catholic hospital. These, and other “problems” indicate that this was not an isolated incident. I wonder if there were other unreported cases where abortion was used as a “first response” rather than as a “last resort”. 1. If this is the “other issues” you are referring to regarding the Bishop’s handling of Sister Margarete’s case, keep in mind that the contrception factors came up months after the Bishop started throwing his weight around and issueing press releases and announcing excommunications solely on the original abortion. 2. The hospital itself didn’t even perform the contraception/sterilization issue, they actually did that through a referral to a third party. The Bishop was trying to pressure them into not even giving referrals. 3. These issues are medical issues - they absolutely belong in any hosptial that’s dedicated to serving the medical needs of it’s patients. You do know that there’s a whole host of things that can go wrong with a women’s reproductive process and that women die of this stuff without medical intervention, right? Giving birth is a dangerous procedure. 1. Furthermore, these issues are mandated by law to be addressed by any hospital which received Medicaid. (Or Medicare. I forget which. It’s in that Seattle Times link above.) The fact that you and the Bishop think that the hospital should limit its medical services because of religious rules is, frankly, disgusting. > [@](#): > > Does this add anything to the discussion? This is a thread about people using religious arguments to limit healthcare options for women. A real life example of a real life Bishop attempting to do just that, is, indeed, relevant to this discussion. Calling the Bishop a menace is just a statement of fact based on his words and actions. Calling the Bishop a fucking menace is me expressing my anger at his behavior. > [@](#): > > Also, your statement puts the bunny in the hat, so to speak. Catholic doctrine does not hold that abortion, sterilization, and artificial birth control constitute “healthcare on reproductive issues”. You may disagree, and if you do, don’t go to a Catholic hospital. A _church_ should not get to decide what is or is not a medical situation. A _church_ basis its rules on religious belief - not medical science. “Catholic doctrine” is not relevant to what is or is not healthcare. And, well, that’s sort of what I said, wasn’t it? That women in the dioceses of Phoenix should avoid Catholic hospitals because they will be limited in their healthcare options to things approved by non-medical people. Women, Catholic women included, should take their medical advice from _actual doctors_, not random non-medical institutions and non-medical individuals - who, it must be pointed out, never have to personally deal with the ramifications of their teachings or of being pregnant (or even just having that anatomy.) > [@](#): > > As for me, I’m glad that my children were born in a Catholic hospital, because to think that the same doctor might, on one floor, be bringing a child into the world and, on another floor, taking a child out of it is, at the very least, unsettling. Every doctor handles both life & death situations. It’s all part of the job - it’s the same job, really. The process used in abortion is the same as the process used when a child is stillborn or sometimes even when a child is being delivered. It doesn’t matter which you choose - abortion, stillborn, childbirth. All three options are potentially tragedies. And then again, all three options might be grounds for joy. But the only one who can say is the woman who experiences it. ---
**Author:** ![irishgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/8edcca/32.png) [@irishgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/irishgirl)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2011, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwanted-kids-and-aids-patients-save-money/571860/46 "2011-02-22T21:40:08Z")
Treatment of pulmonary hypertension in pregnancy: Pre-term delivery at 32 weeks-\> post partum maternal death cite:[Primary pulmonary hypertension in pregnancy; a role for novel vasodilators | BJA: British Journal of Anaesthesia | Oxford Academic](http://bja.oxfordjournals.org/content/87/2/295.full) Drugs that may be dangerous to the foetus-\> TWO successful recorded outcomes. cite:[Treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension in pregnancy | American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy | Oxford Academic](http://www.ajhp.org/cgi/content/abstract/64/18/1922) Four pregnant women with PH treated. 3 survived and had successful pregnancies. 1 died. cite:[http://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/fulltext/1999/04000/pulmonary\_hypertension\_in\_pregnancy\_\_treatment.5.aspx](http://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/fulltext/1999/04000/pulmonary_hypertension_in_pregnancy__treatment.5.aspx) Three pregnant women with PH treated- two died. cite:[http://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/fulltext/1999/04000/pulmonary\_hypertension\_in\_pregnancy\_\_treatment.5.aspx](http://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/fulltext/1999/04000/pulmonary_hypertension_in_pregnancy__treatment.5.aspx) Remember, people tend to publish SUCCESSFUL case studies, to say “hey, we tried this and it worked, do this!” The statistics usually quoted are a 30-50% maternal mortality rate for PH. PH deteriorates during pregnancy as greater strain is put on the heart and lungs as the pregnancy progresses. For a woman who was symptomatic and unwell at 11 weeks (1/4 of the way into a pregnancy) the mortality rate could indeed approach 100%, and she may well have died long before the foetus reached viability. Now, personally I don’t think it matters if the risk was 30%, 50% or 100%, but there you go. Where are the Jewish maternity hospitals- can I have my high risk pregnancy there please? I’d prefer that abortion be recommended to preserve my life in these situations. ---
**Author:** ![Pullet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@Pullet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pullet)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwanted-kids-and-aids-patients-save-money/571860/47 "2011-02-23T07:03:28Z")
I \<3 Merneith. And Irishgirl. ---
**Author:** ![margin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/65b543/32.png) [@margin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/margin)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 10:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwanted-kids-and-aids-patients-save-money/571860/48 "2011-02-23T10:18:33Z")
> [@WolfpackJeep](#): > > Agreed. > > And the Catholic church thinks a nine-year-old girl who has been raped is no longer an “innocent child”? Ugh. Didn’t the Catholic Church excommunicate everyone in that case with the exception of the rapist who impregnated that child? ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwanted-kids-and-aids-patients-save-money/571860/49 "2011-02-23T12:10:27Z")
> [@Beniamino](#): > > I do not believe that it is Church doctrine that, given the option of two lives ending and one life being saved, a Catholic hospital would choose the former. Church Doctrine? _CHURCH DOCTRINE???_ What the hell does that have to do with anything? This situation was a serious medical issue. It’s not at all like your weekly playing dress-up; with the pointy hats, burning incense and saying secret codes in Latin make-believe shit. You know that right? Sure, you have every right to be a Catholic and play your funny games on Sundays. Most children play thought games involving magic and fantasy and have imaginary friends too. But if those games ever cause real world problems–if they hurt someone–then responsible adults immediately call a stop to them. You know this, right? And I know, you probably take your Eat The Body, Drink Some Blood, Bow to the Pedophile, You’re It! game very, very, seriously and likely resent my calling it out for what it is. That’s fine too. Resent away. Just make sure that you never let your imaginary world interfere with anyone else’s life. The same thing goes for the Pope and all of the rest of you Papists. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Edie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/50afbb/32.png) [@Little\_Edie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Edie)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwanted-kids-and-aids-patients-save-money/571860/50 "2011-02-23T17:12:10Z")
> [@irishgirl](#): > > Where are the Jewish maternity hospitals- can I have my high risk pregnancy there please? I’d prefer that abortion be recommended to preserve my life in these situations. I know this is a lame cite but relatives of mine say this was pretty much the case in Montreal, Quebec, at least in the 1950s and 60s. Catholic women would find excuses to give birth at the Jewish General because they knew that if there were complications at a Catholic hospital the doctors would opt to save the baby, even if it was just so it could live long enough to be baptized before dying. ---
**Author:** ![Anaamika](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Anaamika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anaamika)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwanted-kids-and-aids-patients-save-money/571860/51 "2011-02-23T17:17:57Z")
**Beniamino** , you are looking really bad here, and if you are attempting to salvage some measure of respect for the Catholic Church, you are only smearing it worse, because we have met another person who tries to defend it with weasel words and outright obfuscation, if not lying. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwanted-kids-and-aids-patients-save-money/571860/52 "2011-02-23T17:45:35Z")
I’ll say this for Bishop Sobrinho: at least he’s consistent. Either abortion is murder, or it isn’t, regardless of whether rape and incest are involved. I happen to believe it isn’t, and the weight of authority has my back here, but I have more respect for those who want to bar abortion in all cases (except to save the life of the mother, for obvious reasons) than for those who want to ban it unless the pregnancy is icky. ETA: I guess an argument could be made that abortion isn’t murder, but is still wrong, but if so I’ve yet to hear it. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwanted-kids-and-aids-patients-save-money/571860/53 "2011-02-23T18:54:00Z")
> [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](#): > > …And I know, you probably take your Eat The Body, Drink Some Blood, Bow to the Pedophile, You’re It! game very, very, seriously and likely resent my calling it out for what it is. That’s fine too. Resent away. Just make sure that you never let your imaginary world interfere with anyone else’s life. The same thing goes for the Pope and all of the rest of you Papists. I find the Church officials’ actions in these cases to be totally indefensible. But must you couch your objections in language that suggests your objection to Roman Catholicism springs from the works of Ian Paisley or Jack Chick–rather than concern for womens’ rights? ---
**Author:** ![moejoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de053/32.png) [@moejoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/moejoe)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwanted-kids-and-aids-patients-save-money/571860/54 "2011-02-23T20:36:44Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > snip > > ETA: I guess an argument could be made that abortion isn’t murder, but is still wrong, but if so I’ve yet to hear it. I probably hold a very unpopular opinion on this issue, which is that it _is_ murder, but sometimes that’s ok. ---
**Author:** ![Obsidian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/51bf81/32.png) [@Obsidian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Obsidian)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2011, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwanted-kids-and-aids-patients-save-money/571860/55 "2011-02-24T00:17:44Z")
> [@overlyverbose](#): > > My surgery was performed at [one of the largest Catholic hospitals in the U.S.](http://www.stjohnsmercy.org/sjmmc/) Every hospital has different policies - you might want to check yours if that’s a concern. You know what’s really depressing? Some women who go to Catholic hospitals have completely unnecessary surgery. In un-ruptured ectopics, a secular hospital can give medication (basically the same stuff as RU-486 or whatever it’s called), to end the pregnancy without removing the tube. Catholic hospitals won’t even tell you the option exists. The closest hospital to me is Catholic, though this is such an insanely liberal area no one would even think of it being a problem. (And it’s not an obvious name, either, just part of CHW). I was kind freaked out when I learned this, and told my husband if I’m having any pregnancy complications, we have to make the extra drive down to Stanford. I’d like the full compliment of modern medical options, thank you, and not someone else’s backwards religion. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2011, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwanted-kids-and-aids-patients-save-money/571860/56 "2011-02-24T00:28:50Z")
> [@moejoe](#): > > I probably hold a very unpopular opinion on this issue, which is that it _is_ murder, but sometimes that’s ok. I guess that would depend on what the sometimes is. IME, most anti-abortion folks agree with you. ---
**Author:** ![moejoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de053/32.png) [@moejoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/moejoe)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2011, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwanted-kids-and-aids-patients-save-money/571860/57 "2011-02-24T03:38:28Z")
> [@Obsidian](#): > > You know what’s really depressing? Some women who go to Catholic hospitals have completely unnecessary surgery. In un-ruptured ectopics, a secular hospital can give medication (basically the same stuff as RU-486 or whatever it’s called), to end the pregnancy without removing the tube. Catholic hospitals won’t even tell you the option exists. > > The closest hospital to me is Catholic, though this is such an insanely liberal area no one would even think of it being a problem. (And it’s not an obvious name, either, just part of CHW). I was kind freaked out when I learned this, and told my husband if I’m having any pregnancy complications, we have to make the extra drive down to Stanford. I’d like the full compliment of modern medical options, thank you, and not someone else’s backwards religion. As long as you’re driving down take the extra few minutes and drive past Stanford to El Camino Hospital. Great OB department, fantastic nurses. ---
**Author:** ![overlyverbose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/9dc877/32.png) [@overlyverbose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/overlyverbose)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2011, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwanted-kids-and-aids-patients-save-money/571860/58 "2011-02-24T04:09:09Z")
> [@Obsidian](#): > > You know what’s really depressing? Some women who go to Catholic hospitals have completely unnecessary surgery. In un-ruptured ectopics, a secular hospital can give medication (basically the same stuff as RU-486 or whatever it’s called), to end the pregnancy without removing the tube. Catholic hospitals won’t even tell you the option exists. > > The closest hospital to me is Catholic, though this is such an insanely liberal area no one would even think of it being a problem. (And it’s not an obvious name, either, just part of CHW). I was kind freaked out when I learned this, and told my husband if I’m having any pregnancy complications, we have to make the extra drive down to Stanford. I’d like the full compliment of modern medical options, thank you, and not someone else’s backwards religion. I know what you mean. I was actually informed about the availability of the drug, but only because while my doctor is affiliated with the hospital and his offices are in the complex, his office is not in the hospital proper. The rules are different if you’re actually located in the hospital vs. in the complex but not part of the hospital. Unfortunately, the pregnancy was too far advanced to use it and internal bleeding had already started. Finding out I was pregnant when I wasn’t expecting it was a shock. Finding out it was failing was worse. Finding out that it was failing and I was in danger of death was terrifying. I can’t imagine what I would’ve done had I been unable to receive care as quickly as I did because of someone else’s religious beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2011, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwanted-kids-and-aids-patients-save-money/571860/59 "2011-02-24T14:09:00Z")
> [@Eva\_Luna](#): > > Who’s with me? Me. I just sent a donation. ---
**Author:** ![Beniamino](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bcef8e/32.png) [@Beniamino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beniamino)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2011, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwanted-kids-and-aids-patients-save-money/571860/60 "2011-03-01T16:13:12Z")
Hi there. Well, last week I said I’d check with a priest regarding the Catholic position on performing an abortion to save the life of the mother. It was my inclination that such a thing were permissible according to Church Law, and several of you, some more maturely than others, opined otherwise. So, here’s my report: The priest advised me that, to his knowledge, the Diocese of Pittsburgh had not taken a position regarding the particular incident in Arizona, as Bishops generally don’t second-guess other Bishops unless they’ve been privy to the same facts (good rule for judges too, btw). However, he did indicate that it is the policy of Catholic hospitals in the Diocese that, where there must be a choice between saving one life or none, as appeared to be the case in Arizona, doctors must always act to save that life. Moreover, he recalled having seen a publication by a Professor of Theology at Marquette University (a Jesuit university) explaining why this is so. I thanked him for his time and, using my Google Fu, tracked down the article, which is a masterfully written theological investigation. The upshot of the article is that, if you’re applying Catholic Theology and you arrive at an absurd result, you’re doing it wrong. Doctors at a Catholic hospital, perhaps the only ones faithfully applying the principle _primum non nocere_, must act to save both the lives of the mother and child in all cases. Where this cannot be done, the live of the mother must be saved. Here’s the link, which I’d urge you to read, as it sets forth the theology far better than I could, and her concluding paragraph: [http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/St.-Josephs-Hospital-Analysis.pdf](http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/St.-Josephs-Hospital-Analysis.pdf) > [@](#): > > It is my opinion that the intervention performed at St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center on November 5, 2009 cannot properly be described as an abortion. The moral object of the intervention was to save the life of the mother. The death of the fetus was, at maximum, non-direct and _praeter intentionem_. More likely, the fetus was already dying due to the pathological situation prior to the intervention; as such, it is inaccurate to understand the death of the fetus as an accessory consequence to the intervention. I conclude that St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center acted in accord with the Ethical and Religious Directives, Catholic moral tradition, and universally valid moral precepts, in working to respect the sanctity and dignity of life, first doing what they could to foster the lives of both the mother and the child and then, when it was clear the child had begun the dying process, to do what they could to save the mother. So, there you have it. If anybody has any Tradition or Magesterium on the issue, I’d be interested to read it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwanted-kids-and-aids-patients-save-money/571860.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwanted-kids-and-aids-patients-save-money/571860.md?page=4)