[iamzack]

Rape children? Well, god is all-loving and all-forgiving.

Vote yes to an abortion in order to save a woman's life? AUTOMATIC EXCOMMUNICATION.

Ah, religion.

[karajorma]

Rape children? Well, god is all-loving and all-forgiving.

Vote yes to an abortion in order to save a woman's life? AUTOMATIC EXCOMMUNICATION.

Ah, religion.

As was pointed out on the same site

“Let us just note that the Roman Catholic hierarchy suspended priests who abused children and in some cases defrocked them but did not normally excommunicate them, so they remained able to take the sacrament,” said Kristof.

Take a medically justifiable decision, excommunication. Commit a serious sexual crime, nope.

[Grizzly]

Rape children? Well, god is all-loving and all-forgiving.

Vote yes to an abortion in order to save a woman's life? AUTOMATIC EXCOMMUNICATION.

Ah, religion.

As was pointed out on the same site

“Let us just note that the Roman Catholic hierarchy suspended priests who abused children and in some cases defrocked them but did not normally excommunicate them, so they remained able to take the sacrament,” said Kristof.

Take a medically justifiable decision, excommunication. Commit a serious sexual crime, nope.

It may have something to do with the Vatican seeing abortion as murder of innocent life.
Although I am opposed to abortion myself, I do not understand that the ruining of an innocent life trough sexual abuse is punished relatively lightly...

[karajorma]

It may have something to do with the Vatican seeing abortion as murder of innocent life.

But even if you agree 100% that it is murder, a 3 month old foetus isn't going to survive if the mother dies, which is almost certain, so their position here is basically "**** medicine, let's just pray for a miracle where both survive"

[Grizzly]

It may have something to do with the Vatican seeing abortion as murder of innocent life.

But even if you agree 100% that it is murder, a 3 month old foetus isn't going to survive if the mother dies, which is almost certain, so their position here is basically "**** medicine, let's just pray for a miracle where both survive"

Ah yes. I am not opposed to that kind of abortion
(Abortion simply to terminate an unwanted pregnancy I do not abide with. Adoption is a much better option). Off-course, then there is the stance that some conservative christians have: Any medical intervention is oppossing the will of god (that's why there are so much anti-vaccin people, and the 'Watchtower' flyer I have has an article on medicine addiction), I wonder how much that plays an factor.

[Mongoose]

It may have something to do with the Vatican seeing abortion as murder of innocent life.

But even if you agree 100% that it is murder, a 3 month old foetus isn't going to survive if the mother dies, which is almost certain, so their position here is basically "**** medicine, let's just pray for a miracle where both survive"

It's more the standpoint that there's no such thing as a truly moral "ends justify the means" decision.  From the Church's point of view, a case like that involves two innocent lives, the mother and the fetus, both with equal inherent value.  Taking one of those innocent lives, even if the purpose of doing so is to save the other innocent life, is an unacceptable solution.  I know most of you probably find that absurd, but I think that's the light that the circumstances are cast in from a Catholic viewpoint.

[karajorma]

But it's not a case of one or the other (as it might be with a 7 month pregnancy where the baby might survive the death of its mother). It's not even ends justify the means. This foetus will not survive. So it isn't taking one life to save the other. It's saving one life or saving neither.

[General Battuta]

It's the omission bias heuristic. Apparently powerful enough to corrupt entire religions!

[DarkBasilisk]

It may have something to do with the Vatican seeing abortion as murder of innocent life.

But even if you agree 100% that it is murder, a 3 month old foetus isn't going to survive if the mother dies, which is almost certain, so their position here is basically "**** medicine, let's just pray for a miracle where both survive"

It's more the standpoint that there's no such thing as a truly moral "ends justify the means" decision.  From the Church's point of view, a case like that involves two innocent lives, the mother and the fetus, both with equal inherent value.  Taking one of those innocent lives, even if the purpose of doing so is to save the other innocent life, is an unacceptable solution.  I know most of you probably find that absurd, but I think that's the light that the circumstances are cast in from a Catholic viewpoint.

Uh. Except you know for preserving life it was a core teaching of Jesus that you're supposed to screw the rules and do what you need to save someone, re : “If one of you has a son or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull him out?”

As such I find it indefensible that the Church would ever try to prioritize dogma over saving someone's life. And yes in this situation the child's life is already pretty much forfeit. That's the reality. the decision on the table is whether or not to save the mother.

[Mongoose]

But it's not a case of one or the other (as it might be with a 7 month pregnancy where the baby might survive the death of its mother). It's not even ends justify the means. This foetus will not survive. So it isn't taking one life to save the other. It's saving one life or saving neither.

The bottom line is that one cannot commit straight-up murder in order to save a life.  Period.  You do whatever you can to save both of them and leave the rest in God's hands, but deliberately killing the fetus is morally indefensible.  Like I said, I expect most of you to find that foolish, but I can't say that I care.

And seriously, iamzack, your shtick is beyond tiresome.

[StarSlayer]

So murdering both is better?

[General Battuta]

But it's not a case of one or the other (as it might be with a 7 month pregnancy where the baby might survive the death of its mother). It's not even ends justify the means. This foetus will not survive. So it isn't taking one life to save the other. It's saving one life or saving neither.

The bottom line is that one cannot commit straight-up murder in order to save a life.  Period.  You do whatever you can to save both of them and leave the rest in God's hands, but deliberately killing the fetus is morally indefensible.  Like I said, I expect most of you to find that foolish, but I can't say that I care.

And seriously, iamzack, your shtick is beyond tiresome.

Again, omission bias: the tendency to treat an action carried out by omission as somehow different from one carried out by positive action.

You need to look at it as a scenario of "either I will murder the mother and the child, or I will murder the child."

If you tell me that the Church would pick option A then that is genuinely screwed up.

[Grizzly]

So murdering both is better?

It would appear that 'death due to inaction' does not equal murder.

[StarSlayer]

So murdering both is better?

It would appear that 'death due to inaction' does not equal murder.

If two people fell in front of a train and you had the chance to save one but instead decided to save neither because you didn't want the responsibility of making a decision I don't see how its a moral choice.  I'd rather have one person's blood on my conscience then two.

[Kosh]

The bottom line is that one cannot commit straight-up murder in order to save a life.  Period.  You do whatever you can to save both of them and leave the rest in God's hands, but deliberately killing the fetus is morally indefensible.  Like I said, I expect most of you to find that foolish, but I can't say that I care.

Not all of us buy into the Magic Man in the Sky. Besides, the real world isn't always as black and white as that. It's rare, but sometimes in order to save a life, you have to take one. Destroying a fetus however destroys the potential for life.


EDIT: Come to think of it, I think it's kind of funny in a way that you would believe this stuff, even though you personally would never be in that position. Let's make you pregnant and then see how it feels.

[Mongoose]

Again, omission bias: the tendency to treat an action carried out by omission as somehow different from one carried out by positive action.

You need to look at it as a scenario of "either I will murder the mother and the child, or I will murder the child."

If you tell me that the Church would pick option A then that is genuinely screwed up.

Except there is no guarantee that the mother will die without the abortion.  There may be a significant risk of death, yes, but not an absolute certainty of such.  If one holds human life as having inherent value, then one must err on the side of life, even if that side is a fairly slim hope.

(Also, it looks like your little "omission bias" isn't even universally recognized as a cognitive bias.  In either case, spare us the behavioral science jargon for once, please.)

EDIT: Come to think of it, I think it's kind of funny in a way that you would believe this stuff, even though you personally would never be in that position. Let's make you pregnant and then see how it feels.

So I'm not allowed to have any opinion in the matter, just because I'm male?  Fair enough.  I'll go ask my friend who just had a baby two days ago.  I'm pretty sure I know which side she'd come down on.

[The E]

Except there is no guarantee that the mother will die without the abortion.  There may be a significant risk of death, yes, but not an absolute certainty of such.  If one holds human life as having inherent value, then one must err on the side of life, even if that side is a fairly slim hope.

Ah, yes. I agree 100%. Prayer, handwringing and good intentions always trump proper medical procedure. Certainly.

This post was brought to you from Bizarroworld.

[Mongoose]

Ah, yes, that's right, murder is "proper medical procedure."  Certainly.

[The E]

Hmm.

Murder.

The intentional killing of one human being.

Ever heard of triage procedures?

If we use your definition, a good part of emergency medicine would fall under the murder definition, or at the very least grievous bodily harm.

In the hypothetical case under discussion here, where a pregnant woman is unable to bring a child to term due to countervailing medical problems, going so far as to seriously endanger the mother's chance of surviving if the pregnancy is not aborted, you would HONESTLY argue for the Doctors to not perform the one procedure that they know will improve the mother's chances of survival?

Are you saying that the life of an unborn child has a greater value than the life of said child's mother?

[Mongoose]

I would say that both have equal value, to the point where intentionally choosing to kill one is an unacceptable choice.  And I would also say that the triage comparison doesn't hold up, because in this case, the fetus is actually the healthier party of the two.  Unfortunately, we don't yet have the ability to create an "artificial womb" that could easily resolve the issue without any moral qualms, though I hope that can come to pass in the near future.

But seriously, I don't want to be doing this.  I'm sure you don't want to be doing this.  We know it's going to go nowhere.  The only reason I made the first comment is because Little Miss Trollio broached the subject in the first place.  So why should we indulge her?