If a girl is raped and refused emer contraceptives: Violation of Rights?

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

Originally Posted by Papist

Incest window still open - hoping you'll close it on your own...

I was under the impression that if it's with your identical twin, it's ok, but otherwise, no ick ew. Thoughts?

Originally Posted by Lokhtar

Not the one who started it . And as much as I dislike something, I don't see how I have the right to tell anyone what to do with another consenting adult. I actually never got that line of argument from my religious friends when it came to things like gay marriage and such. It just makes no sense to me. But to each his own.

You should ask yourself why the state even bothers recognizing marriage in the first place. Why don't they just leave that very personal relationship alone?

Turns out that relationship is the foundation of society and the state has a vested interest in seeing it succeed.

Originally Posted by Papist

You should ask yourself why the state even bothers recognizing marriage in the first place. Why don't they just leave that very personal relationship alone?

They should.

They started bothering because they wanted parents to approve of the match basically. They didn't want a nice fine born boy to marry a servant, pretty much. Up until 1215, it was like that, when it was finally made a sacrament and actually right up until the 16th or 17th century, there wasn't any need/requirement/ability to even register the match 'officially'. For the first thousand or so years of Christianity, it was basically between two people with not even the church being involved - you said your vows to each other and it was fine. The church saw celibacy as the 'highest calling' and actually saw marriages (and sex) as a more 'base' activity.

Even in the US, in the beginning, while marriages needed to be 'registered' officially, common law marriages were common and were accepted. It wasn't until really people wanted to make sure whites couldn't marry blacks that there were that many specific laws passed prohibiting it.


The notion that marriage has always been regulated by the state is nonsense.

Originally Posted by Lokhtar

I don't see the 'rights' of that group of cells outweighing the rights of the woman and her body.

Maybe you have trouble seeing the rights of that 'group of cells' because you see a highly ordered and specialized embryonic human - capable of cellular respiration, metabolism, reproduction, etc. - as a non-human 'group of cells' while blindly ignoring the advances in science and medicine that give us an amazing look into utero, revealing the very distinct, human qualities of a fetus... all because you likely subscribe to political jargon that declares a pregnant woman's rights to be greater than the rights of the unborn just so that she won't be able to be held accountable for the decisions she made, and so that she can freely take another's life in the name of convenience.

And no, I don't care that the above is a run-on sentence.

Originally Posted by Lokhtar

They started bothering because they wanted parents to approve of the match basically. They didn't want a nice fine born boy to marry a servant, pretty much. Up until 1215, it was like that, when it was finally made a sacrament and actually right up until the 16th or 17th century, there wasn't any need/requirement/ability to even register the match 'officially'.

I feel like a quick glance of societies throughout the ages would show you that the successful states have nearly always taken an interest in this central relationship. Were the marital regulations as defined as they are today? OFC not. Did marital restrictions exist? Yeah. Whether or not the marital ceremony was sanctioned by the state or the church isn't important. I doubt you'd find a son marrying his mother in ancient Rome. The state has an interest in protecting the relationship that propagates society.

Originally Posted by Papist

Maybe you have trouble seeing the rights of that 'group of cells' because you see a highly ordered and specialized embryonic human - capable of cellular respiration, metabolism, reproduction, etc. - as a non-human 'group of cells' while blindly ignoring the advances in science and medicine that give us an amazing look into utero, revealing the very distinct, human qualities of a fetus... all because you likely subscribe to political jargon that declares a pregnant woman's rights to be greater than the rights of the unborn just so that she won't be able to be held accountable for the decisions she made, and so that she can freely take another's life in the name of convenience.

And no, I don't care that the above is a run-on sentence.



I feel like a quick glance of societies throughout the ages would show you that the successful states have nearly always taken an interest in this central relationship. Were the marital regulations as defined as they are today? OFC not. Did marital restrictions exist? Yeah. Whether or not the marital ceremony was sanctioned by the state or the church isn't important. I doubt you'd find a son marrying his mother in ancient Rome. The state has an interest in protecting the relationship that propagates society.

OK enough being obtuse. Flatly, does this describe your point of view:

1. The rights of a raped woman are superseded by the rights of the fetus despite the violent and unwanted conception.

2. Two gay men or ladies getting married undermines societies interest in the procreative purpose of marriage.

3. Joseph Ratzinger, Hitler Youth Member, has the sole capacity of intercession between you and your God.

I just want to know what sort of mind is clouding the discussion with vague obtuse commentary before I engage your comments.

Originally Posted by Abider

OK enough being obtuse. Flatly, does this describe your point of view:

1. The rights of a raped woman are superseded by the rights of the fetus despite the violent and unwanted conception.

2. Two gay men or ladies getting married undermines societies interest in the procreative purpose of marriage.

3. Joseph Ratzinger, Hitler Youth Member, has the sole capacity of intercession between you and your God.

I just want to know what sort of mind is clouding the discussion with vague obtuse commentary before I engage your comments.

Ad hominem

But my handle doesn't lie.

Originally Posted by Papist

Ad hominem

But my handle doesn't lie.

Great. The Padres taught you Latin. Ad hominem....mf'er please....then what's the Inquisition. Or the systematic hiding of sex offenders in the ranks of the sanctified, Ad Creepin'em?

On the one hand uber-rational semantics, on the other cult member. Make some sense if you want to be taken seriously enough that isn't just dodgy, slick conjecture, at the expense of the rights of others.

Eventually Gay people will have the right to get married, just as interracial marriages busted through legal barriers in 60's. And in no sane world beyond the cultural enclaves of pious idiocy will a raped woman go without the ability to terminate that pregnancy.

You all will win some of the uneducated masses who are still awed by the power and trickery of your institution but in the developed western republics you're all but finished. Thank goodness. Ratzinger....Holy man #1....and you expect to be treated rationally and with respect for the mere fact of your belief....that's rich.

And come to think of it...

How can you be against contraception and then admonish people for their lack of prevention.

Let me clue you in...primates like to F@ck.

The Tebow thing doesn't cut it for most of us.

Originally Posted by Abider

Great. The Padres taught you Latin. Ad hominem....mf'er please....then what's the Inquisition. Or the systematic hiding of sex offenders in the ranks of the sanctified, Ad Creepin'em?

On the one hand uber-rational semantics, on the other cult member. Make some sense if you want to be taken seriously enough that isn't just dodgy, slick conjecture, at the expense of the rights of others.

Eventually Gay people will have the right to get married, just as interracial marriages busted through legal barriers in 60's. And in no sane world beyond the cultural enclaves of pious idiocy will a raped woman go without the ability to terminate that pregnancy.

You all will win some of the uneducated masses who are still awed by the power and trickery of your institution but in the developed western republics you're all but finished. Thank goodness. Ratzinger....Holy man #1....and you expect to be treated rationally and with respect for the mere fact of your belief....that's rich.

Ad hominem again. I haven't mentioned religion once.

U mad?

Do you even know what "ad hominem" means?
You have incorrectly used it a couple times now. It is not just a catch phrase meaning "you are being a meany head and you should stop". It is only an ad hominem if someone attempts to negate your claim based on some aspect of you as a person. "You're fat therefore you couldnt be giving sound dieting advice" is an example. Otherwise it is just an insult and I dont think anyone 1) needs you to call it out for them any time they are being sarcastic to you or 2) cares to begin with....

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

Do you even know what "ad hominem" means?
You have incorrectly used it a couple times now. It is not just a catch phrase meaning "you are being a meany head and you should stop". It is only an ad hominem if someone attempts to negate your claim based on some aspect of you as a person. "You're fat therefore you couldnt be giving sound dieting advice" is an example. Otherwise it is just an insult and I dont think anyone 1) needs you to call it out for them any time they are being sarcastic to you or 2) cares to begin with....

Considering that Abider attempted to invalidate my argument against abortion on the sole basis that I am Catholic - while offering no real points for abortion - I'd say Ad hominem works here.

That's a stretch.... I dont think he has attempted to invalidate anything you've said. He has only attempted to establish the point of view you are taking before engaging
There has to be a logical inconsistency for it to be ad hominem.... "That turtle is not a duck because it is a turtle" is using personal characteristics to disprove a scenario. Still not ad hominem.

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

That's a stretch.... I dont think he has attempted to invalidate anything you've said. He has only attempted to establish the point of view you are taking before engaging
There has to be a logical inconsistency for it to be ad hominem.... "That turtle is not a duck because it is a turtle" is using personal characteristics to disprove a scenario. Still not ad hominem.

Hmm, maybe you are right. We may have just witnessed an anti-Catholic bigot who had no intention on posting anything relevant to the discussion, instead just seeking to provide us with an incoherent rant.

http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. Those who are quick to squeal "ad hominem" are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument.

If I had been drinking milk when I read this, it would have shot out my nose.

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html



If I had been drinking milk when I read this, it would have shot out my nose.

"In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument"

Thanks for the link. I'm now more certain I used it correctly.

oh. Ok.....

Where o' where will this thread take us next? We should turn this discussion into an audiobook and make a profit.

We could call it: "Flame the Catholics! They believe sex belongs with marriage, all human life is deserving of dignity, and children have a right to a mother & a father!"

Personally, I'd like Samuel LJ to narrate for me.

Originally Posted by Papist

Where O' where will this thread take us next?
.

how about this: There should only be one "medicine". not catholic medicine, jewish medicine, islamic medicine, or a hundred thousand other versions of medicine based on individual practinioners' beliefs. if you wear the badge of MD/DO then you should provide everything that's included in the bag of tricks, based on the principles of beneficence and non-malfeasance. what's in the bag of tricks should be decided by boards of medical experts. Then the religious point of view can play its part from the patient's side, where they rely on principles of self-determination and informed consent.

discuss....

Originally Posted by startoverat40

how about this: There should only be one "medicine". not catholic medicine, jewish medicine, islamic medicine, or a hundred thousand other versions of medicine based on individual practinioners' beliefs. if you wear the badge of MD/DO then you should provide everything that's included in the bag of tricks, based on the principles of beneficence and non-malfeasance. what's in the bag of tricks should be decided by boards of medical experts. Then the religious point of view can play its part from the patient's side, where they rely on principles of self-determination and informed consent.

discuss....

Much better IMO. Back to the OP's original question.

How about we make medical school a Nazi-like camp where future practitioners are stripped of all potential biases. Cultural, societal, religious, and philosophical influences will all be discouraged until the practitioners attain the medical knowledge of that of WebMD and the ethical knowledge of...

Well, omit ethics because that requires the collective contribution of all sorts of practitioners whose mindsets have been formed by greatly varying influences in order to decide what is 'best' for humanity.

WebMD it is.

Originally Posted by Papist

Much better IMO. Back to the OP's original question.

How about we make medical school a Nazi-like camp where future practitioners are stripped of all potential biases. Cultural, societal, religious, and philosophical influences will all be discouraged until the practitioners attain the medical knowledge of that of WebMD and the ethical knowledge of...

Well, omit ethics because that requires the collective contribution of all sorts of practitioners whose mindsets have been formed by greatly varying influences in order to decide what is 'best' for humanity.

WebMD it is.

Actually the original topic was how to handle a rape victim's request for prevention of pregnancy.

I'd like to see you answer as to why that request should be rejected by someone trained to be a physician. I concede it is a constitutional right to not perform a non-emergent procedure, although I think the notion that such a case should not be handled as swiftly and delicately as humanly possible is suspect in the most polite terms.

My reasoning for providing the service is simple. The pregnancy was induced by humiliating violence and trauma. The patient's wishes should be respected in all cases that are medically sound for the patient alone.

You would tell this rape victim that the rights of child that may or may not have been sired by her assailant takes precedent. I have yet to see an argument that wouldn't make me think the maker of such a claim isn't a pusillanimous hypocrite who's slavish devotion to doctrine and garnering of heavenly wages wasn't their chief concern.

Originally Posted by Papist

Much better IMO. Back to the OP's original question.

How about we make medical school a Nazi-like camp where future practitioners are stripped of all potential biases. Cultural, societal, religious, and philosophical influences will all be discouraged until the practitioners attain the medical knowledge of that of WebMD and the ethical knowledge of...

Well, omit ethics because that requires the collective contribution of all sorts of practitioners whose mindsets have been formed by greatly varying influences in order to decide what is 'best' for humanity.

WebMD it is.

Sounds exactly like current medical education. You have much to learn. Medical ethics does not equal morals.

Originally Posted by Abider

Actually the original topic was how to handle a rape victim's request for prevention of pregnancy.

I'd like to see you answer as to why that request should be rejected by someone trained to be a physician. I concede it is a constitutional right to not perform a non-emergent procedure, although I think the notion that such a case should not be handled as swiftly and delicately as humanly possible is suspect in the most polite terms.

My reasoning for providing the service is simple. The pregnancy was induced by humiliating violence and trauma. The patient's wishes should be respected in all cases that are medically sound for the patient alone.

You would tell this rape victim that the rights of child that may or may not have been sired by her assailant takes precedent. I have yet to see an argument that wouldn't make me think the maker of such a claim isn't a pusillanimous hypocrite who's slavish devotion to doctrine and garnering of heavenly wages wasn't their chief concern.

Truly, this is such a terrible situation. You rightly assert that focus should be on the victim's requests. You also correctly point out that it is a constitutional right for a provider to deny a procedure on the basis of conscience. Though, strictly speaking, it is permissible - within Catholic teaching - to prescribe medication that would prevent ovulation in such a scenario. But I agree that the patient's wishes should come first, though respect should still be given to the conscience rights of the practitioner.

The trouble I have with your very polite objections is that you criticize a pro-life perspective from the rationale behind less than 2% of all abortions. I agree completely that rape situations are a travesty and are deserving of the most humane and respectful care, but as I mentioned earlier, I don't think it's wise to devalue a practitioner's commitment to preserving the dignity of all life on the account that less than 2% of conceptions are rape-related.

Originally Posted by dr zaius

Sounds exactly like current medical education. You have much to learn. Medical ethics does not equal morals.

Yeah, you're probably right. Though, medical ethics were undoubtedly derived from some objective set of principles (you don't have to call it morality if that makes you uncomfortable) which was recognized to benefit society the most.

Originally Posted by Papist

Truly, this is such a terrible situation. You rightly assert that focus should be on the victim's requests. You also correctly point out that it is a constitutional right for a provider to deny a procedure on the basis of conscience. Though, strictly speaking, it is permissible - within Catholic teaching - to prescribe medication that would prevent ovulation in such a scenario. But I agree that the patient's wishes should come first, though respect should still be given to the conscience rights of the practitioner.

The trouble I have with your very polite objections is that you criticize a pro-life perspective from the rationale behind less than 2% of all abortions. I agree completely that rape situations are a travesty and are deserving of the most humane and respectful care, but as I mentioned earlier, I don't think it's wise to devalue a practitioner's commitment to preserving the dignity of all life on the account that less than 2% of conceptions are rape-related.

Well then even as an anti-theist we would be in agreement as working colleagues then. I have no problem with other people's religiosity as long as it remains just that. Their religiosity.

I would never perform abortions in practice. Just couldn't stomach it. But can also appreciate the levity of some of this threads comics. And in kind think it's generally none of my business how other people manage their reproductive functions.

My experience in pediatric clinics with sullen teenage lovers and their seeming inability to figure out how to not get pregnant multiple times would give you ample fuel for your disgust. With which I am a partial supporter. But there's a whole body of public health research on teenage health that when combined with sociological research on the economic consequences of uneducated young mothers will suggest the full gamut of reproductive control is beneficial for children, mothers, and society.

So the OB docs who practice this type of work are armed with evidence. And not the descriptions of Iron age deities and their view of women. Which if taken at face value your papist leanings don't go nearly far enough. They should be stoned to death for letting themselves be in the compromising position of being raped. With chosen representatives of said deities as judge and jury.

Fortunately most of recognize how sh!tty that would be.

Originally Posted by Abider

So the OB docs who practice this type of work are armed with evidence. And not the descriptions of Iron age deities and their view of women. Which if taken at face value your papist leanings don't go nearly far enough. They should be stoned to death for letting themselves be in the compromising position of being raped. With chosen representatives of said deities as judge and jury.

Abider, I can't help but agree with you on many points.

Although, your anti-Catholic sentiments bleed through your text and, for the most part, don't really merit a response, but I think a few points are worth mentioning in defense of our 'Iron age deities'.

You seem to make the assertion that a view which seeks to give respect and dignity to the life of all people belongs in the Dark Ages. Does the evidence to which you arrogantly refer also include the very damaging effects of the so-called 'liberation' of the sexual revolution? Consider the well known "paradox of declining female happiness". I find it reasonable to credit the pervasive contraceptive mentality that inhibits our popular culture's ability to recognize true femininity with the observed decline in female happiness.

Keep in mind that Humanae Vitae, the encyclical which, despite immense controversy, reaffirmed that an authentic Catholic teaching forbade the use of contraception, warned of four resulting trends: "a general lowering of moral standards throughout society, a rise in infidelity, a lessening of respect for women by men, and the coercive use of reproductive technologies by government."

Of course, please recognize that I am responding in defense of Catholic teaching only because you demonstrated that you are unable to control your bigoted fingers while responding to a well-reasoned argument on abortion (from both sides) which contained no religious flavor.

Now certainly, I am not saying that such a belief in the seat of Peter entitles me to go Mr. Smith on everyone...



but you should, at the very least, attempt to engage in respectful dialogue - as hard as that may be - and recognize that faithful Catholics seek to uphold the dignity that all life deserves. And not because our beloved neo-Nazi leader thinks we should, but because our two-thousand-year-old institution - which has produced the greatest philosophy, science, music, and art the world has ever given witness to - has reasoned that the righteous mission to protect human dignity extends to the unborn.

Originally Posted by Papist

Abider, I can't help but agree with you on many points.

Although, your anti-Catholic sentiments bleed through your text and, for the most part, don't really merit a response, but I think a few points are worth mentioning in defense of our 'Iron age deities'.

You seem to make the assertion that a view which seeks to give respect and dignity to the life of all people belongs in the Dark Ages. Does the evidence to which you arrogantly refer also include the very damaging effects of the so-called 'liberation' of the sexual revolution? Consider the well known "paradox of declining female happiness". I find it reasonable to credit the pervasive contraceptive mentality that inhibits our popular culture's ability to recognize true femininity with the observed decline in female happiness.

Keep in mind that Humanae Vitae, the encyclical which, despite immense controversy, reaffirmed that an authentic Catholic teaching forbade the use of contraception, warned of four resulting trends: "a general lowering of moral standards throughout society, a rise in infidelity, a lessening of respect for women by men, and the coercive use of reproductive technologies by government."

Of course, please recognize that I am responding in defense of Catholic teaching only because you demonstrated that you are unable to control your bigoted fingers while responding to a well-reasoned argument on abortion (from both sides).

Now certainly, possessing such a belief in the seat of Peter in no way entitles me to go Mr. Smith on everyone...



but you should, at the very least, attempt to recognize that faithful Catholics seek to uphold the dignity that all life deserves. And not because our beloved neo-Nazi leader thinks we should, but because our two-thousand-year-old institution - which has produced the greatest philosophy, science, music, and art the world has ever given witness to - has reasoned that the righteous mission to protect human dignity extends to the unborn.

You are trolling the crap out of me. Not one person who's read any history could possibly come to your conclusions. And since you are obviously not an uneducated peasant. I can only assume your F'ing with me. The title of Papist should have tipped me off. That'd be the equivalent of me having the handle--FU_God. It's like you're trying to convince me the Mormons have produced the greatest rock n roll bands of all time. And the Amish have the best rappers. Yeah. You're trolling me.

Originally Posted by Abider

Not one person who's read any history could possibly come to your conclusions.

Columbia educated historian Thomas Woods might have something to say...



In reference to the university system: "Historians have marveled at the extent to which intellectual debate in those universities was free and unfettered. The exaltation of human reason and its capabilities, a commitment to rigorous and rational debate, a promotion of intellectual inquiry and scholarly exchange – all sponsored by the Church – provided the framework for the Scientific Revolution which was unique to Western civilization... For the last fifty years, virtually all historians of science – including A.C. Crombie, David Lindberg, Edward Grant, Stanley Jaki, Thomas Goldstein, and J. L. Heilbron – have concluded that the Scientific Revolution was indebted to the Church.”



Again though, it amazes me that immediately after my semi-earnest plea for you to refrain from faith based attacks & instead to engage in reasonable discussion, you revert back to "your religion sucks & the Pope is the Anti-Christ LOL".

.

Free and unfettered unless you contradicted scripture (Copernicus, Galileo).

Originally Posted by dr zaius

Free and unfettered unless you contradicted scripture (Copernicus, Galileo).

those dudes had it coming! The earth be the center, yo!

Exactly! The earth is firmly placed in its foundations!

Originally Posted by Papist

but you should, at the very least, attempt to engage in respectful dialogue - as hard as that may be - and recognize that faithful Catholics seek to uphold the dignity that all life deserves. And not because our beloved neo-Nazi leader thinks we should, but because our two-thousand-year-old institution - which has produced the greatest philosophy, science, music, and art the world has ever given witness to - has reasoned that the righteous mission to protect human dignity extends to the unborn.

Yeah...and it also influenced some of the greatest atrocities which the world has ever given witness to.

Trying to convince us that the Catholic Church always has 'human dignity' in mind with its policies is one tough sell amigo.

Originally Posted by High Roller

Trying to convince us that the Catholic Church always has 'human dignity' in mind with its policies is one tough sell amigo.

Tough ?? .... Over one billion people are already convinced. That is 1/7 of the human race.

Originally Posted by MedSensation

Tough ?? .... Over one billion people are already convinced. That is 1/7 of the human race.

Perhaps. But for the sale of salvation any old charlatan will do.

It's here in the tough but realistic scenario that the OP presents that we have to use a higher criteria. And here where The Church, or any such collection of robed Holy men is infallibly inadequate.

In fact the only thing likely to make someone do the wrong thing here and delay or deny care of a rape victim would be some form of mind control.

I've heard it said: All sorts of Bad people do bad things religious or not. But if you want a good person to do a bad thing, there's nothing quite like religion to accomplish it.

Papist, if sincere--I am doubtful. Thinks The Church is the sole target of my contempt. Hardly. In fact, the bearded mullahs being somewhat earlier in their trajectory of failure would probably serve this situation much worse.

Originally Posted by Abider

And since you are obviously not an uneducated peasant. I can only assume your F'ing with me.

~130K American peasants joined the church last year.

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

those dudes had it coming! The earth be the center, yo!

Originally Posted by dr zaius

Free and unfettered unless you contradicted scripture (Copernicus, Galileo).

Oh look, it's that argument again. I find it revealing that through 2000 years of history, this is the only (often misconstrued) example that ever comes to mind.

Thomas Woods again (a few excerpts):

"Initially Galileo and his work were welcomed and celebrated by prominent church... When Galileo went to Rome the following year he was greeted with enthusiasm by religious and secular figures alike. He wrote to a friend, 'I have been received and shown favor by many illustrious cardinals, prelates, and princes of this city.'"

In 1612, Galileo officially espoused the Copernican system... "The Church had no objection to the use of the Copernican system as an elegant theoretical model whose literal truth was far from established, but which accounted for celestial phenomena more reliably than any other system. There was thought to be no harm in presenting and using it as a hypothetical system. Galileo, on the other hand, believed the Copernican system to be literally true rather than merely a hypothesis that yielded accurate predications. But he lacked anything approaching adequate evidence to support his belief. Thus, for example, he argued that the movement of the tides constituted proof of earth's motion, a suggestion that Vientiane now find quaintly risible. He could not answer the geocentrists' objections, which dated all the way back to Aristotle, that if the earth moved then parallax shifts should be evident in our observations of the stars, but they were not. In the absence of strict scientific proof, Galileo nevertheless insisted on the literal truth of the Copernican system and refused to accept a compromise whereby Copernicanism would be taught as a hypothesis until persuasive evidence could be produced on its behalf."

Jerome Langford, one of the most knowledgable scholars on this subject, said the following:

"Galileo was convinced that he had the truth. But objectively he had no proof with which to win the allegiance of open-minded men. It is a complete injustice to contend, as some historians do, that no one would listen to his arguments, that he never had a chance. The Jesuit astronomers had confirmed his discoveries; they waited eagerly for further proof so that they could abandon Tycho's system and come out solidly in favor of Copernicanism. Many influential churchmen believed that Galileo might be right, but they had to wait for more proof."

"Part of the blame for the events which follow must be traced to Galileo himself. He refused the compromise, then entered the debate without sufficient proof and on the theologians' home grounds."

Also, let's not forget that both Copernicus & Galileo were devout Catholics.

Skip a bit to 1616 and 1632.

The church funded universities and art, sure, but to claim they were this bastion of free flowing ideas with no regard to protecting their own beliefs is pretty ridiculous.

Originally Posted by dr zaius

Skip a bit to 1616 and 1632.

The church funded universities and art, sure, but to claim they were this bastion of free flowing ideas with no regard to protecting their own beliefs is pretty ridiculous.

The claim that the church is anti-science is pretty ridiculous, considering many of the church's own consecrated & laity are recognized as founders of numerous scientific fields, including seismology, genetics, and botany.

Back to more thread-based discussion, if someone could show that life began somewhere else other than conception and that a fetus did not have obviously distinct human qualities, then I can't imagine the act of abortion carrying any moral culpability.

Francis Collins, director of NIH, also holds the notion that 'conception doesn't mark the start of a human life' to be highly suspect.

Originally Posted by Papist

Oh look, it's that argument again. I find it revealing that through 2000 years of history, this is the only (often misconstrued) example that ever comes to mind.

Thomas Woods again (a few excerpts):

"Initially Galileo and his work were welcomed and celebrated by prominent church... When Galileo went to Rome the following year he was greeted with enthusiasm by religious and secular figures alike. He wrote to a friend, 'I have been received and shown favor by many illustrious cardinals, prelates, and princes of this city.'"

In 1612, Galileo officially espoused the Copernican system... "The Church had no objection to the use of the Copernican system as an elegant theoretical model whose literal truth was far from established, but which accounted for celestial phenomena more reliably than any other system. There was thought to be no harm in presenting and using it as a hypothetical system. Galileo, on the other hand, believed the Copernican system to be literally true rather than merely a hypothesis that yielded accurate predications. But he lacked anything approaching adequate evidence to support his belief. Thus, for example, he argued that the movement of the tides constituted proof of earth's motion, a suggestion that Vientiane now find quaintly risible. He could not answer the geocentrists' objections, which dated all the way back to Aristotle, that if the earth moved then parallax shifts should be evident in our observations of the stars, but they were not. In the absence of strict scientific proof, Galileo nevertheless insisted on the literal truth of the Copernican system and refused to accept a compromise whereby Copernicanism would be taught as a hypothesis until persuasive evidence could be produced on its behalf."

Jerome Langford, one of the most knowledgable scholars on this subject, said the following:

"Galileo was convinced that he had the truth. But objectively he had no proof with which to win the allegiance of open-minded men. It is a complete injustice to contend, as some historians do, that no one would listen to his arguments, that he never had a chance. The Jesuit astronomers had confirmed his discoveries; they waited eagerly for further proof so that they could abandon Tycho's system and come out solidly in favor of Copernicanism. Many influential churchmen believed that Galileo might be right, but they had to wait for more proof."

"Part of the blame for the events which follow must be traced to Galileo himself. He refused the compromise, then entered the debate without sufficient proof and on the theologians' home grounds."

Also, let's not forget that both Copernicus & Galileo were devout Catholics.

Ah yes. Clearly accusing someone of heresy, forcing them to recant, and then imprisoning and putting them under house arrest is all because the Church cared about the sanctity of the scientific process.

Originally Posted by Papist

The claim that the church is anti-science is pretty ridiculous, considering many of the church's own consecrated & laity are recognized as founders of numerous scientific fields, including seismology, genetics, and botany.

Who claimed they were anti-science? They are only anti-science if it contradicts the beliefs of the church. It would not be in their best interests to support such things.

Life began before conception. The sperm were alive as were the eggs. The question is when does one become a person.

Originally Posted by Papist

Back to more thread-based discussion, if someone could show that life began somewhere else other than conception and that a fetus did not have obviously distinct human qualities, then I can't imagine the act of abortion carrying any moral culpability.

Francis Collins, director of NIH, also holds the notion that 'conception doesn't mark the start of a human life' to be highly suspect.

OK. Let's just agree to overlook your clearly Jesuit narrative and blow right past the ambivalence with which the Church regarded such notions, sail right over the Inquisitors and Conquistadors and the slaughter of millions, skip around the Witness Protection Program for child rapists, through the antagonism of contraception in HIV prevalent populations to arrive at the present topic.

Fine, human life begins with conception, we'll forget the relative frequency of implantation and unnoticed miscarriages.

So then. The rape victim. She wants to prevent a pregnancy. What do you do? What system of ethics helps you arrive at a certain course of action?

Medical training makes the obvious case for treatment via pharmaceutical prevention along with a prophylactic regimen for STD's and a rape kit for collecting criminal evidence.

The Burden of denial is on you. And the you's I've seen have been religious abstentioners.

So, papist, do you deny the care? And on what basis? Stop ducking the question and man up.

Originally Posted by Abider

OK. Let's just agree to overlook your clearly Jesuit narrative and blow right past the ambivalence with which the Church regarded such notions, sail right over the Inquisitors and Conquistadors and the slaughter of millions, skip around the Witness Protection Program for child rapists, through the antagonism of contraception in HIV prevalent populations to arrive at the present topic.

Fine, human life begins with conception, we'll forget the relative frequency of implantation and unnoticed miscarriages.

So then. The rape victim. She wants to prevent a pregnancy. What do you do? What system of ethics helps you arrive at a certain course of action?

Medical training makes the obvious case for treatment via pharmaceutical prevention along with a prophylactic regimen for STD's and a rape kit for collecting criminal evidence.

The Burden of denial is on you. And the you's I've seen have been religious abstentioners.

So, papist, do you deny the care? And on what basis? Stop ducking the question and man up.

Bingo.

Church doctrine is not a system of ethics. I can find many books and leaders that tell me how to live. I wanna hear a rationalization on why this fella would deny basic care to this patient. I wanna hear it. I want to hear some justification, other than a thinly veiled rationalization of 'church doctrine'.

Papist, answer the question. What are you going to do in this situation?

Originally Posted by High Roller

Bingo.

Church doctrine is not a system of ethics. I can find many books and leaders that tell me how to live. I wanna hear a rationalization on why this fella would deny basic care to this patient. I wanna hear it. I want to hear some justification, other than a thinly veiled rationalization of 'church doctrine'.

Papist, answer the question. What are you going to do in this situation?

Originally Posted by Abider

OK. Let's just agree to overlook your clearly Jesuit narrative and blow right past the ambivalence with which the Church regarded such notions, sail right over the Inquisitors and Conquistadors and the slaughter of millions, skip around the Witness Protection Program for child rapists, through the antagonism of contraception in HIV prevalent populations to arrive at the present topic.

I could make a decent case that those 'books and leaders' that tell you how to live are a derivative of western morality that was shaped, in large part, by the Catholics (and, of course, other Christian influences as well).

But you guys would likely respond to such historical facts by reminding me that priests rape boys. I'd then inform you that only 4% of all Catholic priests (compared to 8% of the rest of the male population) have ever been accused of child sexual abuse (these instances are truly terrible), and that children are 100x more likely to be sexually abused by their public school teachers. To which you'd likely respond that Joseph Ratzinger is a Nazi because he was born into a Nazi-regime which required - by law - boys over the age of 14 to serve in the Hitler Youth. Oh boy, you guys surely know how to win an argument with a Catholic




Abider, you thought it necessary to bring Catholic doctrine into this discussion. Why? I'm not sure. Perhaps, you grew up in the Mississippi Delta and quickly learned that Catholics are Satanists. Or perhaps, you just couldn't rationalize why Whoopi Goldberg would seek protection within the world's most charitable organization:



Nonetheless, I've been attempting to drive a point home that you seem to ignore. But rather than blame it on deaf ears, I will assume I haven't done a good enough job of getting this main point across. I'll try again, in the hopes that we can leave the anti-religion sentiments in the Lounge. Here goes: a genuine pro-life stance does not hinge on the infallibility of celibate robed men residing in Vatican City. Rather, such ethical questions can be answered without an appeal to the Bible, religion, or the pope.

Originally Posted by Abider

Medical training makes the obvious case for treatment via pharmaceutical prevention along with a prophylactic regimen for STD's and a rape kit for collecting criminal evidence.

Bluntly, if I were faced with treating a rape victim, I would proceed with pharmaceutical prevention along with a prophylactic regimen for STDs and a rape kit for collecting criminal evidence.

Oh snap, what?

Of course, you probably realize that pharmaceutical prevention would not include abortifacient drugs; however, the use of medication to prevent ovulation is permissible with an authentic pro-life practice in such a scenario. As terrible and traumatic as rape is, if you were to come to the reasonable conclusion that conception marks the beginning of life and an embryo is a human person, then there is an obvious moral culpability to follow in prescribing abortifacients, regardless of circumstance.

For those who challenge the notion that an embryo is a human being (reasonable objections do exist IMO, but I remain inclined to place intrinsic value on that 'group of cells' ), I would refer them to the secular Senate Bill 158 (also known as the 'Human Life Bill') which, when summarized, reads like this: "Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings."

As an extension of that thought, if an embryo is a human being, I believe an obscure document called the Declaration of Independence might say something about all men having inalienable rights... something about pursuing happiness... something about a Creator (though let's ignore that notion, eh, and we'll pick that up in the lounge)... oh yeah, and something about a right to life!

So in conclusion, pro-life does not equal religious doctrine, nor does it even require a belief in a deity (see: http://secularprolife.org/). Though, all my 'beliefs' withstanding, I still think it's well within the patient's rights to receive the treatment of their choice - even if that were to include the morning after pill. A rape victim is, of course, entitled to receive the treatment that they desire, but they shouldn't demand that a Catholic institution provide abortifacients, or seek to force a Catholic practitioner to write the script. Plan B is available OTC.

I don't know how the protection of child rapists and coverup of child rape by the church is relevant to this discussion?

For those who challenge the notion that an embryo is a human being (reasonable objections do exist IMO, but I remain inclined to place intrinsic value on that 'group of cells' ), I would refer them to the secular Senate Bill 158 (also known as the 'Human Life Bill') which, when summarized, reads like this: "Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings."

They do? Got any evidence?

For the record I have nothing against the catholic church or any other religion specifically. I do have my own thoughts on religion in general and organized religion in particular but I don't think that's relevant to this debate.

Originally Posted by Lokhtar

do have my own thoughts on religion in general and organized religion in particular but I don't think that's relevant to this debate.

+1

Couldn't agree more.

Originally Posted by Papist

I could make a decent case that those 'books and leaders' that tell you how to live are a derivative of western morality that was shaped, in large part, by the Catholics (and, of course, other Christian influences as well).

But you guys would likely respond to such historical facts by reminding me that priests rape boys. I'd then inform you that only 4% of all Catholic priests (compared to 8% of the rest of the male population) have ever been accused of child sexual abuse (these instances are truly terrible), and that children are 100x more likely to be sexually abused by their public school teachers. To which you'd likely respond that Joseph Ratzinger is a Nazi because he was born into a Nazi-regime which required - by law - boys over the age of 14 to serve in the Hitler Youth. Oh boy, you guys surely know how to win an argument with a Catholic




Abider, you thought it necessary to bring Catholic doctrine into this discussion. Why? I'm not sure. Perhaps, you grew up in the Mississippi Delta and quickly learned that Catholics are Satanists. Or perhaps, you just couldn't rationalize why Whoopi Goldberg would seek protection within the world's most charitable organization:



Nonetheless, I've been attempting to drive a point home that you seem to ignore. But rather than blame it on deaf ears, I will assume I haven't done a good enough job of getting this main point across. I'll try again, in the hopes that we can leave the anti-religion sentiments in the Lounge. Here goes: a genuine pro-life stance does not hinge on the infallibility of celibate robed men residing in Vatican City. Rather, such ethical questions can be answered without an appeal to the Bible, religion, or the pope.



Bluntly, if I were faced with treating a rape victim, I would proceed with pharmaceutical prevention along with a prophylactic regimen for STDs and a rape kit for collecting criminal evidence.

Oh snap, what?

Of course, you probably realize that pharmaceutical prevention would not include abortifacient drugs; however, the use of medication to prevent ovulation is permissible with an authentic pro-life practice in such a scenario. As terrible and traumatic as rape is, if you were to come to the reasonable conclusion that conception marks the beginning of life and an embryo is a human person, then there is an obvious moral culpability to follow in prescribing abortifacients, regardless of circumstance.

For those who challenge the notion that an embryo is a human being (reasonable objections do exist IMO, but I remain inclined to place intrinsic value on that 'group of cells' ), I would refer them to the secular Senate Bill 158 (also known as the 'Human Life Bill') which, when summarized, reads like this: "Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings."

As an extension of that thought, if an embryo is a human being, I believe an obscure document called the Declaration of Independence might say something about all men having inalienable rights... something about pursuing happiness... something about a Creator (though let's ignore that notion, eh, and we'll pick that up in the lounge)... oh yeah, and something about a right to life!

So in conclusion, pro-life does not equal religious doctrine, nor does it even require a belief in a deity (see: http://secularprolife.org/). Though, all my 'beliefs' withstanding, I still think it's well within the patient's rights to receive the treatment of their choice - even if that were to include the morning after pill. A rape victim is, of course, entitled to receive the treatment that they desire, but they shouldn't demand that a Catholic institution provide abortifacients, or seek to force a Catholic practitioner to write the script. Plan B is available OTC.

Then you would have done your duty as a physician and wouldn't suffer my rebuke. That my path to performing medical duty is direct and yours requires walking a thin line doesn't matter. Now, where are you when your religious brethren claim denying treatment is ethically superior? Where is your rebuke? Who gives a f@ck if it's an aborting drug or an implantation prevention drug. Not all of those of who abstain from making a medical decision here make that distinction.

Originally Posted by Abider

Then you would have done your duty as a physician and wouldn't suffer my rebuke. That my path to performing medical duty is direct and yours requires walking a thin line doesn't matter. Now, where are you when your religious brethren claim denying treatment is ethically superior? Where is your rebuke? Who gives a f@ck if it's an aborting drug or an implantation prevention drug. Not all of those of who abstain from making a medical decision here make that distinction.

Regardless of whether a practitioner thinks that denying treatment is ethically superior or not, the practitioner - as well as my religious brethren - should realize that respect for persons includes respecting a patient's conscientious and informed decision.

Thus, in such a scenario, a physician should respect a patient's decision to be treated with abortifacients, as long as it does not require that physician - who objects on the basis of conscience - to cooperate with something they see as immoral.

The government seems to agree to a certain extent - hence the conscience rights of health care providers here in the States, though they've come under fire recently.

Originally Posted by Papist

Regardless of whether a practitioner thinks that denying treatment is ethically superior or not, the practitioner - as well as my religious brethren - should realize that respect for persons includes respecting a patient's conscientious and informed decision.

Thus, in such a scenario, a physician should respect a patient's decision to be treated with abortifacients, as long as it does not require that physician - who objects on the basis of conscience - to cooperate with something they see as immoral.

The government seems to agree to a certain extent - hence the conscience rights of health care providers here in the States, though they've come under fire recently.

Okay. Now we're getting on the same wavelength.