And this is why I am for capital punishment

[Powerman]

You missed something here, she was NOT necessarily agreeing with you.

I didn't miss anything. You really underestimate me and I have no clue why.

 

[Gunny]

This is pathetic. Between the 2 of you, you can't find one piece of information that acutally refutes what I said. The information is no doubt difficult to come by as I am learning. But the church doctrine clearly says that fetal craniotomies are not permitted. So I would venture to say that they do not perform this procedure in Catholic Hospitals.

You can call it a strawman argument. But you have NO argument. None whatsoever.

So you post a strawman argument and then demand it be refuted or you win? GMAFB.

 

[musicman]

I didn't miss anything.

Do you know who Lakeisha is - or are you more right than you imagine when you say:

I have no clue

 

[Powerman]

So you post a strawman argument and then demand it be refuted or you win? GMAFB.

This really isn't an argument. We are just in the business of trying to figure out if a certain piece of information is true or not. Kathy says it isn't but has no proof. I say it is and have found some proof to support what I say but I have not found definitive proof either way.

This is what we are looking for. We are trying to figure out if Catholic Hospitals will go against the doctrine of double effect and perform a fetal craniotomy in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. I said they didn't perform them and she claims that they do. I can't find shit that says definitively what the actual policy is. But as of now it's clear that to do so would be to violate church doctrine.

So right now we're stuck until someone can produce more definitive informtaion regarding the matter. That's the situation. Does everyone understand now?

There is no reason to say that I have a strawman argument. I'm not really arguing anything. I'm trying to find out if in fact this procedure is permissible in a Catholic Hospital or not. When no proof has been offered to counter it's silly to make fun of my "argument" Silly and childish.

 

[Gunny]

This really isn't an argument. We are just in the business of trying to figure out if a certain piece of information is true or not. Kathy says it isn't but has no proof. I say it is and have found some proof to support what I say but I have not found definitive proof either way.

This is what we are looking for. We are trying to figure out if Catholic Hospitals will go against the doctrine of double effect and perform a fetal craniotomy in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. I said they didn't perform them and she claims that they do. I can't find shit that says definitively what the actual policy is. But as of now it's clear that to do so would be to violate church doctrine.

So right now we're stuck until someone can produce more definitive informtaion regarding the matter. That's the situation. Does everyone understand now?

There is no reason to say that I have a strawman argument. I'm not really arguing anything. I'm trying to find out if in fact this procedure is permissible in a Catholic Hospital or not. When no proof has been offered to counter it's silly to make fun of my "argument" Silly and childish.

SO you are calling yourself silly and childish? It's YOUR words I quoted.

 

[Annie]

We are trying to figure out if Catholic Hospitals will go against the doctrine of double effect and perform a fetal craniotomy in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. I said they didn't perform them and she claims that they do. I can't find shit that says definitively what the actual policy is. But as of now it's clear that to do so would be to violate church doctrine.

Now pm is trying to speak for me. Not so. He quoted from Aquinas, who wrote a lot of stuff, some of which has been accepted by the Church, some of which has been rejected. In any case, he has not made his, other than in his own mind.

He is attempting to set himself up as judge and jury, I am disagreeing with that.

 

[Gunny]

This really isn't an argument. We are just in the business of trying to figure out if a certain piece of information is true or not. Kathy says it isn't but has no proof. I say it is and have found some proof to support what I say but I have not found definitive proof either way.

This is what we are looking for. We are trying to figure out if Catholic Hospitals will go against the doctrine of double effect and perform a fetal craniotomy in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. I said they didn't perform them and she claims that they do. I can't find shit that says definitively what the actual policy is. But as of now it's clear that to do so would be to violate church doctrine.

So right now we're stuck until someone can produce more definitive informtaion regarding the matter. That's the situation. Does everyone understand now?

There is no reason to say that I have a strawman argument. I'm not really arguing anything. I'm trying to find out if in fact this procedure is permissible in a Catholic Hospital or not. When no proof has been offered to counter it's silly to make fun of my "argument" Silly and childish.

And to address your argument, it IS a strawman. You have evidence of what? Unrelated incidences that back up YOUR claim? Yet, you admittedly do not know whether or not it is policy, nor have YOU bothered to see if there are any unrelated incidences where the procedure WAS performed. You found a couple that support you and jumped in the water.

What you are saying is you are arguing against Catholic Hospitals with nothing but innuendo simply because they begin with "Catholic."

 

[Powerman]

Now pm is trying to speak for me. Not so. He quoted from Aquinas, who wrote a lot of stuff, some of which has been accepted by the Church, some of which has been rejected. In any case, he has not made his, other than in his own mind.

He is attempting to set himself up as judge and jury, I am disagreeing with that.

IT'S FUCKING CHURCH DOCTRINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Annie]

IT'S FUCKING CHURCH DOCTRINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Coming full circle, give links that pertain to Catholic as opposed to hate sites.

 

[musicman]

That's the situation. Does everyone understand now?

Who the hell died and made YOU hall monitor? This thread, as threads are wont to do, has taken all kinds of twists and turns. I scarcely think it falls to you to tell us what the situation is. We've morphed into abortion, along with your ghoulish assertion that it benefits society. We've discussed your chickenshit debating style, and established that you don't like being called a lying troll. Stop trolling and lying, then.

In fact, the only member who has even mentioned the original topic lately is William Joyce, and you still managed to misinterpret his post.

 

[Powerman]

And to address your argument, it IS a strawman. You have evidence of what? Unrelated incidences that back up YOUR claim? Yet, you admittedly do not know whether or not it is policy, nor have YOU bothered to see if there are any unrelated incidences where the procedure WAS performed. You found a couple that support you and jumped in the water.

What you are saying is you are arguing against Catholic Hospitals with nothing but innuendo simply because they begin with "Catholic."

I don't have a problem with something because it begins with Catholic. I went to a Catholic school and I enjoyed my experiences there. Wouldn't have done it any other way.

On this particular issue I disagree with the catholic doctrine. Does anyone else find it funny how Kathy won't acknowledge that the DOCTRINE of double effect is actually doctrine?

Well folks it's been fun. But I don't have class tomorrow and I'm going get completely obliterated at the bar. I'll be happy to resume this discussion later. Unfortuantely the definitive information we're looking for appears to be pretty tough to come accross. Maybe you folks will have more luck than me finding some info on it.

Later Skaters

 

[Said1]

Here, this might help

The question to consider here is
whether there may be a distinction between the moment of conception and the moment that the
pregnancy officially begins, which is not until implantation in the uterus, according to this medical
source. This seems to be a false distinction.
39 John Paul II, Encyclical Evangelium Vitae (“The Gospel of Life”), 60, citing “Declaration on Procured Abortion.” Other statements from the Magisterium include: “”The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore form that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life.” (“Respect for Human Life” I, 1.); “From the moment of conception life must be guarded with the greatest care” (Vatican II, “The Church in the Modern World” 51); “Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended
in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being” (CCC 2274).respected and whose death, even if inevitable, is not to be hastened for the benefit of any other person (the mother).”40 Therefore, any attempt to directly remove the living fetus, even if it is deemed nonviable, as is eventually the case currently with tubal pregnancies, has always been recognized by Catholic moral teaching as gravely immoral and essentially similar to abortion. The Catholic teaching from U.S. Bishops on this issue has been controversial. There have been two statements made by the Bishops of the United States, the first of which was issued in 1971, which states:

In extrauterine pregnancy the affected part of the mother (e.g., cervix, ovary, or fallopian tube) may be removed, even though fetal death is foreseen, provided that(a) the affected part is presumed already to be so damaged and dangerously affected as to warrant its removal, and that (b) the operation is not just a separation of the embryo or fetus from its site within the part (which would be a direct abortion from a uterine appendage) and that (c) the operation cannot be postponed without notably
increasing the danger to the mother.41 About this statement, Dr. May concludes, “This directive clearly authorizes as morally licit the use of partial salpingectomy or total salpingectomy in order to safeguard the
mother’s life when there is grave danger of hemorrhaging from the fallopian-tube pregnancy. But it also clearly excludes use of a salpingostomy. At the time this directive was written, the management of tubal pregnancies by methotrexate was not known.”42 The more recent 1994 U.S. Bishops’ directive states more simply as follows: “In the case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct
abortion.”43 On the other hand, the document continues, “Operations, treatments and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman (i.e., a salpingectomy) are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child” (47, italics added). In a section on emergency contraception, the new directive also states, “It is not permissible, however, to initiate or
to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum” (36). The current theological debate seems to have two points of argument: first, what can be inferred from newfound brevity in the 1994 U.S. Bishops’ directive versus the original 1971 directive; and second, what constitutes a direct abortion? These questions shall be pursued later in
this paper.

Above quote starts on page 19

 

[Gunny]

IT'S FUCKING CHURCH DOCTRINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Okay. And a Catholic hospital is for ......? Catholics? Now you have entered into the domain of is the hospital private or public.

If it's a private hospital funded by the Catholic Church/Catholics, I say you not being one, it's none of your business.

 

[Gunny]

I don't have a problem with something because it begins with Catholic. I went to a Catholic school and I enjoyed my experiences there. Wouldn't have done it any other way.

On this particular issue I disagree with the catholic doctrine. Does anyone else find it funny how Kathy won't acknowledge that the DOCTRINE of double effect is actually doctrine?

Well folks it's been fun. But I don't have class tomorrow and I'm going get completely obliterated at the bar. I'll be happy to resume this discussion later. Unfortuantely the definitive information we're looking for appears to be pretty tough to come accross. Maybe you folks will have more luck than me finding some info on it.

Later Skaters

You just figure the odds on me doing your homework for you.

 

[Powerman]

Coming full circle, give links that pertain to Catholic as opposed to hate sites.

I'm going drink

I hope you can successfully google "doctrine of double effect'

It is in fact a Catholic Doctrine and you can find a vast multitude of sources telling you that. I would think a Catholic such as yourself would have heard of this. Well look it up and learn something. I'm going get drunk and hit on Catholic girls.(Well they may or not be Catholic. We'll see)

 

[Said1]

Hello, didn't anyone read my post??

 

[Annie]

I don't have a problem with something because it begins with Catholic. I went to a Catholic school and I enjoyed my experiences there. Wouldn't have done it any other way.

On this particular issue I disagree with the catholic doctrine. Does anyone else find it funny how Kathy won't acknowledge that the DOCTRINE of double effect is actually doctrine?

Well folks it's been fun. But I don't have class tomorrow and I'm going get completely obliterated at the bar. I'll be happy to resume this discussion later. Unfortuantely the definitive information we're looking for appears to be pretty tough to come accross. Maybe you folks will have more luck than me finding some info on it.

Later Skaters

LOL, I won't pick up on your strawman of double effect. You are a joke. You had a 'university' prof to whom you gave a lot of weight to, with no discernable reason, as is the tendency of underclassmen, but you say you are a 'senior' so have no excuse. PROVE to us, using vatican documents that this is the teachings of the Catholic Church.

 

[Gunny]

I'm going drink

I hope you can successfully google "doctrine of double effect'

It is in fact a Catholic Doctrine and you can find a vast multitude of sources telling you that. I would think a Catholic such as yourself would have heard of this. Well look it up and learn something. I'm going get drunk and hit on Catholic girls.(Well they may or not be Catholic. We'll see)

What I see here is just another one of your inane, Christian-bashing rants. Otherwise, I just don't see your point.

 

[musicman]

What I see here is just another one of your inane, Christian-bashing rants. Otherwise, I just don't see your point.

Maybe he finally found a hat to fit over it.

 

[Powerman]

LOL, I won't pick up on your strawman of double effect. You are a joke. You had a 'university' prof to whom you gave a lot of weight to, with no discernable reason, as is the tendency of underclassmen, but you say you are a 'senior' so have no excuse. PROVE to us, using vatican documents that this is the teachings of the Catholic Church.

It's catholic doctrine. Do your own fucking research. And that is precisely why it is called the DOCTRINE of double effect. You can not possibly be this dense. Use google and find it for yourself. OK I'm out. This is absurdly fucking stupid that you can't figure out that this is church doctrine.