Skip to main content

View Diary: Pregnant woman dies in agony as doctors do nothing by command of the Irish Catholic Church (549 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  A Hindu, yes. (143+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    progressivevoice, sfgb, LSophia, snoopydawg, gffish, kestrel9000, Lupin, skrekk, mconvente, royce, wader, OldDragon, blackjackal, LilithGardener, m00finsan, orlbucfan, SuWho, ichibon, rb608, Roadbed Guy, weelzup, lostinamerica, Munchkn, burana, dejavu, Siri, Debby, MA Liberal, hester, Sean Robertson, glitterscale, ardyess, cptnemo, jedennis, CuriousBoston, TomFromNJ, suspiciousmind, Mayfly, jazzizbest, FourthOfJulyAsburyPark, BYw, NoMoreLies, 420 forever, jan4insight, sunnyr, AuroraDawn, mattc129, Jay C, barkworsethanbite, Fireshadow, SeaTurtle, Lily O Lady, Matt Z, Noor B, Yamara, opinionated, historys mysteries, Shippo1776, get the red out, EastcoastChick, john07801, Anne was here, pademocrat, rubyclaire, Maverick80229, kuvasz, Tamar, sea note, itsbenj, middleagedhousewife, dewtx, nzanne, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, GrannyOPhilly, LeftArmed, Apost8, mwm341, deerang, DeminNewJ, NogodsnomastersMary, KroneckerD, cybersaur, wagdog, Molly Weasley, skyounkin, splashy, Cassandra Waites, Xapulin, J M F, malevola, rickeagle, gobears2000, bellyofthesun, VictorLaszlo, bontemps2012, PeterHug, DamselleFly, eve, dewley notid, axel000, chidmf, Angie in WA State, skybluewater, Teiresias70, Alumbrados, WheninRome, seefleur, StrayCat, zinger99, MarciaJ720, Shrew in Shrewsbury, Fire bad tree pretty, Marjmar, SherwoodB, milton333, Naniboujou, beka, Donkey Hotey, armadillo, jayden, drmah, Wood Dragon, K S LaVida, johnva, Son of a Cat, jdld, Azubia, 207wickedgood, oldmilitant, ColoTim, Coastrange, NonnyO, Anorish, Larsstephens, Back In Blue, caul, coppercelt, madhaus, ribofunk, Smoh, terrypinder, glitterlust, DrTerwilliker

    Murdered by someone eles's superstition religious beliefs.  And no doubt the murderers are quite smug about the whole thing.

    •  No, you got it right with superstition (42+ / 0-)

      There is no proof that anything in the Bible or any other religious text is anything but made up fairy tales.  If a person wants to take that on faith, fine.  But one person's faith doesn't give them the right to kill another.

      This woman is dead because of a Catholic SUPERSTITION that God hates abortion.  Until God himself comes down and tells us directly to our face, a mindless superstition is all it is.

      •  The solution here is.. (10+ / 0-)

        common sense and one putting on their thinking caps.  I happen to be a person on faith and am VERY much pro-choice.  This is beyond absurd.  All people of faith don't believe the world was created in 6 days - people have to start thinking.

      •  The Bible doesn't even forbid abortion (26+ / 0-)

        The outlawing of abortion is of man, not of Christianity.

        There is only one passage in the Bible that even comes close to discussing abortion, Exodus 21:22. When two men fight and the pregnant wife of one tries to interfere to protect her husband, and she is struck so that she miscarries early, the penalty for the act, which it deemed deliberate, is not death (which it would be if the Bible considered that abortion to be murder), nor even fleeing to a city of refuge (which is the Bible's provision for involuntary manslaughter). Instead, the penalty assessed is but a monetary fine, the kind of punishment the Bible imposes for loss of limb, but not loss of life.

        •  The unborn child does not yet have a soul. (4+ / 0-)

          In Judaism, live of course begins with conception.

          But the soul come from Heaven with the First Breath.

          Not before.

          •  You misstate Judaism (6+ / 0-)

            Judaism does not have "life" at "conception".  In Judaism, a foetus is an organ of the woman's body.  It doesn't become a separate person until birth.  Abortion is treated as a medical procedure.  If the foetus harms the mother, it must be removed!  But elective non-medical abortion is frowned upon as a form of self-mutilation, though not murder.

            •  in Judaism, (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Alice Olson, caul, bontemps2012

              there is no single authoritative answer. I've heard both of those positions expressed by rabbis.

              "Okay, until next time. Keep sending me your questions, and I will make fun of you... I mean, answer them." - Strong Bad

              by AaronInSanDiego on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 09:08:06 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  True that there is nothing etched in stone BUT (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                bontemps2012

                when it's the mother's life vs the Fetus' when given that choice, Jewish moralists seem to always choose the mother's life, until the baby's head is born. Then and only then they are equal. At least that is what I take from my limited readings.
                So...when you hear Rabbi's say "life starts at conception" do you think those same Rabbi's say that Judiasm would not abort to save the mother who was critically ill?

                My guess is that they still would say that Judiasm believes in the mother's life over the fetus'.

                •  My rabbi told us the reasoning was (3+ / 0-)

                  A certain thing before a potential thing, which is why the life of the mother always takes precedence.

                  In capitalist America, bank robs you!

                  by madhaus on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 03:51:53 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  seems rational to me. The reason why (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    bontemps2012

                    most people would prefer abortions are as rare as possible...ie many prochoice people aren't thrilled by abortion (but care about CHOICE being available for individuals, not wanting Governement or others to make choices for people)....is that potentiality.

                    It is a would-be human being. Alive, but not yet totally human in that it's brain is not done making connections (science says that happens starting around 21 wks).

                    Putting fetus' lives ahead of women's is wrong. Pro Choice movement needs to start pushing back that way especially when people say they oppose abortion even in case of life of mother.

                    Jewish sages had it right.

                    •  One other Jewish aspect to this debate: breath vs (0+ / 0-)

                      Heartbeat.  The forced birthers are gung-ho on fetal heartbeats.  But Jewish law looks at the breath of life, so the fetus isn't a human until it is born and starts breathing on its own.  I really want to see more pushback on the fetal heartbeat laws as instituting one competing religious framework over others, which has no place in American law.

                      In capitalist America, bank robs you!

                      by madhaus on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 10:49:02 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

            •  "Life" is different from "soul." (0+ / 0-)

              The separate soul is what arrives with the First Breath.

              •  Ah... a rational voice! (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                bontemps2012

                Or, at least an approximation of a rational voice, because our theology teaches us that human life begins with the infusion of a soul. And we really don't know when that occurs.

                Although you have a notion that it begins with the first breath, and there will aways be discussion around that assertion, you are on the mark by differentiating between a fetus and a human being, and making the infusion of the soul as the determining factor.

                •  Soul is not a Jewish concept (0+ / 0-)

                  There is no Hebrew word for "soul".  The usual word is "nephesh", meaning breath.  Judaism doesn't take the afterlife seriously either.  It was totally foreign until Greek influence brought it in, but the usual post-Greek Jewish answer is that sure, maybe it happens, but we don't like to think about it.  Contrast to christianity which treats life as merely an admission test for the afterlife that counts.

                  So a born child has breath; a fetus doesn't, and thus is an organ of the mother's body, not a separate person.

                  •  afterlife (0+ / 0-)

                    actually tho Maimonides did say that the resurrection of the dead was an article of faith. we dead are to roll underground to Jerusalem at the end of days.

                    but that's him. you can be an observant Jew & not believe that, or spend any time whatsoever thinking about it.

                    Human reason is beautiful and invincible --Milosz, Incantation

                    by juancito on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 01:18:54 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Neither Christianity nor Judaism (0+ / 0-)

                  recommends having a funeral when there's a miscarriage. And there is no burial for the dead child on holy ground.

                  I'm more than willing to admit that the foetus is an unborn child. It's not a breadbox.

            •  In today's world, then, the Jewish (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bontemps2012

              view is far more rational than the Catholic view.

        •  No, the Bible supports abortion in SEVERAL places! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sharoney

          Sorry, gas28man, your assertion that "There is only one passage in the Bible that even comes close to discussing abortion, Exodus 21:22", is FALSE.  There are several more places in the Bible where abortion is referenced (and supported).

          There's Leviticus 27:6, where a baby less than one month old is considered to be without (compensatory, anyway) value.

          And there's many passages where the Abrahamic Deity outright ORDERS mass murders that implicitly or explicitly include mass infanticides and abortions, such as Hosea 9:14, Hosea 9:16, and Hosea 13:16.  (There may be others, too, but I can't locate them right now).

          And infanticide is mandated at 2 Samuel 12:14.

          And then there's the burning alive of mother and fetus in Genesis 38:24.

          And in Numbers 31:17, Moses/the Abrahamic Deity orders the infanticide of all young males along with the murders of "every woman that hath known man by lying with him", which surely included women who were currently pregnant.

          But you also missed the most important Biblical reference on this issue of all: The Bible's Recipe for Abortion at Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28!

          And consider this: Although the above are all to be found in what Christians call the Old Testament, the complete absence of any proscription or denunciation of abortion in the New Testament speaks loudly indeed, since abortion (and likely even infanticide) were taking place all around them but not a single New Testament writer or speaker -- especially not Jesus -- ever criticizes these practices.  I fully realize that "not criticizing" is not the same as "endorsing", but considering how minor some of the actions/practices that were condemned by these same writers, this certainly indicates that they did NOT feel that condemning or trying to prevent abortions was of any significant importance.

          Yet that's all that right-wing American Christians can think about!

          Very recently, I had a discussion with my very right-wing Catholic sister about the 2012 Presidential election and mentioned the letters that were written by American Catholic professors, theologians, and other thinkers to John Boehner and Paul Ryan about how their own faith emphasizes helping the poor and the sick far more than stopping abortion.  My sister emphatically replied (referring to my mention of Jesus' overwhelming mandate to give to and help the poor): "The Bible never said that!"

          Sheesh.

      •  It's not superstition, its plain old everyday (10+ / 0-)

        misogyny. Nothing superstitious, let alone holy about it.

    •  Smug? (13+ / 0-)

      Got any links to back up that reaction?

      Here, you're blaming all religious people for this person's death, when she herself was a religious person.

      Then you tell me that Catholics in Ireland are all feeling smug?

      Facts matter. You need to calm down and take a look at the facts, because your hyperbole isn't helping.

      And this is coming from the blogger who wrote about neofascism within the Catholic hierarchy.

      What you're doing here is "ready, fire, aim," and it's not helpful.

      There are a specific group of people responsible for this, and that specific group of people need to be held to account.

      Most churches in the US are pro-choice, which is why the religious coalition for reproductive choice exists. Not only are they pro choice, but these churches spend millions of dollars every year supporting planned parenthood. Most Protestant churches, Jewish groups, and even most individual Catholics are pro-choice. Attacking the vast majority of your pro-choice allies with blanket statements  is incredibly unhelpful.

      Stop projecting your personal antireligious crusade onto the pro-choice movement. That's not going to get this woman the justice she needs.

      An Fhirinn an aghaidh an t'Saoghail. (The truth against the world.) Is treasa tuath na tighearna. (The common people are mightier than the lords.)

      by OllieGarkey on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 11:26:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hey, address the facts (34+ / 0-)

        What do you think is the solution here? The doctors probably were in agony too, and the nurses, knowing if the law wasn't against it they could save her. Her family is in agony.

        The point is-- religion shouldn't dictate the law of the land. this is an example of what happens when we let religion-- any religion-- determine what's allowed. You okay with that?

        It's not "anti-religious" to point out that religious people shouldn't force everyone else to obey THEIR religion, is it?

        •  I completely agree. (6+ / 0-)
          It's not "anti-religious" to point out that religious people shouldn't force everyone else to obey THEIR religion, is it?
          There should be no establishment in any nation of any religion or religious law. Free exercise should exist, but no one should be forced to obey a religious law.

          I find the idea that one can have a "Catholic" country, a "Muslim" country, or a "Protestant" country completely repulsive.

          To what religious sect does a nation's soil belong? The idea of a religious nation or a national religion is complete lunacy. Even in countries where you have a majority that is an ethnoreligious group, there should be no laws derived from religion, because such laws are inherently unjust.

          But that doesn't seem to be what some folks are saying here. Am I wrong?

          Because if that's what people mean, then I agree with them.

          But they don't seem to be saying that theocracy is the problem, they seem to be saying that all religions, everywhere are the problem.

          And that's not the case. Not when most religious groups and people in the US are pro choice and vehemently opposed to theocracy.

          An Fhirinn an aghaidh an t'Saoghail. (The truth against the world.) Is treasa tuath na tighearna. (The common people are mightier than the lords.)

          by OllieGarkey on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 12:16:18 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's true, some people, including myself, do (16+ / 0-)

            believe that all religion, any religion, is the problem. Why I believe that? See world history of: international wars, treatment of women since the Roman Era, science vs dogma >> and those are just for starters.

            It's also true, that in the case of the diary, the sole cause of this woman's death was the infusion of religious belief into the Law of the Land, resulting in a ban on abortion if there is still a fetal heartbeat in all cases.

            Does it matter which religious belief system was involved? If so, why?


            "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization" -- me

            by Angie in WA State on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 04:06:37 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I would argue that it's an infusion of Patriarchy (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TiaRachel, SchuyH, beka, Donkey Hotey

              that's only using religion as a tool for the reinforcement of its ideas.

              There's no logic behind the forced birth movement. This event proves it. There's not even a valid religious justification for witholding lifesaving medicine.

              This isn't about religion, clearly, it's about controlling women.

              Religion may be the means that they're using, but if you don't think that the whole of the Irish nation is horrified by this, then you're not paying attention.

              Most of those folks are religious folks. Most of the folks the whole world round who are horrified by this are religious folks.

              So yeah, I get that some people have a desire to destroy all religions everywhere (not sure what your stance on ethnoreligious groups is), but I really don't see how that crusade is particularly helpful here.

              These guys don't care about religion. They want to control other people using all means neccesary. If it wasn't religion, it would be the state. This desire to control women goes beyond religion. As I pointed out elsewhere, that's why there are forced-birthers who are also atheists.

              Failing to recognize that this isn't a religious issue is going to seriously hurt our ability to combat the forced birthers.

              An Fhirinn an aghaidh an t'Saoghail. (The truth against the world.) Is treasa tuath na tighearna. (The common people are mightier than the lords.)

              by OllieGarkey on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 04:35:40 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Truly sorry, but you are self-delusional if you (9+ / 0-)

                continue to think that this is not a religious issue.

                In this case, and in every case in which abortion is the issue the only basis for opposition to abortion is a religious one.

                There is no getting around it.

                Without the religious impetus, there would be no opposition to abortion.

                Which begs the question, how many other "issues" would not be issues at all, if not for the religious views of those who agitate for or against something?

                IN THE MODERN ERA:
                Marriage equality
                Gays serving in the US Armed Forces
                Gays adopting children
                Gays working as teachers in public schools
                Contraception for unmarried women
                Sex for pleasure instead of reproduction

                HISTORICALLY:
                the physical structure of the solar system
                the age of the Earth
                the temporal co-existence of humans and dinosaurs
                the killing of witches and other 'abominations'


                "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization" -- me

                by Angie in WA State on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 06:41:24 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  See, they know that's their weakness, the (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Alice Olson

                  anti-choicers, and they're working really hard on pivoting away from religion.

                  Listen to what I'm saying here. They're doing everything they can to take this away from a religious place.

                  Quoting from the article I linked you to:

                  Groups like SPL declare themselves “pro-life for a reason” and agree with conservative author and radio producer Dustin Siggins, who wants the pro-life movement to stop using biblical arguments to debate abortion. “The science of life is in our favor,” states Siggins, “and we should emphasize this.” Indeed, being pro-life “for a reason” and favoring the so-called science of life can be persuasive stuff. The only problem is that the reasons for being pro-life are often based on erroneous logic, and the “science of life” has been anything but scientific.
                  This is really dangerous.

                  It is not factually correct to say that the only argument is a religious argument. If that really were the case, then we wouldn't have so many issues, because it would come down to the establishment of a religion, and the laws would always break down without much of a fight.

                  They're doing everything they can to try to dress this thing up like it's not religion. And many of them don't actually believe this is a religious issue.

                  The Susan B Anthony list is not one of my delusions. Neither is the Atheist and Agnostics Pro-Life League, Americans United For Life, or the National Right-to-Life Committee, all organizations which are supposedly secular, and all organizations who are taking Dustin Siggins advice.

                  Yet I'm delusional? Would that Dustin Siggins and the Susan B Anthony List were just figments of my imagination!

                  But they're not.

                  They're real, and they're dangerous.

                  An Fhirinn an aghaidh an t'Saoghail. (The truth against the world.) Is treasa tuath na tighearna. (The common people are mightier than the lords.)

                  by OllieGarkey on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 06:58:03 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I read the linked article. What it appears to be (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    oldmilitant, NonnyO, Alice Olson, IndieGuy

                    saying is that the anti-abortion organizations are trying even non-religious arguments to attempt to persuade non-religious persons to agree with their viewpoint.

                    It doesn't say that these groups are not religiously-based, or that their viewpoints are not religiously-based.

                    What it does say is: "... consider themselves secular-minded or that have refocused themselves towards a secular orientation in the last few years".

                    They want to pretend to be something they are not to confuse people about what their motives are.

                    Not really news.


                    "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization" -- me

                    by Angie in WA State on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 07:47:35 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  The core argument is misogyny, though. (0+ / 0-)

                  Note the classic forced-birther slogan "Would you let YOUR wife abort YOUR baby". In other words, it's all about male domination of the women they believe they own.

            •  Great signature line (0+ / 0-)

              "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization" -- me

              That's the best formulation of the idea I've heard yet.  I usually tell people that either way one pays:  either predictably via taxation, or randomly, with "carjacking taxes" and so on.  But "civilization" sums it up perfectly.  Reminds me of a diary not long ago where an Ohio Kossack convinced a neighbor to vote just in order to keep things we take for granted moving (and that it's the Dems who truly, demonstrably care about that happening).

              "Happiness is the only good. The place to be happy is here. The time to be happy is now. The way to be happy is to make others so." - Robert Ingersoll

              by dackmont on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 01:55:40 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  The problem is (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            IndieGuy, OllieGarkey, johnva, terrypinder

            that when you say "most religious groups are pro-chioce" you're almost certainly right, but the pro-choice groups tend to be much much much smaller on average than the massive anti-choice bastions like the SBC, AOG and RC Church.  There may be many more little "pro-choice" groups, but their aggregate of followers/congregants are lost in the shadows of the mammoth anti-choice institutions.   Those facts are probably related, as the pattern is so clear, across the board. Why it should be so, I don't have a cogent answer, but it can be empirically demonstrated to be so.

            Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?

            by ActivistGuy on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 05:24:26 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Part of the problem is that women from my (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ActivistGuy

              generation can't imagine that Abortion is actually under threat. Not all women, I mean, I'm just talking about a few women that I know. I'm talking about some of my friends who are politically disengaged.

              They think we've won the fight, and that it's over.

              If there ever comes a day, and I hope it never comes, that abortion is outlawed in the united states, that trend will immediately reverse.

              The reason that pro-choice groups are small is because we're seen as fighting over nothing. They don't understand that we have to fight to keep it legal.

              That's my guess, but it's hard to know without some kind of polling.

              An Fhirinn an aghaidh an t'Saoghail. (The truth against the world.) Is treasa tuath na tighearna. (The common people are mightier than the lords.)

              by OllieGarkey on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 07:11:35 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  No women I know think that (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                terrypinder, IndieGuy, OllieGarkey

                and the pro-choice movement has exploded in the last year or two. Women feel like they are under siege, not that 'the fight is over." Why do you think Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock lost by large margins? We are not now "fighting over nothing." In the past two years we have seen them escalate from the largest number of the most extreme anti-abortion bills we have ever seen to talking about stripping women o access to contraception. I don't know what dreamland YOU live in but it's not Ohio, where our legislature reconvened this week in a lame-duck session to add to the enormous number of hearings it's already held on abortion bills, and to attempt to pass the onerous and extreme 'Heartbeat" bill. And pro-choice advocates from around the state are organizing and amassing in large numbers. I understand if you are from someplace like Utah, but in a lot of this country, we're already fighting back big time and anyone who STILL takes reproductive freedom for granted is living under a rock.

                Take the "Can't(or)" out of Congress. Support E. Wayne Powell in Va-07. http://www.ewaynepowell.com/

                by anastasia p on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 07:57:07 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  There are a lot of 20-somethings I know who (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  snowshoeblue

                  live under electronic rocks, who don't pay attention to the news, who don't vote, and who don't care to know what's going on.

                  That's my age group, and while we're waking up, a lot of us tend to descend into our own corners of modern life without really paying attention to what's going on in the world around us.

                  The internet does provide for more communication and interconnectedness, but it also provides for more escapism.

                  That escapism is a problem my generation needs to deal with.

                  Yeah, the pro-choice movement has exploded, but there are so many people who would support us that just aren't paying attention.

                  Waking them up and engaging them is hard. I'm not sure I know how that would be accomplished.

                  Some people want to live in their bubbles.

                  An Fhirinn an aghaidh an t'Saoghail. (The truth against the world.) Is treasa tuath na tighearna. (The common people are mightier than the lords.)

                  by OllieGarkey on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 11:11:24 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  So what do you say about (0+ / 0-)

            Israel?  A country and a religion in one.  I find it completely repulsive.  I remember asking a co-worker what nationality he was.  I was pretty sure he was going to answer with something like Ukranian or Russian (I knew he spoke Russian, since I speak a little myself).  But to my surprise he said he was Jewish.  I thought to myself, so when did a religion become a nationality.

            ... like tears in rain

            by bladerunner on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 04:46:17 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I've been confused by that (0+ / 0-)

              The nationality should be Israeli, the religion should be Jewish.

              But there's also a genetic distinction for ethnic Jews, is there not?

              I'm not sure how I feel about conflating the religion and the country, but I know that the Palestinians keep seeming to get the short end of the stick, and I'm starting to really believe that Israel can take care of itself and I'm getting uncomfortable with the fact that US politics seem to tailor to Israeli interests in a manner that they don't do for any  other sovereign nation.

              I know I don't know a lot about the whole situation or the history or the sheer massive amount of the complexity that lives behind it.

              But I'm getting really effing sick about all the religious privilege everywhere.

              How does the Republican Congress sit down with all the butthurt over taxing the wealthy?

              by athenap on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 06:21:44 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  If you lived in the USSR and you (0+ / 0-)

              were Jewish your identity papers had "Jew" stamped on them.

              Jewish usually refers to ethnic group or culture as well as, for a much smaller group, a religion.

              There are many Arab Israelis as well as Christian Israelis.

              There  are many countries with a religious identity. Some have a tradition of tolerance but it's usually not those whose religion proselytizes. Jews don't.

              I'm asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring about real change in Washington ... *I'm asking you to believe in yours.* Barack Obama

              by samddobermann on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 06:13:49 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  The doctors in agony? I doubtb that (23+ / 0-)

          Catholic doctrine on this has been clear for nearly a century - the necessary treatment would have been fully justfied.

          Irish law, as interpreted by the Irish courts, is clear as well - danger to the life of a mother trumps abortion ban.

          So what we have here is a fucking toxic mixture of undecided, timid hospital administrators, possibly mixed with the occasional religious extremist who thinks he knows better what God says than his church.

          In other words - medical malpractice, negligent manslaugher,. maybe even murder.

          Oh, and, yes, legislative malpractice as well. After the courts spoke, an attentive legislature should have updated the law to make sure it is clear to the last fucking idiot. In that, the pro choice groups are f* right!

          •  Agreed (10+ / 0-)

            I'm that rare Kossack who holds the Catholic standard view on these matters.

            Catholic opinion on this clearly allows the procedure - as long as the intent of the procedure is to save the mother, and the death of the offspring is an unintended consequence of saving the mother, then there is no reason the doctors could not have proceeded.

            Even by Catholic standards, this negligence was monstrous.

            Rick Perry - the greatest scientist since Galileo!

            by Bobs Telecaster on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 03:54:43 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Official positions. (8+ / 0-)

            Official Catholic positions seem to be getting increasingly disassociated with positions in practice. As you say, the necessary procedure would have been acceptable by the official Catholic position. But we're seeing more and more bishops preaching a position quite different than the official position. When the response from the Vatican is silence, the positions from the bishops seem to be the real position.

            The wolfpack eats venison. The lone wolf eats mice.

            by A Citizen on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 05:06:29 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  From what I can see there is a battle going on (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              evilstorm, Cassandra Waites

              in the Catholic hierarchy right now between those who want to undo Vatican II, like the current pope and his predecessor, and those who believe in keeping the church current as well as true to its social justice tradition. I grew up as a Catholic in the 1960s and '70s and was always taught that life of the mother trumped life of the unborn. I left the church years ago, so I'm not sure if that's what they're still teaching, but this young woman's death is a tragic case of extremism.

        •  What I don't understand (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          IndieGuy, Cassandra Waites

          is how the medical staff couldn't come up with a way around the whole "heartbeat" thing.

          Not to mention the whole horrific idea of letting religion trump science in the field of medicine, for pete's sake. They knew the fetus was self-destructing, they knew there was no way to save it, and they knew the mother was dying because of it.

          What happened to "First, do no harm"?

          How does the Republican Congress sit down with all the butthurt over taxing the wealthy?

          by athenap on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 06:07:19 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Umm..... (10+ / 0-)

        "Calm down."  Words to live by.  Try it.

        This woman was murdered.  She was murdered specifically because of somebody else's religious beliefs.  As I said, I have absolutely no doubt those responsible are feeling nothing but self-righteous smugness at the result.

        You asked for links as proof of my belief in that smugness, at the same time you proclaim your own religious beliefs.  Where are the links proving your beliefs to be correct?  You can't provide any, because they don't exist - beyond your own faith in their reality.  

        Stop projecting somebody's lack of religion into an "antireligious crusade."  You believe in a god?  Fine.  I don't.  Snark aside, I do think it's all superstition.  While you may not like it, my belief is due just as much respect as yours.  And I repeat:  This woman is dead because of somebody else's religious beliefs.  Nothing will change that.

    •  Yep, murdered by the Irish Taliban, (15+ / 0-)

      err, I mean the Catholic Church.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site