sinker

if all you're going to do is mock and be sarcastic, i'm not going to respond to you. sad to see you haven't changed much. -the artist formerly known as sinker

no no no... you're misreading what I said... whether an act is defined as true intercourse or not has NO bearing (sp?) on the status of the human being! A person is still a person even if he/she is the product of rape. And the direct, intentional killing of the product of rape is still the killing of innocent life. I don't go so far as to lable it murder, which is a legal term and not really applicable here. -the artist formerly known as sinker

I understand your line of reasoning, but the bone of contention I have wiht it is that standards of care change, and not always for the better. Some countries are very very close to establishing assisted suicide as a standard of care, and that's not just for terminally ill people. This applies to abortion too. It never, ever was a "standard of care" and in fact was illegal until 1973. You'd still be hard-pressed to prove it is a standard of care in this situation. However, the point here is that in the 32 years since Roe v Wade, the number of abortions has actually dropped, in no small part due to the publics changing views on abortion. So, if the state or fed ever outlaws abortion or if state med boards state catagorically that any direct abortion violates standards of care, what will you say then? so much for me leaving... -the artist formerly known as sinker

as if the possibility of rape and subsequent conception weren't difficult enough, this makes the question even more tragic and difficult. I think that the stance of the Catholic church wouldn't change, but I need to research this scenario further. Thankfully, this possibility is very, very rare and unlikely. -the artist formerly known as sinker

I think they'd leave out the "we find it abhorrent" part, at least I'd hope they would. That wouldn't be very sensitive to the rape victim. And being sensitive and caring to the victim is of supreme importance here. I'm afraid those that support the Catholic position here may have come across as not compassionate towards the victim, and I'm very very sorry if I've been guilty of this. Women don't ask to be raped, they aren't responsible for being raped, and Catholic hospitals especially need to be very very compassionate and attentive and loving in their care for these victims. edited to say: I have to run, leaving town for the weekend. I've thoroughly enjoyed this thread, thanks for the engaging dialogue. md -the artist formerly known as sinker

very, very true. -the artist formerly known as sinker

Here's another brain twister... in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, one in which the baby (or fetus or conceptus ) implants in the fallopian tubes, for Catholics, is it ok to abort in that circumstance, since there is very real risk that the mother may die when the tube ruptures as a result of the implantation? According to Catholic medical ethics, never under any circumstance can a direct "assault" be made on an unborn child. However, surgical intervention should occur to prevent the real possibility of the mother having a ruptured tube. In this situation, the baby isn't the problem, the placenta at it's place of attachment is the problem and steps should be taken to allow the baby to reach viability, either by transplanting it to the uterus, if possible, or to an exterior incubator or whatnot. Given the delicate nature of such an operation and the fragility of the baby, it's highly likely, given today's state of medical technology, that the baby will die as a result of the surgery. However, that was not the intention, it is an unintended consequence, possibly, and medical technology should be aimed at developing a way for both the mother and the baby to be saved. What the Catholic Church does NOT say is that a mother must give up her life for the sake of her unborn child. That is an erroneous belief. -the artist formerly known as sinker

A couple of points... this IS a religious issue. I believe, as do the billion+ who profess to be Catholics, that life begins at conception. The field of medicine has made great progress in the last 10 years in the field of reproduction and embryology. The more research that is published, the closer medicine gets to proving this point. It's not hard to see this is true, even outside of the realm of medical research. So, let's pretend for a minute, that science does say one day that indeed, the Catholic Church has been right all along, that unique, unrepeatable human life begins at conception and to terminate that life is evil. What then? Don't say it'll never happen, b/c it's already getting close. All people should be able to choose for themselves you say. In today's world, they can, unfortunately, choose to end the life of an unborn child by procuring an abortion. Even if abortion were illegal, they could still make that choice, albeit assuming huge risks to themselves from a safety and legal standpoint. I'm just having a really hard time trying to explain in another way how NOT informing a rape victim HOW TO procure an abortion is forcing my beliefs on her. All the time, doctors make decisions based on their beliefs of what is best for their patients. Another point... take your statement "all patients should be able to decide for themselves..." of course, they can, Catholic hospitals are NOT taking any "choice" away, they're simply not making what it believes to be very bad choices available. But take that statement further... say a patient is depressed and although they have tried prozac, zoloft and effexor, they are still depressed. they come to the ER looking for "medical treatment" in the form of assisted suicide. Would you maintain that it is a violation of the person's rights for any hospital to NOT provide means of killing oneself, including instructions on how to go about it? Your side thought is a good one: there is no moral dilemma w/ police officers and soldiers in that each is tasked with the duty of protecting and defending. those actions are not evil, in and of themselves, including the killing of other people, if it is in the legitimate action of protecting and defending others from some evil. however in the course of those avocations, a police officer or soldier may be asked by an authority to do something like kill an innocent person, in the name of their profession. This would clearly be wrong and the officer or soldier has an obligation to NOT obey such an order, even if he or she will suffer some form of punishment or retribution. -the artist formerly known as sinker

and just how exactly is conception a potentially dangerous condition? and don't give me that crap about "some women die during pregnancy." while that is true, it is so entirely rare that you can't ipso facto assume that b/c a rape victim has conceived, she's at risk of death and must therefore be given an abortifacient. -the artist formerly known as sinker

And saving a homosexual's life is directly in contradiction with Old Testament teachings*** really? that's a new one on me, but I'm not expert w/ the OT. However, as a Catholic, letting someone die if I have the direct ability and authority to save them (i.e. by being a doctor), I'm bound by conscience (and NT teaching) to try and save them, regardless if they were gay or not.. I've done that very thing by performing CPR on a gay man who was in a bad car accident. I'm not tooting my horn or anything, but I try to live according to my beliefs. It's the whole Good Samaritan story. Unfortunately, the man died. It was very tragic. Jesus wasn't always keen on how people in the OT acted. -the artist formerly known as sinker

I like your thinking. Interesting scenario. In that situation, the state board should not grant the license to provide emergency care. NOT allowing something to happen is not a violation of that groups religious beliefs in this situation. That denomination does not have as one of it's mandates or doctrines that it must provide emergency care. Neither does a Catholic hospital for that matter. -the artist formerly known as sinker

Providing an abortifacient or information on how to procure an abortion IS NOT EMERGENCY MEDICAL CARE!!! The woman is not at risk of loosing life or limb w/o it!!! -the artist formerly known as sinker

yes, it's "getting interesting" b/c you are accusing me of things that I don't think are true. You say I can't see past my religious beliefs as if that is a bad thing. My religious beliefs influence EVERYTHING I see, b/c w/i those beliefs I have found a unifying philosophy that makes very good sense. In that system of belief comes the notion that all human life is sacred and deserving of protection, from conception to natural death. Why does it seem so wrong to you that such a world view would NATURALLY and LOGICALLY influence the type of health care that Catholic hospitals provide? No law can oblige someone (in this case doctors and policy makers w/i a hospital system) to violate their consciences. If such a law were to be passed, it would be an unjust law and need not be followed. You say that providing info about how to procure an abortion is "good medical practice." "Minimum standard of health care" you say. I say it's not. Many agree w/ you, many agree w/ me. It's amazing to me that you cannot/will not see that a law mandating that a Catholic hospital provide information on how to procure an abortion is simply wrong. -the artist formerly known as sinker

I think that sums up this most unfortunate scenario well. However, if I were the doctor in that situation, I'd first be asking questions about the woman's cycle, how far along is she, any symptoms of ovulation such as Mittelschmerz (one-sided lower-abdominal pain that occurs in women at or around the time of ovulation), birth control status, etc. I'd also be compelled by conscience to say that she may be or may become pregnant as a result of the rape. Given the current climate in our society regarding what one believes re: when life begins, I would further feel compelled to say that if the woman does not wish to continue the pregnancy, should she be preg, no options for terminating are available at this facility and no referring information can be given. If the woman asks how she could obtain such information (about procuring an abortion, should she be pregnant), I'm not sure just what I would say, to be honest. I have to think some more on that. -the artist formerly known as sinker

this is true. however, i'm not aware of any technology present today that can determine if, before it's administration, the pill will work as a PREVENTION of fertilization OR as an abortifacient. Now, if THAT were possible, that would really be something, wouldn't it! -the artist formerly known as sinker

that's SINKER... just trying to be antagonistic

please substantiate that comment. i was unaware that the morning after pill had a "legal" status. in the pharmacologic literature, it very clearly states it acts as an abortifacent if conception has occurred. that's not an argument, that's a medically verifiable fact. well, that's not ENTIRELY true. Passing knowledge of how to commit suicide would be considered wrong and irresponsible. So to w/ providing the information about how to procure an abortion. -the artist formerly known as sinker

you're missing the point. catholic facilities maintain that providing information that could result in abortion is NOT PART OF any standard of care, but just the opposite. Actually, you are missing the point because you can't see beyond your personal religious beliefs. When the state medical board turns into the catholic church medical board, I will agree with you. Until that happens, minimum standards of medical care will continue to be decided by the state medical board through the residents of the state. This bill is the will of the people and it will eventually get passed. oh good lord. can't see beyond my own religious beliefs. bet you thought long and hard to come up with that one. you know the will of the people huh? claiming some omnipotent power are we? just b/c a bill is passed does not mean it is the will of the people. that's a nice sentiment, to think that way, but in reality, it is quite different. it's just so damn infuriating that people like you want to impose your will on people like me b/c our beliefs don't correspond to yours. people like you accuse people like me as being myopic, of not being able to see past my religious beliefs. you do to us the very thing you accuse us of doing. so much for choice. so much for tolerence. it's hypocritical at best. bottom line is that a such a bill, if passed, that requires a Catholic medical facility to violate it's ethics and moral doctrine, will not last. -the artist formerly known as sinker

you're missing the point. catholic facilities maintain that providing information that could result in abortion is NOT PART OF any standard of care, but just the opposite. -the artist formerly known as sinker

well, the more I think about this, the more I think that it really is only incumbant on a Catholic facility to say that as a result of the rape she may be pregnant but that this facility will not/can not provide any "service" to terminate the pregnancy if conception occurred. The facility then only has to say that if such "service" is desired, the person would have to go elsewhere. To force, by law, a Catholic facility to spell out what the options are for terminating a possible pregnancy IS in opposition to the beliefs of the facility. It's like saying, "You want to die? Well, we can't help you HERE, but Dr. Kevorkian down the street offers lethal injection. Here's how it works and here is his card." It doesn't make sense to expect a Catholic facility to act, through providing information, in a manner that violates it's beliefs. By the way, why do you maintain that plan B is not abortion? The very definition of "altering the lining of the uterus to prevent implantation" IS abortifacience. You can only maintain that plan B is not abortion under two circumstances: 1. It prevents fertilization from occurring, which at this point is very difficult to tell if it's mechanism of aciton in any application is fert. prevention OR implantation prevention. 2. You do not believe that life begins at conception. But to drag that argument up is another topic... -the artist formerly known as sinker

a simple pill could be given ...*** that's right folks, a "simple pill" will just make it ALL better... Unfortunately, such a solution is a grossly inadequate one. Catholic hospitals are supposed to believe that life begins at conception and their medical practices are supposed to be consistent w/ that belief. In your scenario of a 12 year old being raped and possibly conceiving a child, as horrific as it is, the circumstances of the crime (happening to a 12 year old) does not dictate the course of action in terms of "treatment" given. In fact, it's the opposite. If conception might have occurred, an abortifacient should not be given. However, attempts should be made to PREVENT conception. Yes, it will be very difficult for a 12 year old to deal with, should she become pregnant and carry the child. However, you would be wrong in thinking that such a "punishment" as having to bear a child at that age will have severe and long-lasting scars. Yes, it is possible that it could. However, given the proper psychological treatment, there is NO reason why the 12 year old could not continue to mature and become a very well adjusted, healthy adult. To think otherwise is to have a pretty negative view of the capabilities of the human soul. -the artist formerly known as sinker

sorry man, but you've COMPLETELY misunderstood what I said. What I said is EXACTLY the OPPOSITE. in many situations the woman has NO control over the situation and no physical means to try and repel this aggression, UNTIL she is receiving medical treatement, in the form of trying to PREVENT possible conception. please try to read more critically. -the artist formerly known as sinker

gotcha thanks for clarifying. -the artist formerly known as sinker

thanks for stating the obvious. and yes, it's quite sad, that many people are the product of lust and not from an act of mutual self-donation between spouses. The Church does indeed recognize this. Not quite sure what your point is. -the artist formerly known as sinker

I *think* you're speaking tongue-in-cheek here, at least I hope so, b/c this is just pattenly false. The Catholic Church doesn't say you go to hell if you take the morning after pill, rather that it is a grave evil to deliberately and intentionally take the life of an innocent human being. Only God knows the state of one's soul/heart and can say that this person or that person is going to hell. -the artist formerly known as sinker