On the liberal freak show site Daily Kos we find one the stupidest things ever written by a human being.
How the Vatican kills women
I’ll post the content here so that you don’t have to give their site any traffic.
How the Vatican kills women
by Daisy Cutter
Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 03:45:38 PM PDT
Here [at this hospital] we have had women who have died…. For example, [name withheld] came here and had an ultrasound. It was clear that she needed a therapeutic abortion. No one wanted to carry out the abortion because the fetus was still alive. The woman was here two days without treatment until she expulsed the fetus on her own. And by then she was already in septic shock and died five days later. That was in March 2007.
– Doctor from Managua, Nicaragua
Quoted in Human Rights Watch report
Pope Benedict has said that Nicaragua’s recent vote to recriminalize therapeutic abortion is a positive development.
The Holy See wishes to commend Nicaragua for its position on social issues, particularly with regard to respect for life, against mounting pressure from national and international quarters, the Pope said. In this regard one should regard as very positive that the national assembly has initiated a move to cancel therapeutic abortion, he said.
– Vatican Radio, 24 September 2007
* Daisy Cutter’s diary :: ::
For more information, feel free to read the rest of the HRW report. It’s becoming increasingly clear to me that the pro-life movement has very little to do with preserving life, and everything to do with anti-sex zealotry and a desire to subjugate women.
The Vatican’s push for these types of draconian laws cannot be downplayed. from the Boston Globe:
The Rev. Rolando Alvarez, spokesman for the Managua archdiocese, said the Catholic Church fought for a ban without exceptions because church officials estimate that thousands of elective abortions were being performed annually under the guise of saving a woman’s life. "Before it was penalized, all these murders were treated with impunity," he said.
Life Site News:
Bishop Abelardo Mata, the president of the Committee for the Family of the Nicaraguan bishops’ conference, has sharply condemned the proposals of some politicians in his country to legalise so-called "therapeutic abortion". Speaking to the international Catholic pastoral charity, Aid to the Church in Need (ACN), he stated that Nicaragua had no need of "therapeutic abortion" to protect the rights of its citizens.
Notice how only men are making these statements. I highly doubt that even the most anti-abortion among right-wing women would argue that abortion to save the life of the mother should be illegal. [Maybe we should consult St. Gianna Beretta Molla]
Of course, criticize the Church for its support of blatantly misogynist policies and you’ll be condemned as an "anti-Catholic" bigot by a certain anti-Semitic, homophobic nutball. I suppose you just can’t win.
Even more serious than the writer’s anti-Catholicism is her lack of mental acuity.
She isn’t just a bigot… she’s thick.
There is hope for the one problem, but for the other… ?
“Notice how only men are making these statements. I highly doubt that even the most anti-abortion among right-wing women would argue that abortion to save the life of the mother should be illegal.”
Dontcha love how I am presumed to hold a certain opinion, simply because I am a woman? Diversity of opinion is not desirable, if I am a woman. It reminds me of a story my mom tells. When she was first old enough to vote for president, her uncle told her how to vote. It’s that “Don’t you worry your pretty little head about it,” mindset all over again. Somebody else will do all the thinking for me, and all I need to do is tow the party line. The original feminists may have fought against oppression, but now, the feminists themselves have become the oppressors.
Any abortion a doctor recommends because there’s a CHANCE (usually very small) that a woman’s health might be at risk, is a THERAPEUTIC abortion. The most common THERAPEUTIC abortion today is when it’s decided to have an abortion because some sort of prenatal test has determined a CHANCE of some sort of abnormality with the child’s condition. After all, the mental and psychological well-being of the mother and/or father would be irrepably damaged were they to have a retarded kid. A prenatal test performed during the first trimester today and which is continually being pushed by the health care profession for up to $3,000 a pop tests for a particular abnormality which, if detected, presents a 3% chance of the child’s having Down Syndrome. Yet, when informed that the test has come out positive, the parents are seen as under the gun to make a quick decision, while the the pregnancy is still just “early” enough to terminate it for less potential psychological trauma, to have an abortion. Ninety-seven percent of all feti aborted as a result of this test are perfectly healthy. Nonetheless, in most physicians’ books, they were all THERAPEUTIC abortions nonetheless. (see eMedicine)
Yet, when the Church speaks out against such, it’s killing women. To call one who makes such a statement an anti-Catholic bigot would be an understatment.
So, who is “a certain anti-Semitic, homophobic nutball”? Is that made clear in another part of the rant?
To be honest — as infuriating as Cutter’s comments are, I am much more offended by recent decisions and comments made by our BISHOPs cocnerning abortion recently (i.e. Plan B in Connecticut, and Kathy Saile at the USCCB). Whereas Cutter’s comments are pretty ugly and intentionally offensive, at least they come from outside the Church.
Elizabeth V — right on. All women are not pro-aborts!
Sorry if this is posted twice.
To be honestâ€”as infuriating as Cutterâ€™s comments are, I am much more offended by recent decisions and comments made by our BISHOPs cocnerning abortion recently (i.e. Plan B in Connecticut, and Kathy Saile at the USCCB).
Comment by Jess
What is your problem the bishops and Plan B? Bishop Lori seems to have the right approach.
This womans rantings are pathetic and evil but she is not a bishop speaking for the One True Church.
The bishops in Connecticut who aproved the abortion pill are the real danger to the Mystical Body of Christ.
God bless you
“Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad…”
Looks to me like the Church should have a smile on its face!!
Well, Father, that site as a whole isn’t particularly known for its high percentage of “sharper knives in the drawer,” so to speak.
My “problem” with the Connecticut Bishop’s Conference is the admission of Plan B in so-called Catholic hospitals! This is abominable.
RBrown said: What is your problem the bishops and Plan B? Bishop Lori seems to have the right approach.
Isn’t that the approach of “Since we aren’t sure whether or not emergency contraception will cause abortions, we will prescribe emergency contraception without first determining if the rape victim has ovulated”? Sounds like erring on the side of death, not erring on the side of life.
Those bishops’ about-face on Plan B also destroys the credibility of the Church, since the bishops said one thing for several months, but have now reversed their position. It’s given the Church another black eye in the public square.
Techno said: So, who is “a certain anti-Semitic, homophobic nutball”? Is that made clear in another part of the rant?
I think she means Bill Donohue of the Catholic League.
Cutter’s filthy screed is fairly typical of the Daily Kos and the internet loony left.
Is the reporter’s name a pseudonym? “Daisy Cutter” is the military nickname
for a particularly lethal bunker busting bomb.
A thick bigot-for a double dose of invincible ignorance?
And, I’m pretty sure no one named their kid “Daisy Cutter.” That is the kind of name that is common in anarchist and “underground” journalism.
Will: I suppose “pushin’ up daisies” out to be next.
What’s interesting is that polls have shown support for abortion is higher among men than among women. Pro-Life is pro-woman.
“She isn’t just a bigot… she’s thick”
hmm…makes me want to sing…
“Really don’t mind if you sit this one out. My words but a whisper, your deafness a shout
I may make you feel but I can’t make you think…And your sand-castle virtues are all swept away in the tidal destruction, the moral melee. The elastic retreat rings the close of play as the last wave uncovers the newfangled way. But your new shoes are worn at the heels and your suntan does rapidly peel and your wise men don’t know how it feels to be thick as a brick. “
Jess and Jordan Potter:
This is my understanding of the Connecticut Bishops’ position re Plan B in Catholic hospitals.
1. Any rape victim is first given a test to see whether there is either pregnancy or fertilized ovum. If that test is positive, then no aborto-facient contraceptive is given. The use of Aborto-facients is obviously always prohibited.
2. If the pregnancy-fertilized ovum tests come back negative, then a contraceptive can be given.
Now contraception is assuredly evil. So how is it morally permissible in these circumstances?
First, I totally reject any explanation that it can be permitted as a lesser evil–that is laxism, which is moral relativism. It is never permitted to do evil.
But: The Church’s teaching against contraception is not merely biologically based. It is the prohibition of interference with matrimonal love, i.e., sex between two married persons.
Evil is the privation of good (privatio boni) and in some sense inheres in some good. The good in this question is not merely sex but rather conjugal love considered as both unitive and procreative. The evil of contraception is found in its denial of the procreative end of conjugal love, separating the unitive aspect from the procreative aspect.
Further, in cases of rape the unitive aspect is spiritually deficient.
No, you can’t win! not when you are fighting the wrong battle. Shame on you for not understanding Human Rights Watch.
Only one word comes to mind: casuistry.
Only one word comes to mind: casuistry.
Comment by Jess
Incorrect. There was nothing casuistic about my explanation.
Casuistry starts with specific cases, comparing them–much like statute law.
But I began with a general principle, which can be found in various papal documents (incl the new Catechism): The proscription against contraception is based on preserving the sanctity of matrimonial relations–and the integrity of the unitive and procreative aspects of marriage.
Your understanding seems to be merely biological, an approach which is materialistic.
I’m sorry, but re-publishing posts from daily kos is beneath this blog. Why bother? Criticizing this sort of thing doesn’t belong here. Heck, father, what are YOU doing on daily kos?
Jim: You can decide those things for your blog.
You are slightly mistaken in regard to the circumstances surrounding the Plan B/Connecticut bishops controversy:
* In the past, Catholic hospitals in Connecticut would only administer Plan B to a rape victim after an ovulation test was performed. The reason for this is that Plan B’s primary mechanism of action is supposedly the suppression of ovulation. Hence, if ovulation had already occurred, Plan B’s primary mechanism of action was moot and there existed a strong danger of inducing abortion by preventing implantation of a fertilized ovum.
* The Connecticut legislature passed a bill forbidding the administration of an ovulation test in this very circumstance. Over the objections of the Connecticut bishops, who rightly protested this law as contrary to the moral law and an infringement of religious freedom, the governor signed the bill into law.
* The Connecticut bishops subsequently abandoned their prior objections, stating that some moralists do not hold that an ovulation test is necessary—even though they previously stated that requiring an ovulation test was in keeping with the “more probable teaching.” Incidentally, the definition of the condemned moral methodology of laxism is adhering to a permissive opinion even if it is not solidly probable.
* The Connecticut Catholic hospitals will now only administer a pregnancy test before giving Plan B. This is insufficient because a pregnancy test will only register a positive reading if the embryo has already implanted in the uterine wall. It cannot detect whether fertilization has occurred, and thus provides no protection to a newly conceived life that has not yet achieved implantation.
Fr. Thomas Euteneuer provides an excellent overview of the controversy here: http://www.hli.org/sl_2007-10-05.html
1. As I said before, I was going by what Bp Lori had said. I defended the that included the ovulation test–not the one adopted later that excludes the test.
2. I was not aware of the change by the Connecticut bishops, which I just now read on Bp Lori’s blog of Sep 29th. To me his explanation is inadequate, and he is simply wrong. The Church holds that the fertilized ovum is a human person (cf DNA) and must not be attacked either with drugs or with instruments.
Obviously, that drug is being given as an abortifacient.
3. BTW, I am a Thomist by education and inclination and so prefer Garrigou-LaGrange’s definition of Laxism–that it considers the lesser evil a good. In the same manner, Rigorism considers the lesser good an evil. Both are species of moral relativism.
I try to stay away from concepts like Probabilism and Probabiliorism, which are more associated with Casuistry.
4. But I don’t really think either position of the bishops is a matter of Moral Probabilism or Probabiliorism. To me there is no clear-obscure involved here.
5. I think the first position, permitting contraceptives, can be defended according to the Catholic teaching on the sanctity of conjugal relations. As I said above, to me the moral principle involved is protecting the integrity of conjugal relations–which by definition excludes rape.
I don’t think the second position, i.e., no ovulation test, can be defended morally.