It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by NarrowGate
I am not sure I can agree they are living it. If they were we would be hearing they do not agree with the lawyers. Just trying to fix it all other times and having it in a creed is not living it if in this case they are not speaki.g against those who speak for them.
Living it is living every day, every word, not just as we see fit. Yes by law they are right, but they are not speaking against those speaking for them.
Raist
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
When the nurse listened for fetal heartbeats, there were none. And when the doctor ASKED the dad if he wanted to take the babies, he didn't have an answer. The woman had a clogged artery and died of a massive heart attack. Her babies died with her. She weighed over 400 lbs. Maybe the husband should be suing his dead wife...
More details of the case...
Lori was suffering a cardiac arrest and had stopped breathing due to a pulmonary embolism caused by a blood clot that traveled from her leg to her lungs. Two of the risk factors for the deadly condition are pregnancy and obesity, and Lori was experiencing both.
For the next hour, Jeremy stood by as hospital staff frantically tried to bring his wife back to life. After helping to hoist Lori, who at seven months pregnant weighed more than 400 pounds, onto a bed, Jeremy melted into the background and was eventually escorted to an adjacent room, where someone brought him juice and cookies. "I just become a wallflower," Jeremy says.
At some point that afternoon, he was handed a phone to speak to Staples, who never ended up coming to the hospital. "He said, 'Well, what do you want to do? Take the babies? Take the babies?'" Jeremy remembers. "I kept responding, 'I'm not a doctor!'"
A nurse listened for fetal heartbeats, according to depositions taken later. When she didn't hear any, the doctors figured the babies were dead and decided against doing a perimortem Cesarean section, an emergency procedure that can save mothers and babies. Lori's unborn sons stayed with her. Eventually, all three were pronounced dead.
Originally posted by Raist
I am not sure I can agree they are living it. If they were we would be hearing they do not agree with the lawyers.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Raist
Originally posted by Raist
I am not sure I can agree they are living it. If they were we would be hearing they do not agree with the lawyers.
Exactly. They are NOT living it. They are hiding behind secular law to protect themselves. And if they let those babies die to make a political point, that's even WORSE! They have NO business in my body and they will NOT gain legal control of it, no matter how many babies they let die to prove their sick point.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Raist
Originally posted by Raist
I am not sure I can agree they are living it. If they were we would be hearing they do not agree with the lawyers.
Finally, if the Catholic Church cared so much about children, they wouldn't continue to allow the MONSTERS who lead the Catholic services (priests) to sexually abuse children under the protection of the Church.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Raist
Originally posted by Raist
I am not sure I can agree they are living it. If they were we would be hearing they do not agree with the lawyers.
If they really cared about children, they would have done everything they could to save the lives of the babies and they would have, according to God's law, admitted their guilt and done some kind of penance to reimbursement the father WITHOUT the courts getting involved.
prec·e·dent (prs-dnt) n. 1. a. An act or instance that may be used as an example in dealing with subsequent similar instances. b. Law A judicial decision that may be used as a standard in subsequent similar cases:
Another thought. Women who support the "right to choose" say that an abortion is not murder, because the foetus isn't a human being with rights (or full rights). When they are punched in the stomach by a boyfriend who wants to cause an abortion, and the foetus dies, is the woman a hypocrite for going to the police and helping them bring murder charges against the boyfriend? Don't different situations call for different definitions?
Originally posted by NarrowGate
Provide evidence they *let* babies die to prove a point. You can not, and they did not.
How are they *hiding* behind the law?
What legal route should they have taken if they want to end abortion?
Originally posted by NarrowGate
Ok Heretic, name an organization that is as old and big as the Church that has had less pedophiles than the Church?
There are more pedophiles that are cops and teachers than priests.
And finally, provide evidence the Church is protecting pedophiles.
Originally posted by NarrowGate
We are trying to end abortion
How could they have avoided getting courts involved?
What pro-life legal argument do you suggest?
Bishop O'Connell did not return phone calls from ABCNews.com seeking comment, but church officials say he and other bishops have been punished appropriately. "You cannot put on clerical attire, and you cannot service in a public way in ministry," said Austin, Texas Bishop Gregory Aymond, chair of the U.S. Bishop's Committee on Protection of Children and Young People. "That is a very, very significant consequence, and I would say a significant penalty," said Bishop Aymond, who conceded the accused bishops maintain their title. "Priests and bishops remain priests and bishops forever, regardless of what happens to them or what they do," said Bishop Aymond.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Raist
Originally posted by Raist
I am not sure I can agree they are living it. If they were we would be hearing they do not agree with the lawyers.
Exactly. They are NOT living it. They are hiding behind secular law to protect themselves. And if they let those babies die to make a political point, that's even WORSE! They have NO business in my body and they will NOT gain legal control of it, no matter how many babies they let die to prove their sick point.
If they really cared about children, they would have done everything they could to save the lives of the babies and they would have, according to God's law, admitted their guilt and done some kind of penance to reimbursement the father WITHOUT the courts getting involved.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by NarrowGate
I said IF they did. You said they did not. Can YOU provide proof of your statement? No.
None. They CAN'T end abortion. They can work to make it illegal but they're not going to end it. If they think abortion is wrong, they should NOT have one and stop trying to force their religious beliefs on everyone.
Originally posted by NarrowGate
Ok Heretic, name an organization that is as old and big as the Church that has had less pedophiles than the Church?
And finally, provide evidence the Church is protecting pedophiles.
Pedophile Priest Protected by Church Pope Benedict Prodects Accused Pedophile Bishops Catholic Church - Child Sexual Abuse Cover Up Are you serious?
Originally posted by NarrowGate
We are trying to end abortion
Already addressed. You CAN'T end abortion. And you don't have the right to force people to behave according to YOUR religion or ANY religion. You should stop and get right with God and let HIM handle the people who supposedly go against his word. You should stop judging people as evil sinners and mind your own house and your own business. Stay out of politics.
How could they have avoided getting courts involved?
They couldn't. I made no claim otherwise. Since the father sued them, the law IS involved.
What pro-life legal argument do you suggest?
I am pro-choice and I believe in freedom. There IS no rational pro-life legal argument. The slavery of women is not legal. We have autonomy and guardianship of our bodies.
At a news conference Wednesday afternoon, Law apologized for what he characterized as mistakes in judgment, saying he had relied on the judgments of doctors in their psychological evaluations of Geoghan after he underwent treatment. "In retrospect, mistakes were made," the cardinal said, "The policy was flawed. I made a mistake in assigning John Geoghan. I have regretted that assignment. I have attempted to learn from that mistake."
50 million babies murdered cnsnews.com...
Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NarrowGate
50 million babies murdered cnsnews.com...
You keep saying this, over and over, as if, by using the word "murder" and citing an erroneous statistic you can somehow elicit and emotional response from your opponents. It won't work.
According to the church, all hormonal contraception and IUD's, also cause abortions. So your statistics are, in reality, way, way off, if your consider all the fertilized eggs that are "murdered" through contraception every month. You do know that the church's stance, in wanting to qualify all unborn life with personage from conception, would outlaw these contraceptive methods?
So, looking at it from your stand point, the 50 million would be lives you would like to have saved, then add the millions of abortions caused by birth control every single month, and you're looking at hundreds of millions forced births, and the biological slavery of every woman of child bearing age in the USA, and any other county the law is able to effect.
When did biology become a god? When did the overthrow of biological outcomes become a sin?
Why is the Bible silent on any condemnation of abortion, when we know that women and their midwives were using natural herbs and other remedies to abort since the beginning of time?
When your "God" gave mankind dominion over the beasts of the field and commanded man to subdue the earth, do you think he meant to eliminate the dominion over our own "beastly" bodies from that command?