Fewer abortions with hospital consoli...

Fewer abortions with hospital consolidations

There are 7 comments on the Seattle Post-Intelligencer story from Jun 21, 2013, titled Fewer abortions with hospital consolidations. In it, Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports that:

Pro-Choice demonstrators gather outside Hoag Hospital in Newport Beach Thursday June 20, 2013 to protest the hospital's decision to stop all abortions.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#1 Jun 21, 2013
Why is it that people that claim to be "pro-choice", are only pro"choice" when the choice supports abortion?

Morgana 9

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#2 Jun 21, 2013
Susanm wrote:
Why is it that people that claim to be "pro-choice", are only pro"choice" when the choice supports abortion?
Why are religious nut cases SO anti woman and choice??

I guess soon the catholic pricks will run the healthcare system and we will go the way of Ireland where a pregnant woman/girl in need of an abortion to save her life will just be allowed to die in the name of the MALE god and his misogynistic followers.

http://gawker.com/5960436/woman-in-ireland-di...

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#3 Jun 21, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are religious nut cases SO anti woman and choice??
I guess soon the catholic pricks will run the healthcare system and we will go the way of Ireland where a pregnant woman/girl in need of an abortion to save her life will just be allowed to die in the name of the MALE god and his misogynistic followers.
http://gawker.com/5960436/woman-in-ireland-di...
"Why are religious nut cases SO anti woman and choice??"

You would have to ask a religious nut case.

"I guess soon the catholic pricks will run the healthcare system and we will go the way of Ireland where a pregnant woman/girl in need of an abortion to save her life will just be allowed to die in the name of the MALE god and his misogynistic followers."

The Catholics have the right to CHOOSE to not offer ELECTIVE abortions. Women have the right to CHOOSE to have their abortion elsewhere. Isn't CHOICE great.

Morgana 9

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#5 Jun 22, 2013
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
"Why are religious nut cases SO anti woman and choice??"
You would have to ask a religious nut case.
"I guess soon the catholic pricks will run the healthcare system and we will go the way of Ireland where a pregnant woman/girl in need of an abortion to save her life will just be allowed to die in the name of the MALE god and his misogynistic followers."
The Catholics have the right to CHOOSE to not offer ELECTIVE abortions. Women have the right to CHOOSE to have their abortion elsewhere. Isn't CHOICE great.
I believe I am asking a religious nut case.

What you fail to understand is the catholics are against abortion for ANY reason!!

PAY ATTENTION!!!

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm

The teachings of the Catholic Church admit of no doubt on the subject. Such moral questions, when they are submitted, are decided by the Tribunal of the Holy Office. Now this authority decreed, 28 May, 1884, and again, 18 August, 1889, that "it cannot be safely taught in Catholic schools that it is lawful to perform ... any surgical operation which is directly destructive of the life of the fetus or the mother." Abortion was condemned by name, 24 July, 1895, in answer to the question whether when the mother is in immediate danger of death and there is no other means of saving her life, a physician can with a safe conscience cause abortion not by destroying the child in the womb (which was explicitly condemned in the former decree), but by giving it a chance to be born alive, though not being yet viable, it would soon expire. The answer was that he cannot. After these and other similar decisions had been given, some moralists thought they saw reasons to doubt whether an exception might not be allowed in the case of ectopic gestations. Therefore the question was submitted: "Is it ever allowed to extract from the body of the mother ectopic embryos still immature, before the sixth month after conception is completed?" The answer given, 20 March, 1902, was: "No; according to the decree of 4 May, 1898; according to which, as far as possible, earnest and opportune provision is to be made to safeguard the life of the child and of the mother. As to the time, let the questioner remember that no acceleration of birth is licit unless it be done at a time, and in ways in which, according to the usual course of things, the life of the mother and the child be provided for". Ethics, then, and the Church agree in teaching that no action is lawful which directly destroys fetal life. It is also clear that extracting the living fetus before it is viable, is destroying its life as directly as it would be killing a grown man directly to plunge him into a medium in which he cannot live, and hold him there till he expires.

LOL...I love that last sentence where the catholic boys refer immediately to a "grown" man!!! They are so transparent!! They certainly do not care if a full grown women dies who could be saved!

http://www.catholic.net/index.php...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php...

Morgana 9

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#6 Jun 22, 2013
Southern Reaper wrote:
<quoted text>
The article lists "elective abortions" as the service being withdrawn, which means (or should mean, I would hope) that they will make an exception in cases of severe complications that threaten a patient's life.
They dance like Fred Astaire when directly asked this question. They certainly would not want to "appear" hostile to women.

But now and then they blow their cover as a woman friendly corporation.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php...

November, a 27-year-old woman was admitted to St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix. She was 11 weeks pregnant with her fifth child, and she was gravely ill. According to a hospital document, she had "right heart failure," and her doctors told her that if she continued with the pregnancy, her risk of mortality was "close to 100 percent."

The patient, who was too ill to be moved to the operating room much less another hospital, agreed to an abortion. But there was a complication: She was at a Catholic hospital.

"They were in quite a dilemma," says Lisa Sowle Cahill, who teaches Catholic theology at Boston College. "There was no good way out of it. The official church position would mandate that the correct solution would be to let both the mother and the child die. I think in the practical situation that would be a very hard choice to make."

But the hospital felt it could proceed because of an exception — called Directive 47 in the U.S. Catholic Church's ethical guidelines for health care providers — that allows, in some circumstance, procedures that could kill the fetus to save the mother. Sister Margaret McBride, who was an administrator at the hospital as well as its liaison to the diocese, gave her approval.

The woman survived. When Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted heard about the abortion, he declared that McBride was automatically excommunicated — the most serious penalty the church can levy.
"She consented in the murder of an unborn child," says the Rev. John Ehrich, the medical ethics director for the Diocese of Phoenix. "There are some situations where the mother may in fact die along with her child. But — and this is the Catholic perspective — you can't do evil to bring about good. The end does not justify the means."

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#8 Jun 22, 2013
Susanm wrote:
Why is it that people that claim to be "pro-choice", are only pro"choice" when the choice supports abortion?
We're not. Try taking away women's rights to continue their pregnancies, and see how hard we fight against THAT as well.

Morgana 9

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#9 Jun 22, 2013
Southern Reaper wrote:
I don't much care for the possibility of women being endangered by their religious/anti-abortion beliefs. I do support their right to refuse elective abortion services, but not their right to endanger women's lives. If any women die in their care due to their anti-abortion stance, they should be charged with negligence and malpractice (barring women that refuse to abort of their own accord).
Their religion doesn't give them a pass to let patients die for their personal beliefs.
I totally agree!

But they try to fall back on "religious" freedom and conscience clause.

Won't be long and they will be burning at the stake whimpering heresy and their absolute right to enforce their religious beliefs.

Stay tuned for part 2 of the Dark Ages entitled "As History Repeats Itself".

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Abortion Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 17 min DAVID27 313,225
News Lexington abortion clinic is closing 13 hr kyman 5
News Women's March on Washington mimicked across the... 23 hr Beckyf 3
News Palin's feminism raises questions (Sep '08) Sat The Worlds Bigges... 20
News Millennial women opposed to Trump take to stree... Jan 20 Rainbow Kid 1
News Activist: "Abortion Threatens Black America's F... (Sep '12) Jan 18 T-BOS 6,099
News Iowa bill would let woman sue doctors who perfo... Jan 18 Cordwainer Trout 3
More from around the web