March 12, 2009

It is official....

The Vatican has made it official.

The life of a fetus is more important than that of a nine year old rape victim.

Classy fellas. Real classy.


Justine said...

Ooh. Not very photogenic, is he?

Lemmy Caution said...

Among other things....

themom said...

What a bastard. I always say "if you don't play the game - you DON'T make the rules!" They manipulate the meaning of "life" to suit their own purposes.

laura said...

Not to beat a dead horse, or a dead set of twin babies, as the case may be....
You quoted doctors saying her uterus was not big enough to hold one baby, let alone two, and do I presume to know more than these doctors? Well, I'm not exactly an idiot - I've taken college level anatomy classes and come from and have several medical professionals in the family. And I've had a bunch of kids, and been in a bunch of NICUs with tiny babies in life-threatening situations.

Twin babies at twenty weeks are a great deal smaller than twin babies at full term. A compassionate way to deal with this situation would be to put the girl in a hospital and carefully monitor her health daily until it became a risky situation. At that point the babies would have to be delivered, whether they were "viable" or not. At twenty weeks it would be risky, but not impossible for them to surrvive. She could be shielded from the whole thing and never have to even see them, or if they survived she could eventually meet them. Whether they were totally healthy or not there would be many couples willing to adopt them. Everybody happy.

This is not some Jesus-crazed fantasy, this is the medical reality. Why do you feel it is more compassionate to kill the babies without giving them a chance? That's not any easier on the little girl. As I said, she will be an adult some day and have a lot of questions, and I am quite sure a lot of sadness that the twins were snuffed out, not by her choice, but by the adults who didn't want to be bothered with this mess.

Do you know who should be killed? The man who abused her. Or at least castrated. Not chemically. I am not against the judicious use of the death penalty. Child rapists are good candidates. Innocent twin babies are not.

Lemmy Caution said...

I still disagree.

These doctors physically observed and diagnosed the situation. I find it difficult to believe that they were merely bloodthirsty savages looking for a way to murder "innocent twin babies".

Facts are facts. This girl weighed EIGHTY POUNDS. The doctors made a MEDICAL decision, not a philosophical one.

They made what they believed in their MEDICAL opinion was the right call, and the church chastised them for it. That's their right. Bully for them.

I just think they could have been more "Christ-like" in their response.

laura said...

Look, it's been a while since I've been eighty pounds. But that's a good weight for a nine year old. My nine year old weighs sixty pounds, and he's a healthy guy. I'm pointing this out to show that though eighty pounds sounds tiny, I don't think it indicates that she is malnurished.

MEDICAL opinions are interesting. You can find 1,000 doctors who would say a woman should have an abortion because it's going to adversely effect her "mental health" and 1,000 others who would say not really. I'm going to guess that most doctors would be horrified at the plight of a pregnant nine-year-old (and rightly so!) and many would rush to think an abortion is the proper course of action, for the poor girls "mental health" rather than physical.

In the end, unless we could get some very specific facts about the case I think you are going to believe that these doctors are not to be questioned. I'll have to see if I can ask a good OB to spell it out a little more clearly.

How about this - I've never heard of a baby surviving before 18 weeks, and this girl was only 15. But wouldn't it at least be more human to deliver the babies and make them comfortable at fifteen weeks than to either chemically burn them to death (and they swallow that stuff and burn their insides, too) or rip their limbs of one by one and crush their skulls while they're fully alive and then suck it all out with a vacuum?

Is that too graphic? Because that's what we're talking about. That's the choice. My niece was born at 24 weeks and she was so alive - I shudder to think of her being tortured to death in one of those ways. But those twins were. Hardly compassionate. This is what the Church is talking about. Babies are not second-class citizens.

laura said...

I was about to fall asleep when it occured to me you may not understand some church teachings. If this were an acute emergency and the girls life was indeed threatened it would be permissable (sp?) to deliver the babies - not butcher them, but deliver them, even if they would certainly die. Because the intention would be to save a girls life, not kill the babies. This is the case in ectopic pregnancies.

It can be done in such a way that doesn't violate the baby's dignity - you can't poision it or hack it out in pieces. But you can deliver it early and do what you can. If this was the course the parents had taken, no one would have been excommunicated.

There was no reason not to take this course. If her life was not immediately in danger, as I keep saying, they could have eeked out every possible day to give those babies a fighting chance. If they didn't make it, so be it, they tried.

You say the doctors were not bloodthirsty, but at the very least their was a misguided compassion that did not include those babies. I also suspect no one wanted to deal with the bother of caring for these babies (the little mommy wouldn't be able to) or placing them in a home. I sure hope we don't start brutally killing off everyone who's a bit of work.

The church has to defend life, at every stage - no one else is.

Justine said...

"Bastard" sounds a bit like hate speech to me. I thought that was reserved only for Christians?

Lemmy Caution said...

"The church has to defend life, at every stage - no one else is.

Appartly every stage except for nine year old rape victims.

Sorry, but as much as I admire your passion in this instance, I just think you are letting your polotics get the better of what I see as common sense.

Calling "bastard" hate speech is a stretch.

What do you mean by "I thought that was reserved only for Christians?

laura said...

MY politics? Abortion has been called the sacrament of the feminist movement. Perhaps for you, too? You refuse to address the possibility of trying to preserve these babies lives, or at least treating them with dignity.

You insult the church and the pope "Classy!"

Why does it have to be brutal death, Lemmy? MY politics?

Lemmy Caution said...

No, I don't refuse it at all. If the doctors who had examined the child said that she could carry the twins to term, this would be a different discussion.

But they didn't. And I defer to them. Probably because they are doctors. Oh and they examined the child.

I believe that they took the decision extremely seriously as well.

Yes, I insult the church. In this instance they are being as hypocritical as an organized promoter of 'love and compassion' can be. There are plenty of other things I absolutely and passionately believe the church can be insulted for as well……just know I’m not singling out the poor Catholics. I’m an equal opportunity invisible friend offender.

Why does it have to be brutal death, Lemmy? MY politics?

I’m sorry, but I’m not sure what you mean there. Feel free to elaborate.

Justine said...

My bad. My sarcasm was not clear. :)

I meant, I thought only things Christians said were considered hate speech by people like you.

If I were to call a homosexual-rights advocate a "bastard", don't you think that would sound hateful?

And for the record, I never would.

Justine said...

And could "The Mom" please clarify what "they manipulate the meaning of life" means?

The Catholic Church didn't change it's teaching on abortion in this situation. The church teaches that the unborn and the born are both living human beings who both deserve a right to life. That means a right not to be killed. The Church has been consistent and I am confused why you use the word "manipulate" in this situation.

I'm guessing the comment was just meant to be insulting, but if you have a rational explanation I would be interested in hearing it.

Lemmy Caution said...

That idea of "hate speech" is just politically correct nonsense.

People say mean and horrible things. I don't believe that there is a need to legally classify types of speech for use in the legal system.

If you were to call anyone a bastard, it would sound mean. Maybe not hateful. Who knows? That's all in the ears of the person being calling a bastard. Gay, straight, or whatever.

I think that you think I'm overly sensitive to the discrimination of homosexuals.

Not really. I just don't care for institutionalized discrimination no matter where it occurs.

Whether is be the Catholic Church, the boy scouts, or a library in Pakistan….discrimination is flat out stupid and wrong.

Justine said...

Hey, we agree on "hate speech!" Hooray for us!

Lemmy Caution said...

Group hug !

laura said...

Should I just let it go? I keep trying to say that babies can be DELIVERED EARLY (I'm not shouting, I'm just not sure how to italicize [or spell italicize and I'm just too lazy]). Why do they have to be killed?
I. Babies go to term, to the detriment of the nine year old.
II. Babies delivered before term at whatever point this seems necessary because the girl's health is becoming critical (fifteen weeks, twenty weeks, whatever) and every reasonable effort is made to save the babies.
III. Butcher the babies so no one has to be bothered by them.