Hindu woman dies after being denied an abortion because "this is a Catholic country"

[draco664]

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013...dor/?mobile=wp

Similar story in El Salvador right now. Not only is the poor woman likely to die, her baby has by the sounds of it something severly wrong, anencephaly perhaps. But do they care? No!!

Twats!

The baby has no brain, and will die hours after birth because it cannot live outside the womb.

The woman has conditions that make it dangerous, bordering on deadly for her to be pregnant.

So of course the Catholic Church wants her to have the baby and likely die. Far better for her to die than end the pregnancy early and save her life. Saving the life of a poor woman is EVIL compared to letting a helpless baby die in agony.

But hey, what do I know. I don't believe in an invisible sky fairy.

[static]

1234567890

[SongsOfDragons]

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013...dor/?mobile=wp

Similar story in El Salvador right now. Not only is the poor woman likely to die, her baby has by the sounds of it something severly wrong, anencephaly perhaps. But do they care? No!!

Twats!

[draco664]

That's proof that they aren't pro-life, just pro-birth. Once the baby is born, they stop caring. Because it's not about life, it's about control.

Paraphrasing the late, great Bill Hicks, I'll believe that they're pro-life when they start picketing cemeteries...

[Andara Bledin]

That's a medal contender at the irony olympics right there...

That's proof that they aren't pro-life, just pro-birth. Once the baby is born, they stop caring. Because it's not about life, it's about control.

[draco664]

"Pro-life" supporters are sending death threats to politicians who support the abortion legislation.

That's a medal contender at the irony olympics right there...

[static]

1234567890

[fireheart17]

The bishops of Ireland have condemned the legislation as "morally unacceptable", "a breach of the principle of religious freedom" and claimed that politicians have a “solemn duty” to oppose abortion.

You know, I have NO idea how allowing abortions is a breach of religious freedom.

I thought religious freedom meant that a) people were free to follow their own beliefs and be guided by them in making decisions and that b) laws were also made to stop one religion from holding more influence over the state than another.

if they're referring to the fact that Catholics might suddenly decide to get abortions....you know, not to disparage on how devout people are, but I would imagine that a number of Catholics around the world are card-carrying ones. They attend say christmas and easter mass and consider that all they have to do to adopt the "Catholic" moniker. They might not follow the remaining rules and instead pick and choose whatever's convenient WHENEVER it's convenient.

The "true" Catholics (that is, those who don't use religion as an excuse to be a jerk or a bitch) would still not get abortions.

The bishops are fine to believe what they want to believe, but they shouldn't be forcing it down the throats of those who need them. (and yes, there are times when abortion is genuinely needed)

[Panacea]

The bishops of Ireland have condemned the legislation as "morally unacceptable", "a breach of the principle of religious freedom" and claimed that politicians have a “solemn duty” to oppose abortion.

This makes me nuts.

Following Christ has to be a choice. If the law makes your choices for you, then you are not following Christ.

I really wish the Church would quit trying to legislate and instead give people options and support for continuing a pregnancy.

[draco664]

The "religious freedom" to dictate how others live and die is a particularly Orwellian bit of doublespeak. Good going, bishops.

What's wrong with that? The bishops all agree that everyone has the right to freely worship Christ in the Catholic faith.

[Nekojin]

The bishops of Ireland have condemned the legislation as "morally unacceptable", "a breach of the principle of religious freedom" and claimed that politicians have a “solemn duty” to oppose abortion.

The "religious freedom" to dictate how others live and die is a particularly Orwellian bit of doublespeak. Good going, bishops.

[static]

1234567890

[HYHYBT]

Of course. But the Catholic church, at least in this sort of case, *doesn't* recognize that.

(It of course gets problematic when there are multiple, mutually exclusive things to do...)

[wolfie]

Choosing not to act is an action in itself. One of the things I like about the Episcopal churches I've been to (which I mention only as a source) is the recitation during the service of the "Prayers of the People." Specifically relevant: "forgive us for what we have done and for what we have left undone." Because they amount to the same thing.

Even secular literature recognizes that. It's no accident that Asimov's First Law of Robotics is "No robot shall harm a human, or through inaction allow a human to be harmed". One of his stories deals with the problems that happen when a batch of robots has a modified First Law that leaves out the bit about inaction.

[Andara Bledin]

It still basically boils down to "You can't murder Alice to save Bob's life, even if Alice's life depends on Bob's."

It still amounts to murder through inaction.

They can try to say it was "god's will" that they both die, but in that case, then any surgery is against god's will, not just a life-preserving abortion.

^-.-^