The Catholic Church is mired in yet another anti-woman scandal.
via NBC – “PHOENIX – A nun and administrator at a Catholic hospital in Phoenix has been reassigned and rebuked by the local bishop for agreeing that a severely ill woman needed an abortion to survive.
Sister Margaret McBride was on an ethics committee that included doctors that consulted with a young woman who was 11 weeks pregnant late last year, The Arizona Republic newspaper reported on its website Saturday. The woman was suffering from a life-threatening condition that likely would have caused her death if she hadn’t had the abortion at St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center.”
Wow, do we need another reason to shit-can the mystical bullshit that pervades our society? Yet another case of backward, unhinged, delusional thinking attempting to corrupt and trump reality in the 21st century. The Nun in question, followed her own personal ethics, as opposed to the rancid 2000 year old wisdom of burning bushes and talking snakes. She made the correct evidence based decision. Her commitment to reason is to be commended, and of course free thinking in the musty halls of religion gets you punished:
“Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, head of the Phoenix Diocese, indicated in a statement that the Roman Catholic involved was “automatically excommunicated” because of the action. The Catholic Church allows the termination of a pregnancy only as a secondary effect of other treatments, such as radiation of a cancerous uterus.”
“I am gravely concerned by the fact that an abortion was performed several months ago in a Catholic hospital in this diocese,” Olmsted said in a statement sent to The Arizona Republic. “I am further concerned by the hospital’s statement that the termination of a human life was necessary to treat the mother’s underlying medical condition.”
Ah yes, because of your funny hat and the rotten sepulchre of a religion that supports your fantasy based point of view enables you to punish people for saving lives. The Bishop of Bullshit continues:
“An unborn child is not a disease. While medical professionals should certainly try to save a pregnant mother’s life, the means by which they do it can never be by directly killing her unborn child. The end does not justify the means.”
Huh, well if then this is not a pillar for Catholic women to frakking rally around then let us distill it down a bit further to ‘clarify the message’.
“If a woman grows weary and at last dies from childbearing, it matters not. Let her die from bearing, she is there to do it.” –Martin Luther.
Now this is a quote that women can get behind. All aboard the train straight back into the shitz and giggles known as the Dark Ages! We need to get back to a time where Bishop Frothing in the Mouth Crazy has some real power. The malodorous drivel oozing from this rectal polyp of human being is matched only by the unctuous waves of support for his position wafting through the spinelessly uncritical anti-choice wankosphere . Okay okay, I digress. Back to the real world where evidence does matter…
“The patient, who hasn’t been identified, was seriously ill with pulmonary hypertension. The condition limits the ability of the heart and lungs to function and is made worse, possibly even fatal, by pregnancy.
“This decision was made after consultation with the patient, her family, her physicians, and in consultation with the Ethics Committee, of which Sr. Margaret McBride is a member,” the hospital said in a statement issued Friday.”
Thank you medical science, thank you rationality, for showing us the correct solution in this case. We need to banish the fucking voodoo magical crap that masquerades in our society as religion. This case finely illustrates how morally bankrupt the RCC is and how out to lunch religion is in general.
H/T to Pharyngula.





26 comments
May 17, 2010 at 12:48 pm
David
Nope, excommunicated for killing a life.
LikeLike
May 17, 2010 at 1:26 pm
The Arbourist
Wow, trolled already by the zealous anti-choicers. On the upside I found a response already made from a different thread.
Yet more proof, if proof were needed, that the catholic church values a small mass of cells, that not even the most generous interpretation could rationally claim is equal to an adult human or a child, more highly than the life of a woman.
Even where the death of foetus and mother is certain anyway if the foetus is not aborted, they still will not countenance abortion. So it is not only the foetus that is seen as more important than a woman’s life, but the abstract principle of anti-abortionism is also held in higher esteem than a woman in all circumstances.
Catholicism is once again challenging Islam for the, apparently coveted, crown of the world’s most insanely misogynist religion
Thanks for opining Dave.
LikeLike
May 17, 2010 at 3:07 pm
David
You don’t have any idea what you’re talking about. Do you even know anything about the woman in the case? Do you know what disease she had? What her station in life was? Any circumstances? I doubt it seriously. However, the nun, knowing she should be obedient to her vows, disobeyed them anyway. Of course this is the same thing that got mankind into trouble to begin with – thinking we know better than God.
LikeLike
May 17, 2010 at 7:44 pm
Mystro
“Do you know what disease she had? What her station in life was? Any circumstances? I doubt it seriously.” -you
“The patient… was seriously ill with pulmonary hypertension. The condition limits the ability of the heart and lungs to function and is made worse, possibly even fatal, by pregnancy.”-the article you criticized
I could talk about how the entire profession of medicine is centered around people seeking something better than “what ‘god’ has planned for us”. You know, stuff like “I don’t care if God put bacteria on that cut, I’m gonna put some antiseptic on it and avoid infection”.
The thing is, the reading comprehension you’ve demonstrated (as illustrated by the two quotes above) tell me it would be a waste of my efforts. Instead I will only suggest you take a ‘Reading English as a Second Language’ course.
Once you can actually understand what people are saying, you might be able to go beyond the dogmatic idiocy that has been fed to you by your religion. Good luck.
LikeLike
May 18, 2010 at 9:57 am
David
There were other options, were they tried first? Read this:
Purpose. The treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) in pregnancy is reviewed.
Summary. PAH is a disease characterized by narrowing of the pulmonary arteries and increased vascular resistance. Women with PAH should avoid becoming pregnant, as the physiological, cardiovascular, and pulmonary changes that occur during pregnancy can exacerbate the condition. However, several viable treatment options are available to improve the outcomes in this patient population, including inhaled nitric oxide, calcium-channel blockers, targeted pulmonary vasodilators, and sildenafil. Epoprostenol, a naturally occurring prostaglandin and vasodilator, is a pregnancy category B drug. Reproductive studies in rats and rabbits have found no impaired fertility or fetal harm at 2.5–4.8 times the recommended human dosage of epoprostenol. Most of the published case reports describe initiating epoprostenol 2–4 ng/kg/min i.v. several weeks before or near the time of delivery. Iloprost is a pregnancy category C drug but has demonstrated benefit in pregnant patients with PAH, with no congenital abnormalities and no postpartum maternal or infant mortality reported. Sildenafil causes vasodilation of the pulmonary vascular bed and vasodilation in the systemic circulation. Two case reports have described the successful treatment with sildenafil, a pregnancy category B drug, of pregnant patients with PAH. Patients with idiopathic PAH or chronic thromboembolic PAH should receive full-dose subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin therapy instead of warfarin for bleeding prophylaxis during pregnancy.
Conclusion. Targeted pulmonary vasodilators are viable treatment options for pregnant patients with PAH. Early recognition and management of worsening symptoms are essential to improve outcomes for both the mother and infant.
LikeLike
May 18, 2010 at 9:59 am
David
Something better than what God has planned for us? That’s impossible.
LikeLike
May 18, 2010 at 11:10 pm
Mystro
“Something better than what God has planned for us? That’s impossible.”
So I’m guessing you’re against medicine of any kind then. I mean, if God had wanted us immune to small pox, he would have made us that way in the first place. Messing with our bodies to make us more resilient to the bountiful plagues that god populated the earth with is a desecration of his already perfectly crafted creation.
Same with all those people who die horribly of disease in the third world. Some stupid people (like me) think that’s something to be fixed, when in fact these people are living out god’s will in a pure way, without that sacrilegious “medicine” that goes against the divine plan.
You know what? I’ll make it simple. Imagine one thing just a fraction better than what it is. Anything at all. If you can picture just one thing a touch superior to what is, then IT IS possible for your god’s design to be improved on.
If, however, it is in fact impossible for you imagine anything in all of existence, throughout all of history, being even one iota better than what it is, then I’d say 1) you believe you live in the best possible world and therefore should never complain or gripe about anything (and thus should stop harping on people who have abortions, as they are part of god’s plan, so it’s wrong of you to nay-say it) and 2) you lack the capability for basic abstract thought and I’d have more luck trying to explain these kinds of things to my gerbil.
As to your “they coulda done something else” point, I again point out your refusal and/or inability to read something before you criticize it.
“The woman was suffering from a life-threatening condition that likely would have caused her death if she hadn’t had the abortion.”
Doctors do not say things like that unless they’ve exhausted all other options. If they do, it’s called malpractice. Also, if you read things carefully, you would have seen reference to physicians (note the use of the PLURAL) and to an Ethics Committee. You know, all the steps that people go through to avoid malpractice and hasty decisions.
In summary, actually read things before you start spouting ill-founded criticism and try to think a little bit on your own instead of parroting ludicrous dogma like calling improvement ‘impossible’.
LikeLike
May 18, 2010 at 11:36 pm
Ichthyic
Targeted pulmonary vasodilators are viable treatment options for pregnant patients with PAH.
one, it’s a study of potential. How is “Reproductive studies in rats and rabbits” even fucking relevant HERE?
two, it’s pretty obvious you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about, you just linked to the first article in pub med you could find.
three, The only thing that IS relevant, is the treatment diagnosis done by the doctors that treated that patient at the time. No, there were no viable alternatives.
EOS.
LikeLike
May 18, 2010 at 11:37 pm
Ichthyic
Something better than what God has planned for us? That’s impossible.
since your deity is fictional, you might as well say “unpossible”.
LikeLike
May 18, 2010 at 11:38 pm
Ichthyic
You don’t have any idea what you’re talking about. Do you even know anything about the woman in the case?
you need to look up what “projection” means.
LikeLike
May 18, 2010 at 11:55 pm
Ichthyic
…nice picture of Ratzi, btw.
LOL
LikeLike
May 19, 2010 at 9:21 am
The Arbourist
Damn, I was wondering about the relevance of Rabbits to this particular case as well.
I’m going to assume that you get this sort of problem all the time. It must be endemic when you attempt to shoehorn facts of a situation to meet the farcically mendacious requirements of your religion.
I suggest in the future that perhaps you should commit to a more studious evidence based approach. It would be radical step, but eminently preferable to the dishonest twisting of facts in an attempt to make them jive with your rather atrocious religiously based point of view.
LikeLike
May 19, 2010 at 11:44 am
David
Mystro, the science of medicine comes from God. It’s a shame it’s been perverted by man. Actually, simply, I can’t. God’s design is perfect. Exactly the way He designed it. But what’s of this world isn’t really important. It’s what comes next that matters. Regarding the woman, the article says nothing about alternative considerations, when in fact, there were alternatives. Abortion should never be the first resort. And by the way, yes, doctors do. Patients go into clinics all the time with a pregnancy, and are not presented with all the options, like having the baby and giving it up for adoption. So, you are incorrect.
Icthyic, you say it’s a study of potential, well so is the human being they killed. And…I can prove MY deity’s existence, so He’s not fictional.
LikeLike
May 19, 2010 at 12:51 pm
Mystro
“the science of medicine comes from God. It’s a shame it’s been perverted by man”
Really? Last I checked, the Jebus diagnosis for epilepsy, as with many other ailments, is demonic possession (Matthew 17:14-18 or Luke 9:38-42) and the treatment for such things is faith and a blessing.
Do you actually want to claim that things like Germ theory, Biological Chemistry, and Genetic theory are perversions of your holy law as they are not found in any scripture?
“God’s design is perfect…what’s of this world isn’t really important.”
In my last post I showed you the consequences of this viewpoint. That abortions must therefore be part of god’s master plan and you are wrong to criticize it.
“there were alternatives…Patients go into clinics all the time with a pregnancy, and are not presented with all the options”
Anything to back this up? No? Didn’t think so
“I can prove MY deity’s existence”
And you finish off with yet another wide sweeping, general, vague, and unsupported claim. That is a bad habit, you should stop.
Anyway, I’d like to hear this proof for YOUR deity. Theists have been attempting to prove the existence of ANY deity for thousands of years (and have failed), but you claim that you can prove not only A god, but yours in particular, as opposed to Thor, Zeus, Ra, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Must be some proof.
I guess my response to everything you’ve said boils down to, quite simply: put up or shut up.
LikeLike
May 19, 2010 at 3:45 pm
David
What do YOU think causes epilepsy? That explanation is as good as yours. But you, as usual, purposely miss the point. So, I give up. For now.
LikeLike
May 19, 2010 at 9:03 pm
Mystro
demonic possession is as valid an explanation as the one given by the years of research done in medical field? I cannot believe that even you are that deluded. Thank you for giving up your crusade for idiocy.
LikeLike
May 20, 2010 at 12:06 am
The Arbourist
Show is over folks, nothing here now but the religiously addled clutching at straws and progressively making less and sense.
David, the world is moving forward based on the scientific model. The thinking you typify is backwards, outmoded and shown to be lacking in any sort of coherence or internal consistency.
Go to church, pray, clutch your prayer beads. Do whatever you do to make yourself feel better but realize you have no purchase here(or with people who value rationality); revelation stopped being relevant once people stopped being afraid and started thinking for themselves.
So please, take your man made religious constructs and argue amongst the religiously addled about such useful topics as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Until you can back up your assertions with evidence you will be mocked and ridiculed because here in the real world evidence and facts matter.
You have not expressed any tangible or credible proof past the usual religious frothy meandering palavers that most deluded people spew when they realize they have nothing to say when it comes to rational debate.
You are welcome to continue to post here, but I suggest sticking to verifiable facts or you will hazard the continuance of the excoriation of your fallacious arguments and mythical beliefs.
LikeLike
May 20, 2010 at 10:41 am
David
Arbourist, the fact is that what the world thinks and does is totally irrelevant. That’s a fact. A rational fact.
Regarding epilepsy, there is no known cause for it, so your explanation, and their explanation for it are just as valid.
Here’s another fact. The Sister (not nun) was excommunicated for killing a life, not because she saved one. It has not been shown or discussed whether other forms of treatment were even considered, so the nun approved treating someone by acting as though the fetus was a disease. These are the facts. Whitewash it as you will.
LikeLike
May 20, 2010 at 8:41 pm
The Arbourist
Arbourist, the fact is that what the world thinks and does is totally irrelevant.
Did you miss a day of meds? How far along is your psychotic break with reality?
for killing a life, not because she saved one.
I imagine you call acorns oak trees as well in your particularly off-kilter world as well.
It has not been shown or discussed whether other forms of treatment were even considered,
Did the whole ethics board consideration fly beneath your radar? I would think that ‘other alternatives’ were discussed before hand.
Here’s another fact. The Sister (not nun) was […]
vs.
so the nun approved treating someone by acting […].
I realize that internal consistency is a bit of a stretch for the deluded, but do you think you could skim a couple of layers of fail off the frothy inchoate tripe that you are attempting to pass off as arguments?
Whitewash it as you will.
If, by that, you mean refuting your gibbering nonsensical ejaculations into this thread with cogent rational arguments I most certainly will continue to do so.
LikeLike
May 20, 2010 at 8:48 pm
The Arbourist
Regarding epilepsy, there is no known cause for it, so your explanation, and their explanation for it are just as valid.
Causes from Wikipedia:
The diagnosis of epilepsy usually requires that the seizures occur spontaneously. Nevertheless, certain epilepsy syndromes require particular precipitants or triggers for seizures to occur. These are termed reflex epilepsy. For example, patients with primary reading epilepsy have seizures triggered by reading. Photosensitive epilepsy can be limited to seizures triggered by flashing lights. Other precipitants can trigger an epileptic seizure in patients who otherwise would be susceptible to spontaneous seizures. For example, children with childhood absence epilepsy may be susceptible to hyperventilation. In fact, flashing lights and hyperventilation are activating procedures used in clinical EEG to help trigger seizures to aid diagnosis. Finally, other precipitants can facilitate, rather than obligately trigger, seizures in susceptible individuals. Emotional stress, sleep deprivation, sleep itself, heat stress, alcohol and febrile illness are examples of precipitants cited by patients with epilepsy. Notably, the influence of various precipitants varies with the epilepsy syndrome.[20]. Likewise, the menstrual cycle in women with epilepsy can influence patterns of seizure recurrence. Catamenial epilepsy is the term denoting seizures linked to the menstrual cycle.[21]
There are different causes of epilepsy that are common in certain age groups.
* During the neonatal period and early infancy the most common causes include hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathies, CNS infections,trauma,congenital CNS abnormalities and metabolic disorders.
* During late infancy and early childhood, febrile seizures are very common.There may be other causes like CNS infections and trauma.
* During childhood well defined epilepsy syndromes are generally seen.
* During adolescence and adulthood,the causes are more likely to be secondary to any CNS lesion and idiopathic epilepsies are less commmon. Other causes associated with these age groups are trauma,CNS infections,brain tumours,illicit drug use and alchohol withdrawal.
* In older adults, cerebrovascular disease is a very common cause. other causes are CNS tumours, trauma and other degenerative diseases that are common to the older age group like alzheimers.
Wow…that was one second of google-fu. Your amazing lack of anything resembling a grip on reality is astonishing.
LikeLike
May 21, 2010 at 10:20 am
David
You expect secular media to get it right? I don’t. You trust your sources, I’ll trust mine. But the story did not say that they considered other options, whether or not that would have made a difference.
I guess you believe that the ancients had all the God-given tools we have now to make such detailed study. But the truth is that it’s hard to trace what causes epilepsy, because we don’t usually know someone has it until it presents itself. What you cut and pasted is a cause and effect thing. It says that early infants who have epilepsy also had CNS infections and trauma. It’s like blaming lung cancer on smoking. People who smoke sometimes have lung cancer, but people who don’t smoke also get lung cancer. All that aside, God is the one who reveals to us what we know. It’s funny how you believe in an evolutionary process that Darwin came up with, but you don’t believe that our minds evolved, too.
LikeLike
May 21, 2010 at 6:10 pm
Ben Hoffman
Boy, the pope looks evil in that photo. He looks like an old, male version of the girl in the Exorcist.
LikeLike
May 22, 2010 at 9:44 am
The Arbourist
The picture seems just about right as far as finding a nicely flattering picture of the boy-buggerer-in chief is concerned. :>
LikeLike
May 24, 2010 at 2:50 pm
The Arbourist
David said: You expect secular media to get it right?
You are right I’ll go check to see what GNN (god news network) has to say. Oh wait… it doesn’t exist, just like god.
You trust your sources, I’ll trust mine.
Your sources are based on illusion, good luck with that.
I guess you believe that the ancients had all the God-given tools we have now to make such detailed study.
The ancients did not have the tools because they were addled with the bullshit you attempt to peddle here. Reason and Science are the factors responsible for our current level of progress. Check the Dark Ages for how much progress we had when the men in funny hats had power.
What you cut and pasted is a cause and effect thing.
No kidding. That is how causality works.
It says that early infants who have epilepsy also had CNS infections and trauma. It’s like blaming lung cancer on smoking. People who smoke sometimes have lung cancer, but people who don’t smoke also get lung cancer.
It also shows we know what causes epilepsy. So why attempt to clutter the argument with more baseless assumptions?
God is the one who reveals to us what we know.
What utter bullshit. Prove it. Show me an instance where god reveals to us what we know. Of course, I highly doubt you can or will. As you have shown throughout your thread you ‘argue’ with crap you make up. That may work great in the delusional world you seem to inhabit, but back here in reality you need evidence to prove your claims, so until you produce some credible evidence to back up your clearly supernatural claims you will be ridiculed here and in most other forums where adult rational people congregate.
It’s funny how you believe in an evolutionary process that Darwin came up with, but you don’t believe that our minds evolved, too.
I accept the claim of evolution because it is supported by a significant body of evidence that points toward it being a correct theory. If a theory that better describes the situation I would dump Evolutionary Theory and support the new hypothesis because it would closer to the truth of the situation. That has not happened yet, so I continue to support evolution because it is supported by fact and has tremendous explicative applications.
but you don’t believe that our minds evolved, too
I suggest you find the Origin of the Species or Dawkin’s book The Greatest Show on Earth and educate yourself because it might prevent you from positing such amazing nuclear grade ignorance in public forums such as the statement above.
LikeLike
May 26, 2010 at 4:25 pm
David
Actually, your sources are illusionary. The fact of your life and breath, and your knowledge, are proof of God.
Regarding evolution, there is no evidence of new species growing out of old species. Prove it. Ah, you can’t. Darwin and Dawkins were/are wrong. In fact, Darwin changed the rules of scientific evidence because he could not make his point using the existing ruleset.
“My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species … [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms.” (private interview with Antony Flew, Dec 2004)
LikeLike
May 27, 2010 at 10:46 pm
The Arbourist
Actually, your sources are illusionary. The fact of your life and breath, and your knowledge, are proof of God.
I’d like to hear your proof of that other than, of course, what your magic book says.
Regarding evolution, there is no evidence of new species growing out of old species.
That is of course new species do not come directly from old species. Many species share a common ancestor and through natural selection significantly change enough to be identified as a different species.
In fact, Darwin changed the rules of scientific evidence because he could not make his point using the existing ruleset.
Um no. Scientists, unlike followers of creationist nonsense, cannot move the goal posts and change goals and arguments halfway though. The scientific method is a rigorous set of rules that weeds out less accurate hypothesis and begins to move the assumptions we have about our world closer to the truth. Darwin’s theory is the basis of biology, essential it is proven every day all over the world by people who use the evolutionary model to make predictions and assumptions based upon its tenets. The evidence is for evolution is overwhelming and the predictive ability of the theory is also very strong as it is a good theory.
As for the First Cause canard, evolutionary theory does not concern itself with the origins of life, merely how it operates in the physical world. Please try to argue against what the theory actually addresses.
LikeLike