chrysostom

chrysostom

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
chrysostom said:
why Catholics are liberal
A Crisis in the Church
that you can't ignore. John Dearden. He started the USCCB and to run it he picked Joseph Bernardin who started the CCHD often called the "Catholic Campaign to Help Democrats". The liberals in the Democratic Party couldn't have been happier with them. That included Obama and ACORN. The message was clear. It was okay to vote for Democrats even thought they supported abortion. It was not the only issue and we were called to help the poor. Enter the "Seamless Garment". Bernardin's brainchild.

Home
Click to expand...

seamless garment
A Crisis in the Church
that you can't ignore. THE END OF THE BERNARDIN ERA but long live the CCHD and the "seamless garment". Abortion has been diminished by all the other issues associated with the Democratic Party. LGBT, same sex marriage, racism, immigration, climate change, etc. Is it modernism or just plain feminism? Feminists are in control of the Democratic Party and abortion is their sacred cow.

Home
 
JudgeRightly

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Town Heretic said:
Is endangerment of the life of the mother an exception or self-defense?
Click to expand...


Life of the Mother "Exception"
An "exception" means a child intentionally killed. A physician should never postpone his efforts to save the mother in order to take time out to kill the child. If a doctor can only save the mother and not the child also, that is a tragedy, but it is not an intentional killing. Unintentional, unavoidable, and accidental death is not the same as intentional killing.

The effort to abolish abortion, like a personhood amendment, provides for no exceptions. But what if a pregnancy threatens the life of the mother? The doctor's goal should be to save mom and the baby if possible. The goal should never be to kill the mother to save the baby, nor to kill the child to save the mother.

Consider preeclampsia and ectopic pregnancy. In an ectopic pregnancy, often the baby tragically dies and sometimes, without proper medical care, so does the mother. But in many cases, both mom and baby have survived ectopic pregnancy (see below for more)! A mom on the verge of death from preeclampsia is saved by a doctor (not by an abortionist) who delivers the baby. The only way that doctor would thereby become an abortionist is if that doctor then performed an overt act to kill the baby. Removing the baby is not the same as killing the baby. Saving the mother often requires delivering the baby, but never killing the baby. That baby may not survive the premature delivery but the child's death must not be the intent of the medical intervention. For every good doctor follows the Hippocratic Oath to first, do no harm.

Society's attempt to justify killing unborn children leads to absurdities like the "exception" for the life of the mother in the partial-birth abortion ban. For the PBA "procedure" is not designed to save the mother but only to kill the baby. And partial-birth abortions, which are the intentionally breech, i.e., feet-first, delivery and then killing of these babies, were not performed by surgeons generally but only by abortionists.

Ultimately, abortionists use "exceptions" including incest and life only as an excuse to defend the slaughter of all unborn children for any reason. In reality, if the mother's life is threatened by her pregnancy, the doctor would deliver the baby through normal medical procedure but never stop midway to kill the baby. However, the very idea of delaying caring for and saving the mother long enough to take the time kill the baby is such an obvious cruelty and deception that it exposes the confusion in some, and the hardheartedness in others, who argue for such exceptions.


Excerpt from https://americanrtl.org/life-of-the-mother-exception
 
chrysostom

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
the investigation
A Crisis in the Church
that you can't ignore. The key to the McCarrick investigation may be Bernardin who was picked by Dearden. How did it happen? Who could have influenced John Paul? Who will be held responsible? McCarrick has more than one thing in common with Marcial Maciel, they were both great fundraisers. Follow the money.

Home
 
chrysostom

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
if you are
A Liberal
this Jordan Peterson is the most dangerous man in the world. You can't let him speak. He will destroy you. You can't handle the words he uses. Individual, obligation, responsibility, suffering, etc. The way he puts them together will take you where you don't want to go. You have to stop him before he corrupts those who still have the ability to think. It may be too late. His book is everywhere.
Home
 
chrysostom

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
he may be
A Racist
or a misogynist or a homophobe if he doesn't agree with you. Jordan Peterson may just have arguments that you can't handle. Reason and logic are hard to deal with especially when backed up with empirical data. Maybe it is just the rules that you can't handle. Maybe it is just the consequences. Maybe the idea that you are responsible is too much to deal with. There is a way out. Take a look a yourself and see what you can do. It is a place to start.

Home
 
chrysostom

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
take
A Look
at yourself. You may be the problem and there is a good chance you can deal with it. Other problems will have to wait. Rule 6 of Jordan Peterson is "Set your house in order before you criticise the world". Look in the mirror and deal with it. You won't get anywhere if you can't solve that problem.
Home
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top