Posts tagged ‘Abortion’

New Arizona law…

New Arizona law: Pregnancy begins two weeks before conception!

Pregnant prior to sex – that’s what u call “Mary-envy”.

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/pregnancy-begins-2-weeks-before-conception-now-the-law-in-arizona/politics/2012/04/13/37993

http://www.ucsdguardian.org/component/k2/item/25601-arizona%E2%80%99s-new-abortion-law-gives-pregancy-a-pause

Advertisements

April 24, 2012 at 3:53 am Leave a comment

The Church’s McBride Mistake

While showing God’s zero-tolerance policy for performing abortion, I have to ask why God permits such a high-tolerance for allowing people in the most trusted of professions to prey on children.  According to articles the odds of the death of the mother was extremely high – “near 100%“.  Perhaps that’s not enough?  What about the four children she has at home – what of their needs? 

After much deliberation, the abortion was performed saving the mother and permitting her to raise her four kids who are already alive.  After no deliberation, Bishop Thomas Olmstead decreed that “Sister McBride — along with any other Catholic involved in the decision, including the patient — were automatically excommunicated.”  I’m not involved, but I’m in agreeance with Sister McBride.  So excommunicate me, too. 

The church is less concerned about protecting the children that are already born.  The pope needs to override this idiot in Arizona. 

Excerpts:

Excommunication was sickening
Mary Jo McDonald,
Phoenix/Sedona

Being a practicing Catholic for “many” years and working directly for two archbishops and one bishop in the Midwest, I have seen the heartbreaking decisions they were forced to make.

But never did I witness them issuing such a disgusting and ridiculous order as this.

Bishop Olmstead, our church has so many problems, namely loss of vocations, scandals and, since you have taken over the reins of the Phoenix Diocese, the continuing exodus of parishioners, especially young people.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/2010/05/22/20100522satlets223.html 


If Sister Margaret McBride is No Catholic, Neither Am I
Liliana Loofbourow

The Catholic Church has shown itself to be ethically and morally compromised. It has dedicated its resources to self-interest and self-protection. It has shown no concern for its children, its women, or any of the vulnerable populations it ostensibly serves. It has consistently protected only two things: its power and its priests.
http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2010/05/18/if-sister-margaret-mcbride-is-no-catholic-neither-am-i/


Sister Margaret McBride: Don’t Confess
by Julianna Baggott
In 1941, my grandmother was 22 and in labor with her second child. The baby was in distress. Afraid a C-section would kill her, the doctor let the infant die. The baby, a boy, was stillborn.  The decision was merciful. No one in our family has ever second-guessed it — most of all not my mother, a 5-year-old at the time.

“I needed my mother to survive. Tha t doctor saved my life too.”

In November, Sister Margaret McBride, an administrator at St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix, made the decision to save the life of a 27-year-old pregnant woman. The woman, a mother of four, was 11 weeks pregnant, suffering pulmonary hypertension that would very likely kill her and, as a result, her unborn child. Sister McBride agreed to the abortion that would save the woman’s life. Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted has excommunicated her for it.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127033375 

Rebel Nuns
by Michelle Goldberg

The Catholic Church has claimed that it lacked the resources to properly investigate its sexual-abuse epidemic. It has blamed church bureaucracy for its failure to act quickly against pedophile priests, and has made much of the need to protect priests before they’re proven guilty.

When it comes to nuns, though, the church is somehow able to act with alacrity. This week, Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted of Phoenix announced the excommunication of Sister Margaret McBride for the crime of approving an abortion necessary to save a woman’s life. The patient, a 27-year-old [mother of 4] who was 11 weeks pregnant, had pulmonary hypertension, which interferes with the functioning of the heart and lungs. Pregnancy exacerbates the condition, and doctors at St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center determined that she would die without an abortion.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-05-21/catholic-nuns-go-rogue/?cid=hp:exc 


Church Ousts Nun Who OK’d Abortion to Save Woman
CBS News

Rev. Thomas Doyle, a canon lawyer, told NPR that the bishop “clearly had other alternatives than to declare her excommunicated.” Doyle said Olmsted should have shown McBride some mercy given the agonizing moral dilemma. He said the case highlights a “gross inequity” in how the church chooses to handle scandal.

“In the case of priests who are credibly accused and known to be guilty of sexually abusing children, they are in a sense let off the hook,” Doyle told NPR.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/21/national/main6506448.shtml 

May 23, 2010 at 12:01 am Leave a comment

Killing for the Cause

Here’s how you know your cause is wrong: You are killing unarmed people in church. 

George Tiller, 67, was serving as an usher at the Lutheran church he attends when a terrorist shot and killed him during Sunday morning services. 

A man suspected of fatally shooting abortion doctor George Tiller in church was in jail Monday while investigators sought to learn more about his background, including his possible connections to anti-abortion groups.”   – Associated Press, 06/01/2009

Killing unarmed people during church services is saying “we’ll strike you down anywhere, at anytime.  Unarmed, unprepared, and innocent of any criminal activity – we’ll kill you while you worship.”  Killing American civilians who are following American laws is terrorism.

Another pro-life terrorist shot Tiller twice in 1993.   In 1985, another one bombed his clinic.  The militant anti-abortion group Operation Rescue’s PR department officially condemned the slaying, but it’s co-founder had a different message, saying that Tiller “was an evil man, his hands covered in blood”, and a “mass murderer”.   As we know, in the eyes of the extremist, this allows the terrorist justification to immediately execute anyone who disagrees.  Including in a church, in front of loved ones, in front of children.  Putting anyone who stands in his way at risk. 

 What made him a terrorist target more than others was that Tiller performed abortions at 21 weeks.  Abortion is legal up to viability – 24 to 28 weeks.  But keep in mind that for the anti-abortion mindset, this really is not important because there is no difference between 2 weeks and 22 weeks.  So in reality performing an abortion at 21 weeks doesn’t make Tiller “more” of a target than anyone who performs an abortion after 21 hours. 

With that in mind, where does it lead with these people and their cause?   What about people who vote pro-choice, are they to become “targets” in the eyes of the zealots who were told by God to kill people?  Will they kill someone with a pro-choice bumper sticker? 

Tell me these aren’t terrorists.  Tell me these aren’t any worse than jihadists.  Tell me if you want – but you’re wasting your breath.   If they want to change the laws, they need to do it like a civilized person, not like a crazed lunatic terrorist. 

But let me give pro-lifers a little secret: The GOP is in no big rush to change it.  I’m not talking about the difficulty in overturning a US Supreme Court case.    For over three decades they’ve talked about it, but done nothing – because they don’t intend to lose their wedge issue.  For six of Bush’s eight years there was a Republican House of Representatives, a Republican Senate, and a Republican President.

It just keeps single-issue, single-minded people voting for them. 

And if they outlawed abortion – ohh the spending increases.  How does that sit with their base? Because if abortion were illegal, you would still fight to protect this baby, right?   If the baby isn’t getting pre-natal care, you’ll provide it, yes?  Forcing a young woman to carry a baby she doesn’t want for 40 weeks – will she take good care of it or will it be at higher risk for health problem and learning problems?  Will she avoid caffeine, liquor, cigarettes, drugs…or will it be born with addictions?  At a time when less kids are going to college, what is the effect of more college dropouts?   Will the baby need more health care programs?  More social programs to provide for these kids?  More foster homes?  More supervising of the foster homes?  Youch – how much of their base would they alienate with the increased government spending that goes along with this?

June 1, 2009 at 5:18 pm 1 comment

Palin Policies

While Sarah Palin asks you to accept her family’s decision (“choice”) – her policies would take that same decision away fromeveryone else. 

Palin’s privacy versus her public stance

She, her husband and daughter got to make private decisions privately. But her public views would deny that same right to other Americans.

How sensitive is Sen. John McCain’s campaign about his presumptive running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin?

Well, there’s the fact that they appear unwilling to let her be alone with the media. God forbid anyone should ask about her views on, say, global warming — she doesn’t believe that human activity has anything to do with it. Perhaps they don’t want anyone to hear her explain why she opposes hate-crime laws?

The fact of Bristol Palin’s situation and the way in which she and her family have chosen to deal with it are legitimate issues, because they involve public policy issues on which Sarah Palin, candidate for vice president, has taken political positions. Palin, for example, opposes sex education in schools, including all access to contraceptive information for adolescents.

The point is that the Palins were able to make all these decisions according to the dictates of their own consciences, formed by their own religious convictions, within the privacy of their own family and according to its values and traditions. What they decided is nobody’s business but theirs; the fact that they were free to arrive at their own decision is everybody’s business.

The particular brand of social conservatism in which Sarah Palin quite evidently believes deeply would DENY OTHER AMERICAN FAMILIES and other American women the freedom to make these same intimate decisions according to the dictates of their own consciences, religious convictions and traditions.

Read the Full Article Here: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/la-oe-rutten3-2008sep03,0,684320.column

September 4, 2008 at 2:15 pm Leave a comment


Recent Posts