Nun excommunicated for saving a woman's life

EDIT: I made that point before-hand!

ZoZo wrote:

I think you guys are missing Cyberwulf's point.

Missing it, or just finding it the detached, mistrustful opinion of somebody who tries to hide behind her "rights", as opposed to being a human being and handling the manner like an adult?

Quote :

It's not a case of women shouldn't mention pregnancies or all men are evil.

But it is. It's not logic that she's basing this from, it's her paranoia of men and her apparent contempt of them.

Quote :

Simply that there is no automatic right to that information.

See:

Just Chipper wrote:

OK; you're absolutely correct in the same manner of a dad telling his child "I fucked your mum". You can't exactly refute the statement, but are you that inconsiderate of somebody else's emotions that you're going to use that point as an argument?

Of course there's no right, but to what extent should such rights be applied to something like this? Claiming such a right goes so far beyond this being a matter of being a strong, independent woman that it's become a matter of extreme paranoia and having a baseless, negative view of the father that damages any relationship the couple may have.

The only point I fear I may be missing is that we're talking only about irresponsible fathers, which I've already set up as a 'get out of being fucking reamed' clause in my previous post should that be the case.

Just Chipper wrote:

Of course there's no right

Stop there. At least in my view, the use of the word "right" has been integral to everyone's arguments so far.

Somath Cegem wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

The father of the baby may not be the carrier, but he's still the father. I was saying that the man should know he's a father, and whether or not the mom is keeping it - unless the woman wants him not to know

Exactly. He has no automatic right to know. If the woman chooses to tell him, that's up to her.

So, let me get this straight.
A woman and a man get married, make the whole share everything commitment.
She gets pregnant and decides, instead of at least even mentioning to the husband that this is happening, just to get an abortion, kinda ignoring the share everything promise, and if later down the line he found out she had done this, he would be wrong to be upset that she kept this from him?

Is that what I said? No.

In that situation, not telling the man would certainly be a douchy thing for the woman to do, but she's under no obligation to tell him.

ZoZo wrote:

I think you guys are missing Cyberwulf's point. From what I gather she is saying that a man does not have the right to know about anything to do with a pregnancy. It's not a case of women shouldn't mention pregnancies or all men are evil. Simply that there is no automatic right to that information.

I fail to see what's wrong with this statement.

Miss Prince wrote:

Yes, this. She actually repeatedly said "if a woman wants to tell the father, that's her business," so I don't know where the last couple of people got the "never, ever tell a man" argument. And @Somath, I don't think anyone said he wouldn't have the right to be upset, either.

The point I see glimmering in there under the brusqueness is that there are a LOT of potential situations where it might be dangerous or difficult for the woman to tell the father, and they're so varied and hard to prove that it would be impossible to account for all of them. Even in the case of rape... how do you prove it's rape? What if you're one of the many, many women who don't go to the police or aren't believed by the police? And abuse can be even harder to prove. And if the woman doesn't know how to contact the father, what does she do? Is she forced to carry to term because she can't find him?

It's not that these are the most likely scenarios (although more likely than is good for one's faith in humanity), but these are real potentialities that would need to be addressed, and honestly I wouldn't trust to be addressed without hurting a lot of women.

Oh thank God, people who can read instead of having a shit haemhorrage about how desperately unfair it is that I think men don't have an automatic right to know if their DNA is being removed from a woman's womb.

None of you have given me any reason why a man should automatically be informed if a woman is aborting an embryo or foetus that he had a hand in creating, aside from "HIS BABY IS DYING" and "YOU JUST HATE AND REVILE ALL MEN". But I'm the paranoid, emotional, childish one. Whatever.

Uh, guys, to Cyber's credit I'm pretty sure any relationship where the woman wouldn't want to tell the man pretty much qualifies as one where it could be dangerous. I don't see too many women just not telling their husbands/partners/boyfriends/not-quite father of their children that they got an abortion just to be an asshole.

Also (and I'm pretty sure this is important), those of you who think the man should be notified: do you think he should be informed before or after the deed is done?

Oh and Cyber I'd lecture you about being a huge fucking bitch to everyone again but that gets old fast.

Cyberwulf wrote:

But I'm the paranoid, emotional, childish one. Whatever.

Be more passive aggressive.

Quote :

But I'm the ... emotional ... one.

Nope, you're the one whose only real emotion in serious matters like these is anger. Due to your paranoia. Which is childish. Still good for two out of three, though.

Quote :

In that situation, not telling the man would certainly be a douchy thing for the woman to do

... If a woman is completely untrustworthy then she's douchy.

Douchy.

TheHedonist wrote:

Oh and Cyber I'd lecture you about being a huge fucking bitch to everyone again but that gets old fast.

You're damn fucking right I'm being a bitch. I live in a country where it's okay to chuck frozen embryos in the incinerator if the man doesn't want them implanted, but if one of those embryos is in a woman's tummy then BY GOD AND JESUS SHE MUST HAVE THAT BABY. I live in a country where my personhood and bodily autonomy are conditional on me not being pregnant. And ostensibly pro-choice liberals are in here having shit attacks because I dare to suggest that men don't have an automatic right to be informed that their sacred sperm is being scraped out of somebody's uterus.

Just Chipper wrote:

Quote :

But I'm the ... emotional ... one.

Nope, you're the one whose only real emotion in serious matters like these is anger. Due to your paranoia. Which is childish. Still good for two out of three, though.

Hysterical, deluded and childish. Are you like this with every woman who gets pissed off or is it just me? I want to decide if you're an asshole or a sexist asshole.

Quote :

Quote :

In that situation, not telling the man would certainly be a douchy thing for the woman to do

... If a woman is completely untrustworthy

See it's all about how it affects the man. She betrayed him by having an abortion behind his back, the untrustworthy cow. There's no consideration given to the notion that maybe, just maybe, when it came to the crunch she was scared to death. No consideration given to the idea that maybe, just maybe, if your partner has been raving about babies babies babies, you might feel unable to tell him that you're not ready for this. Because that's just childish.

Only Nihl approached the scenario with any kind of nuance. Go read his post.

Cyberwulf wrote:

No consideration given to the idea that maybe, just maybe, if your partner has been raving about babies babies babies, you might feel unable to tell him that you're not ready for this. Because that's just childish.

It's not childish, but I would think if one partner is bouncing off the ceiling with the idea of having kids and another partner just doesn't want them (assuming this is a husband-wife/boyfriend-girlfriend/etc. relationship), it's probably not the best option to run off and get and abortion while the excited one isn't looking. Things like this are things couples should talk about (probably before a pregnancy occurs), maybe with a relationship counselor. Running off and getting an abortion will probably just cause more problems down the road, especially if your partner finds out later down the road.

If one partner really desperately wants kids and the other doesn't, and talking it out or seeing a counselor doesn't help that, maybe it's best if the relationship just ends there.

Mr.Doobie wrote:

If one partner really desperately wants kids and the other doesn't, and talking it out or seeing a counselor doesn't help that, maybe it's best if the relationship just ends there.

I agree with you, absolutely. But I'm talking about a situation where the woman was fine with the idea in theory, and then when she sees the two blue lines (or whatever it is) suddenly oh fuck it's real, and she's scared that if she tells her partner about the pregnancy and her doubts, he'll get upset and tearful and beg her not to abort, and she'll end up having a baby that she's not sure she really wants. It's not a good idea for her to have an abortion and not tell him, sure, but the guy doesn't have an automatic right to know. The idea that he does - like it or not, people - carried to its logical conclusion leads to consent notification laws, where any woman seeking an abortion has to produce a piece of paper proving that the man involved consented to her having an abortion.

The woman shouldn't have to disclose this information. The man has no right to know.

Everybody think for a moment about why a woman might not want the "father" to know. Off the top of my head, I can think of plenty, and only one is that "she's a cold, unfeeling bitch" (as many of you guys would appear to believe might be the main reason that women would do that).

Those women may well exist, along with the women who use abortion as birth control and bra-burning feminazis who hate all men.

It is fallacious to believe that this is the norm, though, and it's not manhating to highlight that the reason that women must never be obliged to disclose pregnancy/abortion is to protect women from coercion and abuse.

If he's required to pay child support, the man probably ought to know that this is going to start happening in the future.

Penguin wrote:

If he's required to pay child support, the man probably ought to know that this is going to start happening in the future.

As we're discussing abortions, I don't think that's likely to happen, dear.

True, but the discussion's kinda wandering all over the place in terms of hypotheticals.

Penguin wrote:

If he's required to pay child support, the man probably ought to know that this is going to start happening in the future.

When it comes to a pregnancy that's going to result in a child, by and large* I agree with you - also because the guy may wish to be part of the kid's life, and he should have that opportunity, no matter how he and the woman feel about each other. Now obviously if it was a one-night stand with a total stranger that's not possible, but then it's also unlikely that the guy will be on the hook for support in that scenario.

*One exception would be if a woman got away from a guy who was abusive, controlling or violent and then discovered she was pregnant. Under the circumstances she may decide to never tell him about the kid (including not seeking support) because knowing about it would give him a way back into her life.

Cyberwulf wrote:

KelinciHutan wrote:

a brief disagreement with the Catholic decision on pro-life grounds

unsupported opinions about human value presented as fact with no supporting philosophical legs on them in a lame attempt anger me into being pro-abortion

Look, two things.

One, stop using these arguments. Because they suck.

Two, saying "NO UNBORN CHILD IS VALUABLE BECAUSE I SAY SO!" over and over is still a bald assertion, only now you've stuck it on a loop. You are asserting, without support, that there is a segment of humanity that it's okay to devalue (that Human A ≠ Human A, and that there is, in fact, a such thing as "Human B"). And then you have the gall to accuse me of assigning arbitrary values to things.

Either support your assertions or stop making them. Because you saying "These human beings aren't valuable!" over and over and over is not exactly what I'd call "compelling."

I think you missed the part where Cy said the foetus wasn't valuable to anyone but the parent with the womb and in some cases the other parent.

Verandering wrote:

I think you missed the part where Cy said the foetus wasn't valuable to anyone but the parent with the womb and in some cases the other parent.

No, that would be the part that is her opinion, which she's presented as fact, and has never supported. That's also the part where she's saying it's okay to devalue some human beings, because all humans aren't actually equal. Also the part where she's combining L, E, and D in SLED. She's kind of making a lot of bald assertions there that are unsupported.

KelinciHutan wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

KelinciHutan wrote:

a brief disagreement with the Catholic decision on pro-life grounds

unsupported opinions about human value presented as fact with no supporting philosophical legs on them in a lame attempt anger me into being pro-abortion

Look, two things.

One, stop using these arguments.

LET ME HIE TO A SITE CALLED PROLIFETRAINING.COM FOR ADVICE

Quote :

Two, saying "NO UNBORN CHILD IS VALUABLE BECAUSE I SAY SO!" over and over is still a bald assertion

OOPS not at all what I said.

Quote :

you saying "These human beings aren't valuable!"

I never called them "human beings". That's you, my dear.

Quote :

over and over and over is not exactly what I'd call "compelling."

I see you've neatly excised, like all pro-lifers, the part about the womb-bearer and how they aren't just some meatsock incubator whose human rights disappear the moment a zygote implants itself in the uterine wall.

Verandering wrote:

I think you missed the part where Cy said the foetus wasn't valuable to anyone but the parent with the womb and in some cases the other parent.

Of course she did. Acknowledging that would mean that someone's personhood isn't suspended the moment they become pregnant.

ETA: Kel, you cannot present a single argument against abortion that doesn't hinge on "IT'S BABY MURDER" and doesn't force people to continue pregnancies against their will. And you're lecturing me?

Cyberwulf wrote:

KelinciHutan wrote:

One, stop using these arguments.

LET ME HIE TO A SITE CALLED PROLIFETRAINING.COM FOR ADVICE

You should check it out. The logical somersaults they perform are quite fascinating.

Apparently moral claims are not subjective claims. In fact, saying "abortion is morally wrong" is a perfectly objective thing to say. As long as you claim to be right, your claim is objective, apparently. I got lost somewhere along the way.

The whole thing provides a "how to avoid actually discussing abortion" with some back-patting "you're totally right, you know". It's an absolutely fascinating insight into anti-choice arguments.

ZoZo wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

KelinciHutan wrote:

One, stop using these arguments.

LET ME HIE TO A SITE CALLED PROLIFETRAINING.COM FOR ADVICE

You should check it out. The logical somersaults they perform are quite fascinating.

Apparently moral claims are not subjective claims. In fact, saying "abortion is morally wrong" is a perfectly objective thing to say. As long as you claim to be right, your claim is objective, apparently. I got lost somewhere along the way.

The whole thing provides a "how to avoid actually discussing abortion" with some back-patting "you're totally right, you know". It's an absolutely fascinating insight into anti-choice arguments.

I like the bit where they liken the slogan "Don't like abortion? Don't have one" to "Don't like slavery? Don't own a slave", the delicious irony being that pro-lifers would like all womb-bearers to be reduced to little more than slaves once said womb is occupied by Jesus's Mini-me.

Cyberwulf wrote:

ignoring everything I wrote in favor of insults and more bald assertions stated as if they're supported

You know what? I don't even care what you think anymore. Argue on the internet all you like. Gallup just polled a pro-life majority in the US for the second year running. I'm ten times more happy with the IRL victories than I am sad when pro-aborts cling to bad arguments on the internet. But I'm sure you'll reassure yourself about that somehow. It's everybody else that's wrong, obvs. Why don't you build more straw-men? That always seems to make you feel better.

Yes, the Diocese was wrong. But they were wrong because it's not pro-life to risk one person's life to try and save someone who is threatening that life, not because everyone should be pro-choice (as you claimed, as if thinking that you shouldn't kill one person means that it's suddenly a good think to kill another). Killing human beings is always a bad thing. That's not complicated just because you want it to be. The Diocese is so concerned with defending life that they've forgotten that no-win situations actually do exist. And it's important not to undersell that that is bad, but it's good not to forget that there are much, much worse places to be.

KelinciHutan wrote:

It's everybody else that's wrong, obvs.

Gallup Article wrote:

Slightly more Americans call themselves "pro-life" than "pro-choice," 47% vs. 45%

That's a 2% lead there on pro-life. How can you type the quoted statement without seeing the irony?

Cyberwulf wrote:

Is that what I said? No.

I know I was just posing a hypothetical situation using your guild lines of the man doesn't have the right to know anything and hoping to get some clarification in comparison to the situation

Cyberwulf wrote:

In that situation, not telling the man would certainly be a douchy thing for the woman to do, but she's under no obligation to tell him.

Congrats on noticing that not telling him would be a dick move, however.

I would think this would be the one situation where she would be at least compelled to let the would be father what's going on, seeing as that's what a marriage is supposed to be, an equal partnership, any other situation I'll say, sure unless you want the dad involved why tell him anything.

However when it comes to a husband and wife scenario, the whole deal is that you're supposed to tell each other near enough everything, at least the big stuff anyway, if your so scared of wtf his response will be when you tell him that your pregnant why the hell are you still married to him?

And no I'm not saying the husband should get a say* and I do agree that at the end of the day it's the woman's choice above and beyond everything else** but that in this case, and prolly in this case alone, The man has a
right to know wtf is going on, if nothing else because hey, THEY'RE CUTTING HIS WIFE OPEN!


And now my rant is done *bows*


*though once again if you don't want the man you vowed to spend the rest of your life with to have a say. Why are you still with him?

**Get back to me on that, I still wonder about doctors having veto on aborting a child if it will save the mothers life, but only then.

Somath Cegem wrote:

**Get back to me on that, I still wonder about doctors having veto on aborting a child if it will save the mothers life, but only then.

That's a tricky one. You mean if there's a medical emergency and the woman's unconscious and can't give consent to any procedure to save her life, but said procedure would result in the termination of the foetus?

In cases like the one in the story, or where the woman has some other condition and it's likely she won't survive the pregnancy, it still should be her choice whether she continues or whether she has an abortion. If she chooses to continue the pregnancy even though it will probably kill her, nobody has the right to step in and force her to have an abortion either.

Cyberwulf wrote:

In cases like the one in the story, or where the woman has some other condition and it's likely she won't survive the pregnancy, it still should be her choice whether she continues or whether she has an abortion. If she chooses to continue the pregnancy even though it will probably kill her, nobody has the right to step in and force her to have an abortion either.

See, this is where I have problems, the whole point of being a doctor is to save lives, the very foundation of the Hypocratic Oath, and if it's a case of "They both die or just the Foetus/Mpother dies" I say save the life you can and make the other as comfortable as possible, But that's only in certain life death scenarios, it's the 'may possibly' ones that make me humm and harr because you never know the right choice until it's too late