Post Reply
Page 3 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Vasectomies, Tubal ligation and religion/faith/God (moral or wrong)
5 years ago  ::  Jun 20, 2009 - 11:40PM #21
johnnyjoe
Posts: 2,218

Jun 19, 2009 -- 9:21PM, Tmarie64 wrote:


JJ... So you are saying that it is NOT against Catholic doctrine to use birth control?  Vasectomies?   If you are then you are a liar.  It is DIRECTLY against ALL "anti birth control" doctrines taught.


I was married in the Church.  My husband's uncle has been a priest for 50 years.  My husband's aunt has been a nun for more than 40 years.  You're going to tell me that the priest who married us, our uncle, AND our aunt are all wrong?


I would have thought an uber catholic would know the church's anti-birth control attitude...



My goodness but you do write some very stupid things.


You didn't really read my post, did you, and that didn't keep you from posting something COMPLETELY ignorant and off base.


The prohibition is against ARTIFICIAL birth control.  Abstainng from sexual relations during the fertile part of the cycle is very much being "in control" of your fertility, and it is obvious it is going to be a kind of "birth control".


Now if you are being stupid enough to lump the practice of Natural Family Planning WITH contraception, then you have confirmed the observation I made earlier.....

"If Samson could slay 1000 Philistines with only the jawbone of an ass,
think what God could do with a complete ass."
St. John Vianney
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 21, 2009 - 7:30AM #22
Tmarie64
Posts: 5,277

You're the one who as much as said I would either lie about doctrine or I don't know about it.


Perhaps you should shut your yap and stop insulting just to insult.  It makes you look like an arrogant ass.


I didn't read beyond your comment about doctrine and me because you were wrong.  This doctrine I know.  Even if you don't think so.  

James Thurber - "It is better to know some of the questions than all of the answers."
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 21, 2009 - 7:23PM #23
bluehorserunning
Posts: 1,754

]...he picked up the doctor, held him upside down by the nurses' station. and told the doctor that he understood if they couldn't save the baby--but if his wife died, the doctor would die.



ARRrrrgggh.  I really hate this machismo that one sees every so often on tv or in the movies, the idea that saying 'she dies, you die,' will somehow result in a doctor that can perform miracles or even just in a doctor that will provide better care.  Even assuming that the police weren't called to forcibly remove the dad from his wife's side when she needed him, assaulting and threatening one's HCPs is not the way to get the best care.


Had it been me, I would have told Dad, 'find yourself another practitioner,' called the police, and gone on to my next patient.  One is not morally or legally obliged to provide care under those circumstances. 


As far as autopsy permission - yes, the doc should have gotten informed consent, not just a 'sign by the x's' consent.  Yes, that was a pretty disgusting thing to do.  It really does sound like the doctor was a schmuck.  However, I strongly doubt that he was contemplating patient abandonment (deliberately allowing the mother to die) or murder (deliberately killing the mother) before the dad assaulted him.  After the dad assaulted him, there were myriad ways he could compromise his care without the dad or mom being aware of it, without being technically guilty of malpractice, but which would satisfy any vindictive urges he might have had for being assaulted.  Among other things, he could have prescribed more care than she needed - an earlier c-section, more painkiller, more lab tests (ie, more needlesticks), multiple IVs, more monitors or scans or ultrasounds, etc.


It wasn't as if they could have sued him when their daughter's life depended on her staying in their neo-natal unit.


Acually a lawsuit for malpractice generally occurs well after the fact, so they could have sued after discharge if they felt that he was negligent and/or murderous.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 21, 2009 - 9:46PM #24
karbie
Posts: 3,300

Actually, as short as her husband is, I was just surprised he could do it. He had just been called WAY to early for it to be good news that his wife was in labor, only to come up behind this man and hear him describing in detail the "Pre-autopsy" he was going to do on this patient to have a better view of what was going on--and that's when he went berserk--after the doctor sounded a lot more excited about the advance in medicine he was going to make than saving at least one of his patients.


They did look into suing both the doctor and the hospital; they talked to some lawyers and were basically told that since this was the only hospital near enough if their little girl needed help--they lived in Colorado then--were they going to be able to get her anywhere else fast enough? The doctor was also the nearest neo-natal specialist and would be well within his rights NOT to treat her with a lawsuit going on. My friend is still angry about not being able to nail him. They were running their own business then and had minimal insurance--even after they sold the business, they still ended up taking bankruptcy over the medical bills. So they came back where they had some family to start over.


As for "natural birth control"--if you are referring to the "rhythm" method of birth control--you do realize that not all women's cycles are regular enough for this to be effective, don't you? It helps to take the woman's temperature to see if she's ovulating, but even that is considered "cheating" by some. That's why it's called "Vatican Roulette".


 

"You are letting your opinion be colored by facts again."
'When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you."
these are both from my father.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 22, 2009 - 1:04PM #25
johnnyjoe
Posts: 2,218

As for "natural birth control"--if you are referring to the "rhythm" method of birth control--you do realize that not all women's cycles are regular enough for this to be effective, don't you? It helps to take the woman's temperature to see if she's ovulating, but even that is considered "cheating" by some. That's why it's called "Vatican Roulette".


What you don't know about modern methods of fertility awareness is a lot.


ALL modern methodologies plan for and work within the naturally occurring "irregularities" - which in fact, are just the different types of "normal" that modern fertility awareness methods track.


Don't pass yourself off as knowing anything about this subject, since by your silly "Vatican Roulette" statement it is obvious you have colored  your reason with prejudice and cannot allow yourself to see the sound scientific principles that constitute the benchmarks for modern methods of fertility awareness.


Apparently you think women would be wiser to trust pharmacutical giants with their fertility health rather than common sense and observation of their own bodily signs.

"If Samson could slay 1000 Philistines with only the jawbone of an ass,
think what God could do with a complete ass."
St. John Vianney
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 22, 2009 - 2:44PM #26
karbie
Posts: 3,300

  The " Vatican Roulette" refers to the Rhythm Method as laid out by RC doctrine,  NOT  modern fertility awareness. HINT: the thermometer to check for an increase in temperature to mark ovulation as "cheating" might have been a clue.


 Actually, you may run into some of the PC followers here who consider birth control of ANY kind to be the same as genocide.


If you've bothered to read many posts, you'll see that I am in favor of birth control and I've never said that it had to be done with chemicals. I have no problem with modern methods of pinpointing ovulation; that's why I have a son and a nephew.


Feel free to assume ignorance and prejudice where they don't exist, though.

"You are letting your opinion be colored by facts again."
'When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you."
these are both from my father.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 22, 2009 - 4:03PM #27
MysticWanderer
Posts: 1,322

Jun 6, 2009 -- 1:43AM, Habala?! wrote:


May 19, 2009 -- 2:24PM, MysticWanderer wrote:


Speaking as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints the Church permits all forms of birth control and sterilization.  The Church feels that family size should be determined by the parents in according with their ability provide for their children.  Of course we see children as a blessing from Heavenly Father but too many defeat the purpose of parenting which is to raise children properly not in poverty and deprivation.  That being said the Church opposes abortion as the killing of a human being and the deprivation of a mortal existence. 




Nonsense.

Read the following:

"The First Presidency (of the LDS Church) has declared, "We seriously deplore the fact that members of the Church would voluntarily take measures to render themselves incapable of further procreation.

Surgical sterilization should only be considered (1) where medical conditions seriously jeopardize life or health, or (2) where birth defects or serious trauma have rendered a person mentally incompetent and not responsible for his or her actions. Such conditions must be determined by competent medical judgment and in accordance with law. Even then, the person or persons responsible for this decision should consult with each other and with their bishop (or branch president) and receive divine confirmation through prayer." (1989 Handbook of Instruction)



The above is about sterilization and calls a couple to seriously consider the act and to pray about the decision.  Somehow it is hard for me to crticize such and act.



"Children are a heritage from the Lord, and those who refuse the responsibility of bringing them into the world and caring for them are usually prompted by selfish motives, and the result is that they suffer the penalty of selfishness throughout eternity. There is no excuse for members of our Church adopting the custom of the world. . . We have been better taught than they." (George Albert Smith, "Birth Control," Relief Society Magazine, Feb. 1917, p. 72)



Agreed but please note the criticism that those who defer child bearing usually use selfish motives, it is not the deferral that is the problem it is the selfish motivation. 



"We seriously regret that there should exist a sentiment or feeling among any members of the Church to curtail the birth of their children. We have been commanded to multiply and replenish the earth that we may have joy and rejoicing in our posterity. Where husband and wife enjoy health and vigor and are free from impurities that would be entailed upon their posterity, it is contrary to the teachings of the Church artificially to curtail or prevent the birth of children. We believe that those who practice birth control will reap disappointment by and by."
(First Presidency {David O. McKay, Hugh B. Brown, N. Eldon Tanner} Letter to presidents of stakes, bishops of wards, and presidents of missions, 14 April 1969)



Of course the meaning of the above quote changes substantially if you read the rest of the statement. "However, we feel that men must be considerate of their wives who bear the greater responsibility not only of bearing children, but of caring for them through childhood. To this end the mother's health and strength should be conserved and the husband's consideration for his wife is his first duty, and self-control a dominant factor in all their relationships" (letter to stake presidents, bishops, and mission presidents, 14 Apr. 1969).


 


I can go on if you like.





I am sure you can but i will now.




"I recall a President of the Church, now deceased, who visited his daughter in the hospital following  a miscarriage She was the mother of eight children and was in her early forties. She asked, "Father, may I quit now?" His response was, "Don't ask me. That decision is between you, your husband, and your Father in Heaven. If you two can face him with a good conscience and can say you have done the best you could, that you have really tried, then you may quit. But, that is between you and him. I have enough problems of my own to talk over with him when we meet!" So it is clear to me that the decisions regarding our  children, when to have them, their number, and all related matters and questions can only be made after real discussion between the marriage partners and after prayer. " Dr. Homer Ellsworth, Ensign, Aug, 1971, 23-24



It seems clear to me that while childbearing is clearly encouraged by Church teaching the ultimate decision is left to the parents.


"Not all who wander are lost" J.R.R.Tolkein
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do. ~Anne Lamott
"Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."
Friedrich von Schiller
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 23, 2009 - 2:31AM #28
bluehorserunning
Posts: 1,754

Jun 21, 2009 -- 9:46PM, karbie wrote:

They did look into suing both the doctor and the hospital; they talked to some lawyers and were basically told that since this was the only hospital near enough if their little girl needed help--they lived in Colorado then--were they going to be able to get her anywhere else fast enough? The doctor was also the nearest neo-natal specialist and would be well within his rights NOT to treat her with a lawsuit going on.



Ah, I see what you mean:  they would need access to the hospital indefinitely, not just immediately after the birth.  Yes, that could constrain things.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 23, 2009 - 2:32AM #29
bluehorserunning
Posts: 1,754

Jun 22, 2009 -- 1:04PM, johnnyjoe wrote:

Apparently you think women would be wiser to trust pharmacutical giants with their fertility health rather than common sense and observation of their own bodily signs.




I don't know about her, but I sure think so.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 23, 2009 - 8:01AM #30
Tmarie64
Posts: 5,277

Just goes to show, BHR, that jj knows NOTHING about women.   If he knew ANY thing, he'd know that not all women have "bodily signs".  But then, we all know the Church and its lackeys don't care about women, except as beasts of burden to be controlled.


I don't have any "bodily signs".  I have never been regular... Never had pms.  Never had any idea when, or if anything would happen.


The rythm method ONLY works for those who get up at the same time every day.  Those who can take their temp, before they get out of bed, AT THE SAME TIME every day.   Many, MANY of us don't have that luxury.  I've gotten up at 4 am for kids' school field trips.  Now, sometimes I get up at 6 to go to work, sometimes I get to sleep in until 8, if we're going on a trip I'm up at 4 to finalize all details and get the car loaded.  

James Thurber - "It is better to know some of the questions than all of the answers."
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook