Bio Ethics and a New Vatican Reform

Hospitalimages

When you're in the middle of an emergency, this is the sign you want to see.  HOSPITAL, followed by an arrow that can take you to the front door. 

I was reading recently about St. Joseph's Hospital in Phoenix.  Remember that one?  It's the hospital that was chartered by the Catholic Church and then the Bishop stripped everything catholic from the facility after finding out Dr.'s made a decision to abort a baby to save a mother's life. 

The National News went CRAZY, of course it wouldn't have been such a big deal if there wasn't a religous motive behind the scolding.  But since there was a foundation of faith calling an action into question, there was a media storm crying out for the hospital. 

Have you ever been in conversations like this?  If Person A was going to die, and Person B was going to die, and you have the power to save only one, which one do you save?  It's a Basic Bio-Ethics question. 

How far do we go to save a life?  Do we help the one to save the many, or sacrifice the one to save the whole?  I used to love those classes. 

Well, evidently the Vatican is writing a clear directive for the Catholic stance on Bio-Ethics in lieu of the controversy in Phoenix.  Click Here for the Full Article.  I look forward to reading a faith stance on some of these issues, as they really have a play on how we live, and why we choose to do the things we do. 

The classic argument of Abortion continues to rule the American Political scene.  People regulate their votes on someone who tritefully use the words pro-life or pro-choice in their stump speeches, only to serve for the years in office to effect NO CHANGE.  (see the last 30 years of abortions in America under both Democrats AND Republican governance.)

I feel as though we need to debate the values of human life.  We need to have real discussions about where life comes from, and how we respond in emergencies.  We should talk about humanity as it relates to disease, our responsibility to Cancer Research, and our overwhelming need to protect the unborn. 

Can't wait to see what the Vatican puts out this year.  Should be some great conversations, for sure here at www.andybraner.com

3 Comments

  1. “The classic argument of Abortion continues to rule the American Political scene.”
    Hahaha. C’mon Andy, you know better than this.
    Far from “ruling” the American political scene, abortion occupies a place amongst the periphery with regard to current events and legislative attention in this country. Especially with the current recession, issues surrounding the economy (like job creation) are at the forefront for most voters and elected officials. That’s because the economy affects EVERY American, while abortion certainly does not.
    It is amusing how the Republican Party has managed to get so much mileage out of this issue with the Christian Right. Pretty ingenious, considering that there’s nothing Congress can do to overturn Roe v. Wade short of an amendment to the United States Constitution, which would be highly unlikely. As Andy points out, neither Democrats or Republicans have accomplished the Christian Right’s dream of eradicating legal abortion (I say legal because it would still occur even if it were not accessible in a safe and clean hospital environment). This hasn’t stopped Catholics and evangelicals from pouring money into the coffers of GOP candidates for decades. As they say in Texas, the Republicans have truly been “all hat and no cattle” in the abortion debate. Oh, how this must roil rabid culture warriors such as Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and our very own Andy Braner!
    Nothing as amusing as a bunch of men parading around telling women what to do with their bodies. Already anticipating Andy’s response about abortion being murder, blah blah blah (maybe even a reference to the “modern Holocaust”?). In the end, though, it comes down to this: If you don’t like abortion, then don’t have one.

  2. Dear Hypocrite, or whoever you are….(I’m really surprised how so many people are unwilling to reveal themselves in the blogosphere. Here I am with picture, name, address, and life laid out on the table, and so many people comment behind false e-mails. Come on….Let’s do this! If we can’t be big boys and girls about serious issues, then what are we doing….I digress…)
    There’s no doubt the recession is concerning the hearts and minds of Americans today, but it doesn’t negate the fact that every political cycle there are those who choose their candidates based on two issues 1.) Abortion and 2.) Gay Marriage. So the Condescendence can stop there. The silly comments like “Oh Andy, you know better than that” are merely ploys to cut the rug out of the argument. It’s a serious issue, and you know it. Making the issue take on less importance than it is a debate trick used for thousands of years to belittle one’s opponent, Well, Mr. hypocrite, this isn’t a battle between you and I, so making fun of abortion to seem intelligent is equal to making a face in the back of a third grade classroom. Come on. Let’s have a real discussion.
    Secondly, YOU PROVED MY POINT! The Republican party has certainly milked the issue for as much political gain as possible, and I’m as furious as the next guy. Why DOES this need to be a political issue. I couldn’t agree with you more. The congress can’t do anything about it one way or the other, so when is America going to wake up and stop using a litmus test based on two issues they’ll never solve from a Washington D.C. town hall meeting. What about a stance on spending, foreign policy, and for goodness sake PLEASE let the next candidate be intelligent. Point proven. Point taken.
    As for roiling this cultural warrior??? I’m not exactly sure how I got lumped in this comment with the crazy Pat Robertson. But…as I mentioned before, another trick to reduce a discussion to playground antics. Come on hypocrite, you can do better than that.
    And for your final “assumption of response” I’m amused. I’m amused you think I would use this conversation to point out what is so obvious about the science of the human body, the ethics of taking another’s life, or even try to regulate a woman’s body. No…I’ll not take that “assumed” retort.
    I guess I’ll just say….if you don’t like people stealing your stuff…just don’t steal. Let the cops go, because obviously we don’t need regulation as humans in this society. And the next time someone breaks into your house to steal your stuff…well…
    Or better yet, if you don’t like guns, just don’t buy one, but let the gangs in the inner cities of America continue stockpiling illegal automatic weapons so they can go and drive buy to mow down innocent civilians, after all it’s not your responsibility.
    Or, that’s just too obvious…what about the thieves on Wall Street that just stole Billions of Dollars from the American People from 2008-Present. It’s not really our job to regulate those people…Happy Wealth to you Goldman.
    Or WAIT….about all those HIV cases around the world, let’s just let ’em die. Why spend millions on AIDS research…it’s not your life. If you don’t like AIDS, just don’t have sex, or use needles from someone else. After all…it’s their own problem
    No, hypocrite, that is the most ridiculous argument I’ve heard for abortion yet. It stands way out of bounds in the realm of logic, and makes absolutely NO SENSE when it comes to the severity of the issue.
    (For those that are writing more critical e-mails for my stances on the above satire, I’m 100% in favor of cops, civility, and HIV eradication. Those points above were only used to show how silly this argument has become.)
    So Mr. Hypocrite, I favor much in the way of conversation, but I plead, if you’re going to call me names, 1.) please reveal yourself so I might know the person taking stabs at me and 2.) I would appreciate a real conversation rather than the snide comments you’re masking as some sort of pro-choice stance on a serious issue.
    I’m dedicated to re-imagining the Christian Worldview in the context of today’s journeyman. This issue of human life is at the core of the great commandment.
    That’s my story…and I’m sticking to it! (Texas reference for you)

  3. A brief line-by-line:
    Q: “Why DOES this need to be a political issue.”
    A: Because the right to have a safe, legal abortion is afforded by law, specifically the due process clause.
    Q: “What about a stance on spending, foreign policy, and for goodness sake PLEASE let the next candidate be intelligent.”
    A: I’m not sure what you mean here. Is this a critique of realism, internationalism, or institutionalism? At the most basic level, the discussion of political theory (including, but not limited to dissent) is what makes governments legitimate. A universal consensus on matters like foreign policy or spending could only be achieved by a statist government. Statism, at its core, detracts from the overall quality of life. Note: Are you calling our President unintelligent? I don’t follow.
    Q: “As for roiling this cultural warrior??? I’m not exactly sure how I got lumped in this comment with the crazy Pat Robertson.”
    A: Because you are, in fact, a culture warrior. The name of this blog’s subtitle is, “Re-imagining the Christian Worldview”, insinuating that you are vehemently concerned or opposed to the status quo. You actually restate this position at the end of the post, “I’m dedicated to re-imagining the Christian Worldview in the context of today’s journeyman.”
    Statement: “Or better yet, if you don’t like guns, just don’t buy one, but let the gangs in the inner cities of America continue stockpiling illegal automatic weapons so they can go and drive buy to mow down innocent civilians, after all it’s not your responsibility.”
    A: Actually, that logic holds. Your sardonic remarks are the basis of law in this country. If someone doesn’t like weapons, they don’t have to own one. If someone does, they have the right to acquire one legally. In fact, it is NOT the responsibility of the average citizen to enforce gun law. That’s why we have agencies like the ATF, DEA, FBI, and local police forces.
    Statement: “Or, that’s just too obvious…what about the thieves on Wall Street that just stole Billions of Dollars from the American People from 2008-Present. It’s not really our job to regulate those people…Happy Wealth to you Goldman”
    A: Again, this is actually true. It isn’t your job to regulate those people. That’s why we have established regulatory agencies like the SEC, CFTC, FDIC, FINRA, OCC, NCUA, OTS, and the Federal Reserve.
    Note: If you actually work for one of these agencies, then in fact, it is your job to regulate business transactions in the United States and you can ignore my first comment.
    Statement: “Or WAIT….about all those HIV cases around the world, let’s just let ’em die. Why spend millions on AIDS research…it’s not your life. If you don’t like AIDS, just don’t have sex, or use needles from someone else. After all…it’s their own problem”
    A: If someone doesn’t want to donate money to AIDS research, that’s their prerogative. Do I? Yes, I support all scientific research. Despite my position, I would especially understand a person’s general apathy if they abstained from sexual intercourse or needle-usage. Barring cases of emergency blood transfusions or children born HIV+, yes, it is a personal problem for drug users, homosexuals, or individuals that routinely engaged in unprotected sex. Hard to hear I know, but the responsibility can’t really fall anywhere else in those instances. Think of it like this: if someone is speeding down an interstate and not wearing a seat-belt (despite all of the PSAs, signs, warnings, and assumed knowledge of general safety) and they get into an accident, it’s not the fault of the automobile manufacturer, state highway commission, etc.–it’s, tragically, the fault of the driver.
    Conclusion: I’m not sure where the poster ever makes a hypocritical statement. In fact, it’s really more of an indictment of Christian stance on abortion. Nowhere in the post does ‘Common Sense’ advocate a stance on abortion, though it is assumed by the concluding comment that they are [likely] pro-choice.
    Things Andy needs to respond to from the above post:
    1) Why Christian groups and organizations continue to fund conservative politicians. If it is illogical, as you say, to make abortion a political issue, why perpetuate it as such?
    2) The social and legal implication of eradicating legal abortion. It’s briefly touched upon but it is very compelling (basically, women will still get abortions no matter what, so shouldn’t this be regulated and performed safely?).
    Closing comments:
    Despite the line-by-line, I’m not really interested in engaging in a long-winded abortion debate. I merely wanted to point out what I perceived as fallacies in Andy’s argumentation. Again, this really has nothing to do with abortion and more to do with understanding premises, implications, and assumptions.
    I will, however, posit a question which goes back to the very beginning of the original post:
    Why SHOULDN’T the Catholic Church be criticized for their decision? I understand they charter the hospital but do their convictions of faith supersede the Hippocratic Oath? If so, why are they in the business of healthcare management?
    Direct any questions you have to my email (I’ll respond).

Let me know what you think

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s