Explain What This Means.

Our local paper, The Forum, had a couple of articles today about abortions for women who have been raped.  There was a quote from Christopher Dodson, Executive Director of the N. D. Catholic Conference.  He said

…all Catholic hospitals  follow a policy to help the woman prevent conception from occurring in cases of rape….if adequate tests are done to determine if fertilization hasn’t occurred, she has the right to prevent conception.”

That statement leaves one wondering exactly what the Church’s position is on pregnancy after rape.  It seems to say if pregnancy has occurred, the woman is out of luck.  Or, it could mean that in cases of rape, the hospital is allowed to say conception did not occur even if it did.

The latter interpretation would be similar to the Church’s approach to divorce.  As I understand it, “divorce” does not happen.  Instead, the Church pretends the marriage never really happened and the people can separate without “suffering” the religious consequences of divorce.

Whatever the quote above really means, it illustrates the ridiculousness of what goes on in all the branches of religion.  It is absurd gazillions of dollars of paid staff time is spent drafting such obtuse policies.

All a hospital needs to know is that a woman was raped.  If she was raped, the policy should be she leaves the hospital not pregnant, period.

But, in right to life dogma, every policy is written with political ends in mind, not the woman’s welfare.


18 Responses

  1. Henry

    Jon: “If she was raped, the policy should be she leaves the hospital not pregnant, period.”

    Wow. I am sorry to hear your position, Jon. A women who is raped leaves the hospital not pregnant, period. Period. You leave no option for her to choose to keep the baby. Period. Forcible abortion advocated by Jon. Period. Bizarre to say the least. The right to “privacy” taken to a new level through forced abortion.

    1. entech

      Clever Henry, as usual.
      Jon you really need to dot the i’s and cross the t’s, Henry will make his own interpretation whatever you obviously meant.

      Henry you are the expert on all such things, what are the statistics on women who want to keep the result of being terribly violated.

      1. Henry

        I re-stated Jon’s words virtually verbatim. If something was twisted, it would have been the source, Jon. Thanks for checking into this. You may have helped discover a problem. Thank you.

  2. Doubtful

    Your opinion is as valid as any one else’s Jon, but no more than anyone else’s. When you try to force others to abide by your beliefs you have stepped on their freedoms. Why do you have so much trouble understanding that?

    1. Doubtful 1:30 “When you try to force others to abide by your beliefs you have stepped on their freedoms.”

      I have trouble following some peoples’ reasoning on this board. Wanna asked me for some information, I provide it, then he accused me of with holding information.

      In you case, I hold no public office, I criticize someone who holds a powerful public office, House of Representatives, and who says something not supported by any science, and it is me, not him, who is accused of “forcing” my views on others.

      Maybe I’ll understand all this eventually.

      1. Wanna B Sure

        Jon; You did withold information, and chose not to release it until asked—(time frames), and then you still have not reported who , or what type of who it was, “family member, brother uncle”. Most often it is someone close, and in the 20’s, people didn’t travel far. I was right in the area of time, and I believe I am right in the who also. Others have voiced concerns along the same line. In closing, you did, and are witholding information. Nice try. More dazzel/baffel.

        1. Wanna 8:20 You are correct, I am often criticized for not saying this or including that. Many things others, or even myself, might think should be included in a blog are left out because I limit each blog to 250 words.

          I mentioned the rape in my family’s history just to note I have been somewhat close to a rape that resulted in a pregnancy–and added that particular rape ended in the death of the girl during childbirth.

          As you suspected, the rape was an “in family” event. The victim was a first cousin of my mother and, my mother said, her closest friend. The rapiest was a husband of the girl’s mother’s sister, the husband of the girl’s aunt.

          This was in a small rural town in Iowa. My mother said the family never told the local sheriff–I never asked her why. Of course, she was but a young girl and may never have known why herself. Maybe it was the shame issue. She said the Aunt and husband moved quite far away immediately and that was it.

          1. entech

            I still think that that is irrelevant to the original topic and that the demands for detail constitute a personal attack on you.

  3. Stan

    Jon, unlike you I don’t believe you can force someone at a Catholic hospital to murder. Isn’t there enough people who would do this work? It seems to me they have more then a few minutes to get that done.

    They promised us at Roe vs Wade abortion would be safe and rare………….

    1. Stan 1:39 “…I don’t believe you can force someone at a Catholic hospital to murder.”

      I don’t think anyone can force the Catholic Church to admit someone is divorced and remain a member of the Church. It is possible, however, to pretend the marriage never happened. I suggesting that, perhaps, something like that happens now in the case of rape pregnancies. That’s what I took from the guy’s comment.

      1. Stan

        “All a hospital needs to know is that a woman was raped. If she was raped, the policy should be she leaves the hospital not pregnant, period.” Your words not mine. And you believe that all Catholic hospitals should abide by them.

        I am studying annulments right now, wondering if I should try for one or just tale my lumps for the stupid decision I made. I feel that the marriage never satisfied the meaning of a sacrament. My ex lied in order to get me to propose and then when married treated me as little more then a roommate. There is no one currently I would like to marry. My ex, the life long Catholic took the easy way out. She became Lutheran.

        Unless you have felt a love for someone else like I did and have been shat on do NOT assume that even asking for the annulment is easy. It would be the breaking the last connection in a life I hoped to have lived.

        You are real good at assuming everyone believes as you do or should, and if they don’t they are delusional. Very low tolerance level for someone who is so progressive.

        1. Stan 2:23 “Very low tolerance level for someone who is so progressive.”

          I don’t want to make light of the heart break you experienced with you marriage. What I am making light of is the institution that would impose rules on people which are bizarre. In my view, a more rational and human focused institution would say, “You wife was a bad woman. You are divorced and in need of support. This institution embraces you in full, supports you, recognizes your divorce and regards you as a member in good standing.”

          Instead, you have to go through an annulment. The woman who has been raped and, unfortunately, ends up in a Catholic hospital has to go through a series of hoops required by religion instead of just receiving humane treatment.

          I respect your right to believe this is a loving and wonderful institution. I think it is the tower of the absurd.

  4. Stan

    I also want to mention that almost every Republican quoted in the news has been castigating Akin’s and asking him to step down. But the smear keeps spreading.

    How come a fellow can be caught having sex outside at a rest stop and it doesn’t smear the whole Minnesota party. Interesting that the assignation was of a homosexual nature and NO ONE of the Democratic party defended them, I thought they were your constituency.

    Or another contracts for a 17 year old prostitute to be brought to his home while his Democratic wife is away of political business and he never even gets hit for a misdemeanor?

    There seems to be an ethics problem.

    With unemployment at 8.5% and millions no longer looking for work because there is none to be had, do you think that we should be betting the whole election on abortion and birth control?

Comments are closed.