21st May 2010

“While medical professionals should certainly try to save a pregnant mother's life, the means by which they do it can never be by directly killing her unborn child. The end does not justify the means.”

Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted

28 Responses to “21st May 2010”

  1. heitheist Says:

    You want to say that the woman’s life is more important than that of the children. Ayn’t I a clever guy? 🙂
    I think it should depend on what the mother says.
    Better not asking the children.

  2. Bornagain A. Theist Says:

    When trying to save an actual life, NO consideration should be given to whether the person being saved is pregnant or not. If a fetus must be sacrificed or removed in order to save the life, then so be it. A fetus is NOT a child. Folks need to get over this. The concept has been passed to the masses via religion – that is all. When the pretend “Mary” spoke of her coming pretend son, another pretend baby “lept” within the womb of her pretend cousin (presumably from excitement). Therein lies the bullshit that has exploited our sympathy and created the concept of a “child” before birth. Hogwash!

    And now as far as a Bishop using the phrase “the END does not justify the means”, well I would agree only to the extent that he may be referring to the END of a young boy who he is subject to have possibly penetrated.

    Once again, it is impossible to KILL an unborn child, for no CHILD exists…


  3. heitheist Says:

    That is scientifically incorrect, as children react to music, environment and the emotions of the mother BEFORE being born. You mean a foetus is no CHILD. So is it a HUMAN BEING? Has it got a soul? Does a soul exits? Why/Why not? Ethic and Anthropology is all about that.
    If you don’t have any arguments, why being so emotional?

  4. Bornagain A. Theist Says:

    Are you fucking crazy, heitheist? Of course a fetus is not a child. It is not a human being. It has no soul.

    And a soul does not exist.

    I’m not arguing, nor am I being emotional. I was simply stating why the worthless bishop is clearly insane.

    And now, I am able to count you in that group.


  5. heitheist Says:

    Please anyone telling Bornagain that he is emotional or will this be my job?

  6. heitheist Says:

    Back to the topic:
    So you follow the teachings of atomism, claiming that no soul exists, and of course no spiritual matter. Therefore we all are just animals. This is ok. But you can’t prove it. 🙂
    You will find out that you can categorize human being into those two people:
    Idealists: The Soul was first- Created by god or whatsoever.
    Materialists: Atoms where first, the rest is imagination.
    Idealists tend to be spiritualists, read horoscopes or be religous.
    Materialists are down to earth.

  7. solomon Says:

    Thanks heitheist, please continue your respond while I can breath some air.

  8. CaptainZero1969 Says:

    As I understand it, the kinds of cases we’re talking about here are almost always pregnancies that occur in the fallopian tubes rather than implanting in the uterus where they belong. Ectopic pregnancies happen about 2% of the time and are always a medical emergency that can lead to terrible complications including death. Before medical science came up with rather drastic interventions, none of these embryos would survive but a great many of them would certainly kill the mother. Even with such ‘advances’ the embryos almost always die.

    My question is this: What kind of a monster would suggest that an abortion in a case like this is somehow wrong? That you would sacrifice a woman to a painful death to ‘save’ a doomed embryo is, well, fucking crazy. And I would argue, immoral. And why would God have allowed this to happen? Because he doesn’t exist.

  9. PEB Says:

    This isn’t a religious issue but a moral and scientific one. The Bishop is hardly qualified to speak on the matter given that his particular religious franchise is directly responsible for the murder and suffering of millions.
    A foetus is just a collection of cells. It has no soul but then neither do babies or adults. However there is a stage when a foetus becomes a baby and here we get into very uncomfortable ground.
    This stage needs to be clearly identified by scientists without interference from religion or anti-religion protests.

    I notice this Bishop is also against stem cell research and no doubt would have protested against the discovery of antibiotics or the invention of the lightbulb.

  10. Atheist MC Says:

    So you follow the teachings of atomism, claiming that no soul exists, and of course no spiritual matter. Therefore we all are just animals. This is ok. But you can’t prove it

    It isnot our responsibility to prove it. You are the one postulating an invisible immaterial unfalsifiable component of humanity. It is therefore your burden of proof not ours.

    The quote is extremely general and non specific. Circumstances alter cases. Are we talking about a third trimester child, if so it is very unlikely that it would be necessary to sacrifice it, and if it really was, the decision should be the parent’s.
    The more likely scenario is an ectopic pregnancy or a very early complication in which case embryos aren’t people and the fully sentient consious life of the mother obviously takes precedence. Any other conclusion is to deny reality and would be grossly immoral.

  11. Hypatia Says:

    This must come from here:


  12. Atheist MC Says:

    Thanks for that Hypatia. Does the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church have any limits I wonder.

  13. Chris Says:

    I’ve set up a Facebook group called “Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted is a depraved misogynist” for anyone who shares my opinion of this obnoxious idiot.


  14. Holysmokes Says:

    I don’t understand why religions are sticking their noses into this to begin with? The decision should always be left up to the mother, doctors and family. It doesn’t have Jack to do with religion, nor should it.

    A soul? Just what precisely is a soul? It must be another one of those things we cannot see, feel or hear. Boy, does that sound familiar, just like your gods. Here’s an idea, lets stick to what we actually know instead of forcing yet more immoral beliefs onto pregnant mothers in harms way. Leave your filthy, life-draining religions out of it.

  15. just.some.guy Says:

    I think the bishop is thinking the child has more worth than the mother because the child, by theological definition, is more innocent than the mother and therefore closer to God. Life starts as soon as the egg is fertilized (that’s just biology), but what I find amazing is that the bishop is so willing to weigh 2 human lives and pass judgement on them. How about just let the medical professionals do their job and try to save both lives and if they can’t, they can make the judgement call based on the mother’s and father’s wishes. To sum up, I guess I agree with the majority of comments on here: what business does a theological professional have in a medical professional’s field?

  16. Atheist MC Says:

    what business does a theological professional have in a medical professional’s field?

    I’m not sure that theologists have a valid opinion on anything. It is essentially the study of nothing.

  17. Rozmarija Grauds Says:

    Yeah, right, and what if that mother has living children at home, who will suffer, even all their lives to some degree, after having been robbed of the security of THEIR mother? Such unexamined dogma!

  18. solomon Says:

    That’s the beauty of Islam folks, in line with professional practice & human rights. Regarding this issue as far as possible avoid the loss of both lives but if this is not possible then the mother has more rights to stay alive.

  19. PEB Says:

    A little background information from the National Secular Society newsletter:
    Bishop excommunicates nun who authorised abortion to save life of mother

    A Catholic nun and hospital administrator who authorised an abortion for a woman whose life was threatened if her pregnancy continued, has been excommunicated and demoted.

    Margaret McBride, of the Sisters of Mercy, was excommunicated by her local bishop in Phoenix, Arizona, after she agreed with her hospital ethics committee that an 11-week pregnancy should be terminated to save the life of the mother who was suffering from a rare condition, pulmonary hypertension, that interferes with the ability of the heart and lungs to function and is often made fatal by pregnancy.

    Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted — who learned of the termination only after it had been carried out — stated that Ms McBride was “automatically excommunicated” because of the action.

  20. John Says:

    Just simple logic would dictate that with the collective knowledge and the vast experiences of the mother and knowing that a fetus can be replaced; the adult should be saved at all costs. As the ends does justify the means.

    As for Olmsted’s claim, he comes for a time when the church was the “all” of everyone’s life. That day of absolute domination is on the way out and is going byway of the Alchemist. Alchemy may have been a fine start for discovery however it is and was always unprovable and unscientific as any of the faith based attempts at discovery. No one likes to loose control.

    As for a provable soul; it was how the ability to speak with ones self without physically speaking or being heard was explained to the flock by the superstitious masters in control. The church could not and still cannot control your thoughts without fear!

    I do see why and how religion seems to be on the rise in the World: When you Google “Literacy” on Wikipedia, a chart shows up on the right that explains way religion has been on the rise. Sad…

  21. Margaret Says:

    The clergyman wants to make a claim for his mythology, either way it goes. If the endangered pregnant woman is able to carry to term, then he will be in all the newpapers declaring it a “miracle, proof of god’s intervention.” But if she dies (and by default, the fetus dies with her), he can officiate at her funeral and spread the word to all the listeners about “god’s will, better place, heaven, yadda, yadda, yadda…” His mythology is preserved above all else, and that is more important than the woman or the fetal life, more important than both lives combined. The story must be preserved, for it is the professional liar clergy’s bread and butter. Lives have been lost in religiously motivated conflicts for centuries, but this is accepted as some sort of sick battle for “righteousness”.

    Abortion to save the life of the mother does not offend the religious officials because they love the unborn. They object to the logical challenge to their basic premise: “God will make everything alright.” But he never does.

  22. CaptainZero1969 Says:

    Ms. McBride probably feels terror that she’ll go to hell or purgatory. She is, in fact, a hero. To have given her life to and organization that casts her aside for making a correct moral judgement is just tragic.

  23. The Heretic Says:

    Religious doctrine and judgment are enough to make one physically sick.

  24. Atheist MC Says:

    That’s the beauty of Islam folks, in line with professional practice & human rights. Regarding this issue as far as possible avoid the loss of both lives but if this is not possible then the mother has more rights to stay alive.

    Fine if true. Can you point us towards the Surah and verse that covers this?

  25. solomon Says:

    Atheists MC,

    Help yourself,


  26. Atheist MC Says:

    Solomon will treat the Qu’ran the same way many treat the Bible. Where it contradicts they will twist the contradiction to fit whichever interpretation suits the moment.

  27. solomon Says:

    Atheists MC, There will be no contradictions in the Qoran, I can guarantee it. Try debate on any verse, you won’t find any. Its the word of the most knowledgeable Allah Almighty. No one can refute it.

  28. just.some.guy Says:

    er… This whole forum is dedicated to people who can and do refute it. All books are simply the words of the authors, and the authors are all simple humans.