Theological gynecologist nominated for FDA

Remove all ads!

Back on topic, Shralp, I still think a doctor must be able to set aside his or her own beliefs about the ethical nature of abortion to serve as an advisor to the FDA regarding reproduction. The question the doctor has to address is whether something is medically safe.

I think a doctor can be opposed to abortion and still approve RU-486. Another analogy: Sandra Day O'Connor personally believes abortion is immoral and was appointed by Regan in anticipation of swinging the Court so that Roe v. Wade would be overturned. O'Connor of course shocked pro-life advocates when she cast the decisive vote which kept abortion legal in the U.S., against her own personal beliefs. She even went on to author the crucial opinion.

By the way, Roe v. Wade has been made, in my opinion, largely irrelevant today.

 

Right, Laches. But if he, like all pro-life people, is also worried about it being medically safe for the unborn child, then he can't really give it his seal of approval, can he? I'm not talking about warning labels here; I'm talking about FDA approval to allow the drug into the US market.

Obviously, this is something of a hyptothetical since RU-486 already has FDA approval, but the situation could well become relevant with variants of other abortion drugs seeking to gain FDA approval.

And again, judges are required to follow precedent -- precedents which have usually ruled abortion legal without restrictions (or more accurately ruled that state restrictions on abortion are illegal). An FDA advisor is not so bound. Since Federal law has not explicitly declared that an unborn child is not a person (and in fact have held that the child is a person in some instances -- such as sentencing those who murder a pregant woman as double murderers), the FDA fellow is free to try to protect the health of the unborn child. In doing so he violates neither U.S. law nor his own conscience.

 

I apologize if anyone was offended by my comments regarding the Catholic Church.

But:
The pastor of my church when I was growing up was busted a few years back for stealing money from the collection plate, both in my church and the one he was transferred to afterwards. The investigators said there was no way to know exactly how much he took because of the time span involved (he did this for a period of at least 20 years). He had a house in another state, filled with guns (over 40), expensive furniture and art, and made at least two trips per year gambling in places like Atlantic City. He also had at least two girlfriends. This man was the "spiritual leader" of our church.

Another priest at my church was prosecuted for molesting little boys. The Catholic Church seems to have a big problem with this, there have been at least 10 cases in Pittsburgh alone in the last 5 or 6 years. I occasionally hear of priests in other faiths doing this, but it's pretty rare.

I personally know at least two dozen Catholics that have lost thier faiths. Some of these people turned to other religions, some of them became atheists, some are agnostic. The most common reasons given were that it seemed cold and impersonal, and they felt that they should love God and feel joyous about their relationship with God, and they weren't getting that.

In my 12 years of Catholic school, a teacher once threw a desk at a student, another stabbed a student with a pencil (he wasn't seriously hurt), one grabbed a 9 year old boy by the arm so hard it bled (her fingernails dug into his arm). I've also seen 4 nuns lose their faith, and leave the church. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

So, call me a bigot if you will, but I stand by my comments.

Laches, please explain how a person is opposed to abortion and yet casts the deciding vote in favor of approving it. How did O'Connor justify her decision?

 

Nutrimat, O'Connor relied, primarily (ostensibly?) upon the doctrine of stare decisis.

The case is Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Here it is, (note I know nothing about this web site other than it has the case there) a 5 part decision. The dissenting and concurring opinions are very important as well:

http://www.abortionfacts.com/court_cases/casey/appendix_o.asp

[ October 28, 2002, 20:01: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

That's just it, BTA. I don't think it's intellectually dishonest at all. The FDA is asked "is this safe for the public." Since unborn children have never been defined as not being members of the public, a pro-life person quite reasonably can say "no, because it harms the unborn child."

One can say that because abortion is legal that the logical conclusion is that an unborn child is not a person. Yet there are plenty of court cases in which the logical deduction is that an unborn child does enjoy definition as a person.

Nutrimat, I posted a link a while back to an article analyzing the numbers of convicted and accused pedophiles in the nation. There is a greater percentage of Protestant clergy being investigated for these abuses than of Catholic priests. If you care to dig through my archives, try here.

 

Thanks for the info!
BTW Shralp, any clue as to which archive the info you mentioned might be in? I don't feel like searching through this entire thing!

Shralp, in response on topic to your last post, you are using weasel logic. Yes, your response (about the drug being "safe for the public") is technically correct if you view a fetus as a member of the public (I don't really have an opinion), but to answer in this manner would be dishonest. It skirts the purpose of asking the question in order to impose your views, which were not asked for (in the hypothetical question).
If the question was "do you think this drug is moral and ethical?", then you could honestly say no.

 

Nutrimat, can you honestly say that what tens of millions of people worldwide have devoted their lives to [Catholocism] is a *joke*, solely based on *your* personal experience?

 

No, actually, to both BTA and Nutrimat. The FDA is asked generally to evaluate whether a drug is safe.

If they were asked "is it safe for a specific purpose" then there would never be a drug rejected because of the dangers of its misuse. This is not the case.

Nutrimat, there is a search engine on the site.

 

Hmm. I seem to have been proven wrong. Bummer.