<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.3" -->
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>Conscience and the Law in New York</title>
		<description>Comments for Conscience and the Law in New York at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 8 out of 8 comments</description>
		<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 03:47:17 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>FeedCreator 1.7.3</generator>
		<item>
			<title>Justification</title>
			<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2009/conscience-and-the-law-in-new-york.html#comment-2503</link>
			<description>For those that feel this case was a matter of trying to save the life of the mother over that of the child, I ask, &quot;Who determines the mother's life is of more value than that of the child?&quot; I'm sure there are cases in which a decision may actually have to be made, but it seems in this case, the doctor chose to provide care to one patient in lieu of another and he violated the rights and obligations of another health professional by forcing her to participate. - Elizabeth</description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:40:03 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2009/conscience-and-the-law-in-new-york.html#comment-2490</link>
			<description>Lisa: a column linked to from this web site on August 3 makes the point that the patient was not even on magnesium sulfate before the D&amp;C was ordered, and that Cenzon-DeCarlo's objections were based, in part, on that fact. All of your follow-up questions are irrelevant; the doctor never even attempted the preferred, first treatment if preeclampsia were in fact the excuse for the &quot;D&amp;C&quot;. - Richard A</description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2009 19:09:50 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2009/conscience-and-the-law-in-new-york.html#comment-2489</link>
			<description>Richard: What I meant to say was not that the magnesium sulfate might have been unsafe, but that waiting until the mother could deliver might have been an unsafe option. Just from reading this article, nothing is clear to me. How serious was the preeclampsia? Was the woman otherwise in good health? What were the risks of waiting? There are situations, terrible as they are, in which saving the mother's life involves the loss of the child's. How do we know this wasn't one of them? - Lisa</description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2009 15:32:00 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Too Interesting ...</title>
			<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2009/conscience-and-the-law-in-new-york.html#comment-2484</link>
			<description>Lisa: &quot;Might have been unsafe?&quot; The nurse was told she was assisting in the treatment of preeclampsia, and objected immediately that a D&amp;C was ordered without first even attempting magnesium sulfate. It is clear from the events that the preeclampsia was a cover for performing a second trimester abortion, and for coercing the nurse's participation in it. - Richard A</description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 05 Aug 2009 09:55:27 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Interesting....</title>
			<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2009/conscience-and-the-law-in-new-york.html#comment-2481</link>
			<description>What this article doesn\'t seem to mention is that preeclampsia is highly dangerous to women, who run the risk of seizures. Magnesium sulfate is used to stabilize women until delivery and might have been unsafe for someone only 22 weeks pregnant. It's unlikely that she saw her child as a commodity, given that abortion is legal much earlier than 22 weeks. The article doesn't mention how serious the preeclampsia was. Perhaps this woman has tragically lost her child. Where is the compassion for her? - Lisa</description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 05 Aug 2009 04:37:16 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2009/conscience-and-the-law-in-new-york.html#comment-2478</link>
			<description>Jennifer B:  Unfortunately children are seen as a commodity by many people. They are viewed as a &quot;right&quot; to have or have not. Many forget a child is a gift from God and would laugh at you if you told them that. We are no longer a God-centered civilization. I see more and more people who think they are equal to or superior to God - we have &quot;humanized&quot; God to the point where He is just like us - just folks.  We see no consequences to our actions because we say God is Love. God is also Justice - Liz</description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2009 14:42:52 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Bravo</title>
			<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2009/conscience-and-the-law-in-new-york.html#comment-2476</link>
			<description>This brave woman is a powerful witness to the adherence to “First Principles&quot; and the teachings of the Catholic Church. In this age of relativism and ridicule, she as well as the contributors to this website should be praised for their courage. - Willie</description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2009 14:41:25 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>the wisdom of children</title>
			<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2009/conscience-and-the-law-in-new-york.html#comment-2475</link>
			<description>My 13 year old said to me last night, &quot;How could anyone with a heart be for abortion?&quot;  It's a reasonable question, I think.  Perhaps Americans have become so alienated from their own spirit in the quest for money, sex, and toys that they don't listen to the basic wisdom of their hearts.  God bless Nurse Cenzon-DeCarlo, and may she heal from this trauma. - Jennifer B</description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2009 10:36:03 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
