If you have a problem with the Catholic Church, that is certainly your right. However, I wonder why you fail to acknowledge that the Catholic Church has been consistently on the side of life.
If you have a problem with a Catholic hospital allowing a doctor who performs abortions to have hospital privileges, I have already agreed with you. However, based on state laws it may not be as easy as we would like for hospitals to revoke privileges.
My real problem is your insinuation that I am somehow defending this hospital, because that is an utter FALSEHOOD. If you read my posting history, you will find that I consistently come down on the side of life regardless of a person's or institution's religious affiliations.
It is because the Catholic Church has been consistently on the the side of life that I comment. What? You think history automatically translates into the future, no matter what the current generation tolerates?
...I consistently come down on the side of life regardless of a person's or institution's religious affiliations.
I'm not challenging your track record. I'm challenging your current framing on this thread. That's it.
You want to define favoring sanctity-of-life by yours -- and by the Catholic Church's track record. I say, "that's all well and good...and perhaps great." But I'm not commenting on the grass already grown under our feet. I'm commenting on the caretaking of the lawn now. (And that's not the best lawn fertilizer you could be using)
Do we really think that what was done in the past automatically translates into caretaking for each new pre-born currently in the womb?
All I'm advising you is, "Hey, watch your language and your arguments on this thread."
Illustration: About 20 years ago, state legislators started considering passing fetal pain bills. All well & good. But if those legislators weren't careful in how they framed things, they would make it sound like abortion was "OK" on those pre-borns too young to feel pain. Those legislators were "pro-life." But even solid pro-life advocates, when commenting on these things (parental consent bills would be another example), can fall into sounding like some pre-borns are "fair game."
* Fetal pain gestationally aged pre-borns, no; younger than that, yes? (Well of course not, but lack of care in discussing this could imply that)
* Parental consent babies fair game? (Of course not, but some pro-lifers have come across sounding like if grandma says it's "OK," then it's OK)
* Pre-borns in Catholic hospitals no; but pre-borns "attended" to by exact same abortionist outside those hospital boundaries, yes? (Of course not, but your arguments make it sound like the geographical distinctions you are making are key points to distinguish; I would say that if we're looking at this from the angle of the pre-born being "attended" to by this abortionist, the baby would make no such false distinction)
Bottom line: This RC hospital is "upping" the reputation of this abortionist as being deemed as a "healer" by his very presence at this facility. There are women whose trust level in his recommendations are falsely raised because of his association with it.
So, are you more interested in defending the hospital or in defending pre-borns on this thread?
You could help answer that by lowering the defensiveness of yourself and this hospital and raising the defensiveness of the pre-borns at risk to this butcher.
...a doctor who performs abortions...
Abortions aren't "performances" and abortionists aren't real "doctors."