A Feminist Poses a Moral Dilemma about Abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter TinaG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TinaG

Guest
Hi!

Let me start off with a question. Have you ever been so blessed as to press your hand against your belly and realize there is another life there, a sweet and innocent and tender life, that is as dependent on you in a way that is analogous to how you are dependent on God? I cannot imagine, I cannot fathom, that anyone would call a baby a protoplasm or even a fetus. It is a human being, made by God, who wonderfully knits us in the inward parts.

What, I wonder, would tempt a woman to want to cut that life short? Fear? Blindness to the truth? Pleasing her parents or her man? Weariness of the weight and the pain and the loss of motion and bladder control? Wanting the nausea to end? To some extent all our mothers have been so tempted, yet here we are as examples that such temptations can be resisted and overcome, whether by love or lethargy or the simple divine move of God.

There is a case that is slightly different, and that is the situation in one must choose between murder and suicide. In this case the doctor, that caring professional, states that the life in your womb is a danger to your life, and if it comes to term, will be a short lived and hideous monstrosity and trouble to society, and even if it does not, it is toxic to your system, and it will surely kill you. Either free yourself of the monstrosity by medical removal, or you are committing suicide: you and the baby will die. Murder is a sin, so you cannot kill. Suicide is a sin, so you cannot endure the pregnancy.

That is not the dilemma. We are not there yet. A woman of faith can look to the cross and embrace it, saying, “thy will be done, Lord, should I live or die, I am yours, trusting in you, yet I pray for a healthy baby and a safe delivery.” She may die, but we all applaud her dying in faith. Well done, good and faithful servant, is heard on the other side, and she may enter the joy of her master.

Here is the dilemma. I think that prayer is good and right and proper. Yet not all women are there yet. Abortion is abhorrent to me personally and I have come to realize it is a social ill. (con’t)
 
But mandating that a woman perform an act of faith? Demanding that someone do good who does not have the grace to do it? How can this be good, to hand her a death sentence about things she cannot understand, they being spiritually discerned? Is it moral to enact into civil law something that she cannot do, to order her to hazard her life and bear fear and pain without understanding, and leading her to what may be certain death?

Answer this one way, and you justify all abortion and all sin. Answer the other, and you legislate all morality and require all men and women to perform good all the time, with legal compulsion.

What say you?
 
You have created a false dichotomy. There is no dilemma here.

The Church does not teach that a woman must forego a legitimate medical treatment intended to save her life.

Even if the unintended, even if foreseen, result is the death of her unborn child she may pursue the treatment. That is not an abortion.

A woman can *choose *to forego/postpone such treatment until the baby is born or able to survive outside the womb-- and that is not suicide. St. Gianna Molla is an example of this.

Whenever a life threatening situation arises, both the woman and the child are patients. The doctor must do all he can to save both. But if, in treating the mother the child dies it is *not *an abortion. It is an abortion if the doctor purposely and directly kills the baby. It is not an abortion if he is *unable *to save both.
 
TinaG said:
But mandating that a woman perform an act of faith? Demanding that someone do good who does not have the grace to do it? How can this be good, to hand her a death sentence about things she cannot understand, they being spiritually discerned? Is it moral to enact into civil law something that she cannot do, to order her to hazard her life and bear fear and pain without understanding, and leading her to what may be certain death?

Answer this one way, and you justify all abortion and all sin. Answer the other, and you legislate all morality and require all men and women to perform good all the time, with legal compulsion.

What say you?
Click to expand...
I say that it is more a matter of having everybody understand that we are dealing with TWO human lives, not just a mother and a ‘foetus’.
Looking at such an ethical dilemma in this light can lead us into better decisions and laws to base our decisions on.

P.S. You are right and the truth has never before been so eloquently put. How did I do?
 
The state is nowhere near forcing a woman to give up her life for a fetus- the Church doesn’t even do that. A doctor should always seek to save a woman’s life, but do so knowing that he has two patients. If one is going to kill the other, even through no fault of his or her own, then action should be taken on behalf of the endangered patient
 
tjm190 said:
The state is nowhere near forcing a woman to give up her life for a fetus- the Church doesn’t even do that. A doctor should always seek to save a woman’s life, but do so knowing that he has two patients. If one is going to kill the other, even through no fault of his or her own, then action should be taken on behalf of the endangered patient
Click to expand...
Exactly! :signofcross:
 
Wonderful answers! Thank you! Great job, guys! I never thought of it this way!:clapping:

-Tina
 
TinaG said:
…the life in your womb is a danger to your life, and if it comes to term, will be a short lived and hideous monstrosity and trouble to society…
Click to expand...
Fully endorsing 1ke’s answer, I feel that it is important to evaluate how the question is posed as well. What precisely is meant by “hideous monstrosity”? (these are rhetorical questions…) Does it convey a value judgement over physically disfigured people? Is that judgement really one that we want to hold to? How do you know, or how does the doctor know it will be “trouble to society”? Have we found the “criminal gene”? Or would the baby “waste” tax dollars in a publicly-funded healthcare system? What personal values are being expressed with these concerns?

If we are able to dispense with some of the more emotionally-charged language, we would be in a better position to evaluate the problem.
 
tjm190 said:
The state is nowhere near forcing a woman to give up her life for a fetus- the Church doesn’t even do that. A doctor should always seek to save a woman’s life, but do so knowing that he has two patients.** If one is going to kill the other, even through no fault of his or her own, then action should be taken on behalf of the endangered patient**
Click to expand...
That action man NOT be the direct murder of the baby. Ever, in any situation, ever. Treatment that may indirectly result in the death of the child but will save a mother may be used. Not direct killing. Not direct abortion.
 
TinaG said:
There is a case that is slightly different, and that is the situation in one must choose between murder and suicide. In this case the doctor, that caring professional, states that the life in your womb is a danger to your life, and if it comes to term, will be a short lived and hideous monstrosity and trouble to society, and even if it does not, it is toxic to your system, and it will surely kill you.
Click to expand...
What it is important to understand is that this scnario takes place in doctor’s offices all around the world.

The hideous monstrosity is a child with dwarfism - remember, just a few years ago, people with dwarfism were put on display in freak shows - many types of dwarfism cause the person to be short lived, some types of dwarfism are always fatal in the first few hours/days. They trouble society with huge medical burdens.

Mom is told that to carry the baby she will put her life in danger, that with types such as achondroplasia that the baby’s head size will cause her to die.

This is the reason that 90% of children with dwarfism are killed in the womb.

Be careful who you call a monster.

I have lived in a monstrosous body for almost five decades. My parents and siblings are kinda fond of my monstrosity. My husband, my son, they see me as beautiful. My co-workers and my friends, those who stand side by side in the rain to protest abortion as my weak legs shake and scream with pain - they are happy that this monster is alive. My dogs and my students think I am pretty cool.

Some monsters are kinda interesting. Let’s not kill em off just because they look ugly, mkay?
 
kage_ar said:
What it is important to understand is that this scnario takes place in doctor’s offices all around the world.

The hideous monstrosity is a child with dwarfism - remember, just a few years ago, people with dwarfism were put on display in freak shows - many types of dwarfism cause the person to be short lived, some types of dwarfism are always fatal in the first few hours/days. They trouble society with huge medical burdens.

Mom is told that to carry the baby she will put her life in danger, that with types such as achondroplasia that the baby’s head size will cause her to die.
Click to expand...
Would a C-section be the solution?
 
Spirithound said:
Fully endorsing 1ke’s answer, I feel that it is important to evaluate how the question is posed as well. What precisely is meant by “hideous monstrosity”? (these are rhetorical questions…) Does it convey a value judgement over physically disfigured people? Is that judgement really one that we want to hold to? How do you know, or how does the doctor know it will be “trouble to society”? Have we found the “criminal gene”? Or would the baby “waste” tax dollars in a publicly-funded healthcare system? What personal values are being expressed with these concerns?

If we are able to dispense with some of the more emotionally-charged language, we would be in a better position to evaluate the problem.
Click to expand...
For a pregnant woman talking to her ob, all language is emotionally charged. Especially if he is pro-abortion and thinks you should be. I switched my ob because of such pressure. For me this was not a theoretical question and I was terrified. It is not a philosophical question from which one can dissect the emotion, as these things are intertwined. Some can and do separate thought and feeling, but for others it is all one: we think what we feel and we feel what we think. This is a breakdown issue in communication.

kage_ar, I hope I did not hurt you by anything unkind I said. I did not mean to say that anyone IS a monster, just that they are so perceived. Please forgive me.

-Tina
 
My skin is rather thick, for me the pro life cause is VERY personal.

Pray for the unborn.
 
I know of no one who would outlaw treatment to save a mother’s life that might incidentally kill her child as long as the doctor attempts to save both.
Be aware that in the five cases that seem to come up most often of mother’s life versus baby’s life, only one is actually deadly much of the time anymore: ectopic pregnancy. Preeclampsia (toxemia) and maternal diabetes are almost always treated successfully. I know mothers who went through those conditions and their children are healthy and growing up any day now. Uterine cancer rarely progresses too fast to save both patients. And delivery mechanical issues in the day of ultrasound monitors, C-sections, induced delivery as early as five months (in desperate cases earlier yet), and neonatal intensive care units, pose little problem now. I overheard a conversation between two young mothers; one said her baby weighed two pounds at birth. The other said her baby weighed one pound. Both babies were out of the hospital and doing well.
 
TinaG said:
But mandating that a woman perform an act of faith? Demanding that someone do good who does not have the grace to do it? How can this be good, to hand her a death sentence about things she cannot understand, they being spiritually discerned? Is it moral to enact into civil law something that she cannot do, to order her to hazard her life and bear fear and pain without understanding, and leading her to what may be certain death?

Answer this one way, and you justify all abortion and all sin. Answer the other, and you legislate all morality and require all men and women to perform good all the time, with legal compulsion.

What say you?
Click to expand...
And your question is???:rolleyes:
 
TinaG said:
But mandating that a woman perform an act of faith? Demanding that someone do good who does not have the grace to do it? How can this be good, to hand her a death sentence about things she cannot understand, they being spiritually discerned? Is it moral to enact into civil law something that she cannot do, to order her to hazard her life and bear fear and pain without understanding, and leading her to what may be certain death?

Answer this one way, and you justify all abortion and all sin. Answer the other, and you legislate all morality and require all men and women to perform good all the time, with legal compulsion.

What say you?
Click to expand...
The_Reginator said:
Exactly! :signofcross:
Click to expand...
Which patient is the more endangered one???
 
TinaG said:
But mandating that a woman perform an act of faith? Demanding that someone do good who does not have the grace to do it? How can this be good, to hand her a death sentence about things she cannot understand, they being spiritually discerned? Is it moral to enact into civil law something that she cannot do, to order her to hazard her life and bear fear and pain without understanding, and leading her to what may be certain death?

Answer this one way, and you justify all abortion and all sin. Answer the other, and you legislate all morality and require all men and women to perform good all the time, with legal compulsion.

What say you?
Click to expand...
Aren’t all laws that protect the innocent morally compelled? Most people who aren’t saints do require structure and stricture in their lives. If we continue to weaken our laws, in several generations we will have a society that knows no law. Just as when we raise a child with moral guidelines, so must a society be raised and developed.
 
TinaG said:
But mandating that a woman perform an act of faith? Demanding that someone do good who does not have the grace to do it? How can this be good, to hand her a death sentence about things she cannot understand, they being spiritually discerned? Is it moral to enact into civil law something that she cannot do, to order her to hazard her life and bear fear and pain without understanding, and leading her to what may be certain death?

Answer this one way, and you justify all abortion and all sin. Answer the other, and you legislate all morality and require all men and women to perform good all the time, with legal compulsion.

What say you?
Click to expand...
Anyone who has done good has been given the grace to do it. All protective laws come from a moral base. I think they all started with the ten commandments.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top