A practical question for Mormons

  • Thread starter Thread starter Good_Daughter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I cannot disagree. But I can understand a women getting a abortion from incest or rape because of the traumatic experience that she encountered. I cannot judge these women.
whyme, we are not talking about judging people. As a catholic in communion with the church you cannot in good conscience condone abortion (the deliberate killing of a child) for any reason. It is not up to you, however, to place judgement (as in, what is reserved for God alone) on another human being for what they do or don’t do. What you can do is take a position on what is morally right and what is morally wrong. You really can.
 
Jerusha and Paul Dupre,

I had no idea about what you two have mentioned in your last posts #99 and #100. Where is this information coming from? :eek:
 
I am curious, what exactly is the Catholic Church’s position on abortion? Does it really teach that a pregnant woman who develops serious complications; and without a medical treatment that entails abortion, both the mother and baby will die, should not undergo such a treatment? If it does, then I would say that the Catholic Church is advocating a criminal behavior, and should be taken to court and prosecuted for doing so.

zerinus
 
whyme, we are not talking about judging people. As a catholic in communion with the church you cannot in good conscience condone abortion (the deliberate killing of a child) for any reason. It is not up to you, however, to place judgement (as in, what is reserved for God alone) on another human being for what they do or don’t do. What you can do is take a position on what is morally right and what is morally wrong. You really can.
I did not say that I condone abortion. I did say that I cannot judge women who are in these situations. Only god can judge a person’s heart. That being said, I do believe in mercy for those who seek it. These women certainly have my mercy.
 
I am curious, what exactly is the Catholic Church’s position on abortion? Does it really teach that a pregnant woman who develops serious complications; and without a medical treatment that entails abortion, both the mother and baby will die, should not undergo such a treatment? If it does, then I would say that the Catholic Church is advocating a criminal behavior, and should be taken to court and prosecuted for doing so.

zerinus
Please carefully read this article. It should answer your question entirely.

cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=8345479620946&mkt=en-US&lang=en-US&FORM=CVRE2
 
Pregnancy, when it goes wrong and develops complications, and becomes life-threating, is no different from injury or disease, and requires competent medical treatement.

zerinus
This doesn’t address the issue of “rape” and “incest” abortions. These pregnancies are not life-threatening.

zerinus, when does human life begin?
 
I did not say that I condone abortion. I did say that I cannot judge women who are in these situations. Only god can judge a person’s heart. That being said, I do believe in mercy for those who seek it. These women certainly have my mercy.
It sounded to me as though you were. I apologise if I was mistaken. I know first hand about abortion. What these women really need is someone to get to them before they make a terrible life changing decision that they can never go back and change - NOT people telling them it’s an “understandable” decision. That being said, people make mistakes. Even terrible horrible mistakes with catastrophic consequences. I know, I’m one of those people. Yes, Thank God for mercy

Edited to add: If you’ve ever felt the pain and guilt and remorse from having an abortion - you might not think so much about how a pregnancy occured, even by rape, incest or a one night stand. You might know that no matter what, abortion is not the answer. It would only add evil to evil.
 
… the result that the mother will die by giving birth is also a difficult issue. But for the catholic church such difficulties do no apply but for many of those women, it does.
The result that the baby will die by abortion is also a difficult issue. But for the Mormon church such difficulties do not apply but for many of those babies, it does.

why me, when does human life begin?
 
Hi, That article is too long to read carefully for my patience. I skimmed through it quickly, and I didn’t notice anything that specifically relates to my question. If you have a specific paragraph in mind, perhaps you can give us a quote, and I will consider.

zerinus
Sure, here you go. I wish you’d reconsider and read the whole article though. It isn’t *that *long.

cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=8345479620946&mkt=en-US&lang=en-US&FORM=CVRE2
  1. Medical necessity. What about the argument that the Church must make exceptions to its teaching when abortion is medically necessary for the mother’s health or a child’s disability?
First, while the Church opposes all direct abortions, it does not condemn procedures which result, indirectly, in the loss of the unborn child as a “secondary effect.” For example, if a mother is suffering an ectopic pregnancy (a baby is developing in her fallopian tube, not the womb), a doctor may remove the fallopian tube as therapeutic treatment to prevent the mother’s death. The infant will not survive long after this, but the intention of the procedure and its action is to preserve the mother’s life. It is not a direct abortion.
There also occur, very rarely, situations in which, in order to save the mother’s life, the child needs to be delivered early. But this can be done safely with a normal, induced delivery, or a caesarean section
The argument for killing disabled unborn children is not a medical one either. There are no disabilities which require directly killing the child in order to save the mother. In fact, disabled children can usually be delivered with no more complications than a child without disabilities. The argument for abortion in these cases is ideological, a belief that it is better—for the child, the family and the whole society—for the child to die than to live with a disability.
 
Sure, here you go. I wish you’d reconsider and read the whole article though. It isn’t *that *long.

cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=8345479620946&mkt=en-US&lang=en-US&FORM=CVRE2
  1. Medical necessity. What about the argument that the Church must make exceptions to its teaching when abortion is medically necessary for the mother’s health or a child’s disability?
OK, thank you. Is this now official? Just because it appears in an article on the Internet, that does not make it official. Everybody else here seems to be saying, “Hang the mother no matter what”. How do I know what is the official Catholic position and what is not?

zerinus
 
OK, thank you. Is this now official? Just because it appears in an article on the Internet, that does not make it official. Everybody else here seems to be saying, “Hang the mother no matter what”. How do I know what is the official Catholic position and what is not?

zerinus
truthsilence has provided an article that accurately states the Church’s position. You may have read into some posters’ enthusiastic defence of the unborn an attitude of “hang the mother”, but in truth Catholic teaching shows us how to “love them both”.
 
truthsilence has provided an article that accurately states the Church’s position. You may have read into some posters’ enthusiastic defence of the unborn an attitude of “hang the mother”, but in truth Catholic teaching shows us how to “love them both”.
Are you sure? I thought you were saying, “Hang the mother no matter what”. Is this a change of mind or something?

zerinus
 
Are you sure? I thought you were saying, “Hang the mother no matter what”. Is this a change of mind or something?

zerinus
As a mother, I am very much opposed to the idea of “hang the mother no matter what”. Please, let me know where I came across that way. I have no wish to deviate from the stance of Catholicism, either in policy or in spirit.
 
As a mother, I am very much opposed to the idea of “hang the mother no matter what”. Please, let me know where I came across that way. I have no wish to deviate from the stance of Catholicism, either in policy or in spirit.
OK, tell me if you decide to change your mind again.
  1. Medical necessity. What about the argument that the Church must make exceptions to its teaching when abortion is medically necessary for the mother’s health or a child’s disability?
First, while the Church opposes all direct abortions, it does not condemn procedures which result, indirectly, in the loss of the unborn child as a “secondary effect.” For example, if a mother is suffering an ectopic pregnancy (a baby is developing in her fallopian tube, not the womb), a doctor may remove the fallopian tube as therapeutic treatment to prevent the mother’s death. The infant will not survive long after this, but the intention of the procedure and its action is to preserve the mother’s life. It is not a direct abortion.
This is not much different from what the LDS Church teaches. The only difference is that the LDS Church modifies it slightly to include the mental wellbeing of the mother as well as her physical one—hence the inclusion of instances of rape or incest (which are very rare anyway).
The argument for killing disabled unborn children is not a medical one either. There are no disabilities which require directly killing the child in order to save the mother. In fact, disabled children can usually be delivered with no more complications than a child without disabilities. The argument for abortion in these cases is ideological, a belief that it is better—for the child, the family and the whole society—for the child to die than to live with a disability.
The LDS Church does not advocate abortion in cases of a child being born with abnormalities. This is the official position of the Church copied from the LDS website:

Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion. Those who face such circumstances should consider abortion only after consulting with their local Church leaders and receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer.

I don’t see a lot of difference between that and the LDS position. I am waiting for you to change your mind now pretty quick. How long do I have to wait?

zerinus
 
zerinus–
Code:
 Yes that is the church's teaching,for a long time! I think we were all reacting to how you come across on your posts. 

 It sounded as if you didn't care about the child at all. At least for me anyway.

 We all value the life of the mother and the life of the child. It would be a hard decision to make and to live with. 

 Just with a miscarriage 14 years ago I still mourn for that child. For my loss.
 
zerinus----

I can only speak for myself. I think it should be left to God to decide.

“When the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.”

And in the case

when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape

The mother gets raped,the father gets jail time and the baby gets the death penalty? Makes no sense.

How about a support group to help the mother through the nine months and then the baby is placed up for adoption?

And as far as incest is concerned…

If someone is committing incest and the girl gets pregnant, she has an abortion then the incest continues. Because no one knows.

But if she gets pregnant and stays pregnant then everybody knows! The incest stops.
 
OK, tell me if you decide to change your mind again.

This is not much different from what the LDS Church teaches. The only difference is that the LDS Church modifies it slightly to include the mental wellbeing of the mother as well as her physical one—hence the inclusion of instances of rape or incest (which are very rare anyway).

The LDS Church does not advocate abortion in cases of a child being born with abnormalities. This is the official position of the Church copied from the LDS website:

Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion. Those who face such circumstances should consider abortion only after consulting with their local Church leaders and receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer.

I don’t see a lot of difference between that and the LDS position. I am waiting for you to change your mind now pretty quick. How long do I have to wait?

zerinus
Zerinus, I can’t see any indication of GoodDaughter changing her mind. Why don’t you do as she asked and show where she has done so?

The difference between the LDS position and the Catholic position on abortion is as different as night from day. I recommend trying to be more patient and reading things more carefully. Just a suggestion. Begin with prayer.
 
The difference between the LDS position and the Catholic position on abortion is as different as night from day. I recommend trying to be more patient and reading things more carefully. Just a suggestion. Begin with prayer.
Unless you have another “website” in mind, I don’t see that much difference. The only difference I see is total disregard by the Catholic Church for the psychological and emotional wellbeing of the mother; whereas the LDS Church respects the emotional needs of the mother as well as her physical wellbeing. Show me what else is the difference.

zerinus
 
OK, tell me if you decide to change your mind again.

This is not much different from what the LDS Church teaches. The only difference is that the LDS Church modifies it slightly to include the mental wellbeing of the mother as well as her physical one—hence the inclusion of instances of rape or incest (which are very rare anyway).

The LDS Church does not advocate abortion in cases of a child being born with abnormalities. This is the official position of the Church copied from the LDS website:

Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion. Those who face such circumstances should consider abortion only after consulting with their local Church leaders and receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer.

I don’t see a lot of difference between that and the LDS position. I am waiting for you to change your mind now pretty quick. How long do I have to wait?

zerinus
Sorry to disappoint, but my mind was made up long ago.

According to Catholic teaching, abortion is an objective evil. I don’t think the Church (or anyone else, for that matter) can condone the direct killing of an innocent human being.

The essential (huge) difference between Catholic and LDS teaching is the LDS strongly condemn abortion as if it were an objective evil then turn around and provide exceptions. This shows the LDS actually consider abortion objectively neutral. Faithful Catholics take issue with this idea whether it comes from an athiest, a Mormon, or even a lukewarm Catholic.

If you have the time, you might check out the writings on abortion by the Early Church Fathers. I don’t think they left any room for exceptions. You once told me you found them all to be reliable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top