A woman's right

[MercyMia]

Okay, since people often get emotionally charged over abortion, maybe if we use another comparable example it might make sense…
Lets say you are a parent of Siamese twins. The time comes when if you don’t seperate them, both will die. However, once they are seperated it is very likely that the twin on the left side will die as a result. Now, it would be okay for you to consent to go along with this operation. However, you would not club the left side twin over the head to death and then cut him loose. No, rather you would preform the operation in a way that tries to preserve both lives and treats both twins as patients. IF, as a result, of the operation the left twin does indeed die, that is an unintended consequence of the operation BUT your intent was of course to spare as much life as possible. This is the same with abortion. Just as it is not necessary to club the twin over the head, it is not necessary to kill the fetus instead of seeking treatments.

 

[Rence]

I don’t think there are any situations where the child must be killed to save the Mother. There are usually treatment methods for saving both. And as you have seen Mother’s are able to choose treatments that may unintentionally bring about the death of the child.
.

Not that I have a medical degree or anything, but I can’t think of one myself. That’s why I said in my last post that these over-the-top senarios given by some die-hard pro-choicers are useless. I’m sure it hasn’t escaped anyone following this thread that no one has yet come up with such an example. But I think that of everyone following this thread, if there was an example that fell into this over-the-top thinking, surely someone would have mentioned it.

 

[Rence]

I have a hard time with this. It’s a form of self defense, the child is going to cause it’s mother to die, but instead of the mother defending herself she instead gives in and let’s herself be killed? (NOT pro-choice by any means, but this seems over the top)

I think that your thoughts on this are a knee-jerk reaction. I think it’s normal for someone who is given the news that they are dying, or are at risk of dying, to try and do all that is reasonably necessary to preserve their life and restore their health.

But when you’re pregnant, I think it’s different. I believe that it’s just as much a knee-jerk reaction to think of your baby too, if not first.

Now, I’m not going to pretend that I know exactly what I’m saying because I would be lying. The truth is, I don’t have children and have never been pregnant, but I HAVE talked to a lot of women who were pregnant. You do not need to have been pregnant to get the other person’s perspective and I think that’s something we can all agree on.

Everyone I ever talked to about their pregnancy said (in not these exact words) that they had an undescribeable, almost a “drive” to protect their child. Almost all have told me that they would die for their child. And while I didn’t talk about it with all of them (these were casual conversations, not about anything medical or reigious), if the subject came up, and they were in medical trouble, they wanted to make sure everyone knew it was the baby that had to be saved. And I can understand that. Yes, it sounds…strange?..if you’ve never been pregnant. But the older I get the more I understand it.

Having cancer or finding out that you have cancer is not that uncommon when you’re pregnant. Unfortunately our unscrupulous society also directs how we treat our body, and so there is more cancer and more sickness than there used to be. But there are a few legitimate choices that a woman can make in that instance. Is it really that unreasonable to think that a woman would wait until her baby was born (even if taken prematurely) to being treatment for that cancer? Sure there are women who will opt to treat the cancer first, and that’s their right, and it’s in agreement with the Church. But I have to say, I personally can believe that many women would wait it out if they could. To them the risk of waiting it out is worth it.

MercyMia gave a really good example.

With all due respect to the poster who asked if it was okay to (I don’t want to go searching for it for exact words) disconnect a woman’s body from the baby in the event that the woman’s life was in danger…well that was what I call an over-the-top example. What did that mean anyway? Sever the umbilical cord? for what? How would that benefit the mother’s health? What would it accomplish and why? Disconnect…take out the baby only? how would that benefit the mother’s health? what would it accomplish and why? I don’t even understand what that poster was talking about and that poster (to my knowledge) never bothered to elaborate. The original poster asked if it was okay to terminate a pregnancy if the birth was detrimental to the mother. Why would you do that, when you can just take the baby, or take the baby early, and the mother doesn’t have to deal with the labor that might be detrimental?

If you’re thinking of a specific medical problem while pregnant, I encourage you to post it, because we can find the answer. Who knows, maybe there is such an over the top senario. I (and others) just can’t think of one…

 

[raggetyann]

Death is a curse, true, but it is a reality for every single one of us, a curse that we will all succumb to at some point, whether it be before birth, at a young age or an old age.

Given this reality, it behoves us to use our reason and God’s guidance to determine dispassionately how best to deal with those cases where one person desires the death of another (abortion) as well as those cases where life of mother or child are in danger. This is necessary so that those who are in such situations are well-guided and not left in the lurch or at the whim of the emotions of the moment.

Now what the heck do you mean ‘let both die’? None of my examples require the death of both mother and child.

In the first of my examples NEITHER die - in fact the death of the child by abortion is prevented.

In the second the mother (who is extremely likely to die regardless of whether the pregnancy continues or not) does die, but the child (which some would mistakenly abort in the slim hope that the mother may live instead) will live, because it is healthy and born by caesarean or naturally prior to the death of the mother.

If the child is in danger of death, by definition it isn’t healthy, so I’m not talking of cases where continuing with the pregnancy would result in the death of the child.

In the third, the death of the child is permitted IF the mother’s life is in grave danger by continuing the pregnancy, and forbidden if it isn’t (ie if the child will be naturally and spontaneously miscarried with no physical harm to the mother).

Where in any of this is the death of both mother and child envisioned? In each of my last two examples the death of mother OR child is likely and/or imminent anyway - meaning the mother or child would die regardless of whether the pregnancy continued or not.

Hope this makes things clearer.

Mothers come in all forms age 5 age 7 age 8 age 9 age 10 etc. get it!

 

[raggetyann]

Provide examples of any medical condition whee a mother’s life is threatened by her unborn child and the only way to avoid this is to directly kill the child. Just one will be fine.

Again! age 5, 6, 7. 8, 9, 10 etc.God loves children and you nor any one has the right to pick or choose. The innocents of children are at any age, not just in the belly, little children die from having baby’s and i say they should be able to take the baby from them so at least that human child that already suffered enough can live. Even though she will have to live with that awful experience to remember.raggetyann. If you show no mercy our heavenly Father will not show you any mercy when he comes back with furry and fire in his eyes.

 

[raggetyann]

Under no circomstance is abortion ever morally permissable. She should leave her childs life in God’s hands, rather than trying to take the easy way out and aborting.

Even Jesus when he traveled took a doctor with him which he knew he would need and he hand picked him LUKE! remember him? Our own Lord had a doctor with him but a woman in trouble or a young child should just let God decide, why didn’t the Lord do this foolish thing? He did say not to be foolish didn’t he? raggetyann

 

[LilyM]

Again! age 5, 6, 7. 8, 9, 10 etc.God loves children and you nor any one has the right to pick or choose. The innocents of children are at any age, not just in the belly, little children die from having baby’s and i say they should be able to take the baby from them so at least that human child that already suffered enough can live. Even though she will have to live with that awful experience to remember.raggetyann. If you show no mercy our heavenly Father will not show you any mercy when he comes back with furry and fire in his eyes.

Little children die from having babies? What on earth are you talking about??? Age 5? WHO gets pregnant at age 5? Not any mother I’ve ever heard of!

Any girl who is old enough to engage in intercourse, get pregnant and have a child herself is most assuredly not a little child!

 

[Contarini]

I used “abort the child” to designate a direct abortion – the intentional termination of a child. I took Fox’s question about “aborting a baby” in this sense.

VC

But your language is still equivocal. If the presence of the child in the mother’s womb will kill the mother, then in my opinion one can make a case for removing the child from the mother’s womb as long as the intent is not to kill the child.

That is a very clear-cut case, in my opinion, as long as the child would die anyway. It’s hard to imagine a case in which removing the child from the mother’s womb would kill the child, while the death of the mother would not kill the child. But maybe that’s a cop-out.

Edwin

 

[Brendan]

Even Jesus when he traveled took a doctor with him which he knew he would need and he hand picked him LUKE! remember him? Our own Lord had a doctor with him but a woman in trouble or a young child should just let God decide, why didn’t the Lord do this foolish thing? He did say not to be foolish didn’t he? raggetyann

Actually, He did not bring St. Luke around. St. Luke was converted by St. Paul well after the Resurrection. St. Luke never met Christ during His time on Earth.

.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

But your language is still equivocal.

Perhaps, but only as equivocal as the question in that case. Not that that is an excuse. And I later clarified that I was speaking of direct abortion, which is impermissible regardless of the good effect one can obtain from it.

If the presence of the child in the mother’s womb will kill the mother, then in my opinion one can make a case for removing the child from the mother’s womb as long as the intent is not to kill the child.

Edwin, how do you propose to remove the child from the mother’s womb? Do you mean deliver the child? Or . . .

Well, I think you see the issue.

VC

 

[Rence]

Little children die from having babies? What on earth are you talking about??? Age 5? WHO gets pregnant at age 5? Not any mother I’ve ever heard of!

Any girl who is old enough to engage in intercourse, get pregnant and have a child herself is most assuredly not a little child!

LOL, I think the poster means that a child of any age is precious in God’s eyes It wasn’t about the mother’s age.

 

[Rence]

But your language is still equivocal. If the presence of the child in the mother’s womb will kill the mother, then in my opinion one can make a case for removing the child from the mother’s womb as long as the intent is not to kill the child.

That is a very clear-cut case, in my opinion, as long as the child would die anyway. It’s hard to imagine a case in which removing the child from the mother’s womb would kill the child, while the death of the mother would not kill the child. But maybe that’s a cop-out.

Edwin

I’m sorry, but it’s not a clear cut case. You need to make it more clear. Can you clearly explain in your example senario why the presence of the child in the mother’s womb will kill the mother? Are you thinkiing of a particular medical condition? I’ve never heard of a child in the mother’s womb being detrimental to the woman. Pregnancy itself is not detrimental to a woman’s health or life, so you must be thinking of some underlying condition. You can’t (according to the teachings of the Church) just remove a child from the womb. That’s an abortion, NOT a medical treatment.

 

[LilyM]

LOL, I think the poster means that a child of any age is precious in God’s eyes It wasn’t about the mother’s age.

Maybe.

It seems this poster supports abortion rights though - ‘i say they should be able to take the baby from them … Even though she [presumably the mother] will have to live with that awful experience to’.

So she seems to be saying the life of the mother always trumps the life of the infant in utero.

 

[Rence]

Maybe.

It seems this poster supports abortion rights though - ‘i say they should be able to take the baby from them … Even though she [presumably the mother] will have to live with that awful experience to’.

So she seems to be saying the life of the mother always trumps the life of the infant in utero.

OMG you’re right!!! I had to go back and read that slower
Yeah, that’s crazy, little kids can’t have babies.

However, I heartily agree with you: If a “child” is old enough to have sex and get pregnant, they’re no longer a child, they’re a parent. Like it or not.

 

[kage_ar]

Mothers come in all forms age 5 age 7 age 8 age 9 age 10 etc. get it!

You may want to study human biology. A female cannot conceive a child unless she has entered puberty. When she enters puberty, her body is able to carry a child to term.

 

[raggetyann]

The child isn’t causing the mother to die. Some other disease or, more often I think, a problem of the woman’s *own body *is causing a risk (again, I have never heard of a case where the mother dying is a certainty).

When we hear of a mother throwing herself in oncoming traffic to save her child and getting hit by a car, it’s considered heroic. Or a mother who takes a bullet in a war-torn country to save her child, also heroic. How about the starving family where the motehr gives her last bit of food and water to save her child rather than herself? Why is it that a mother who is willing to risk her health or even her life for her child in this case is “over the top”? The only reason for the distinction is that the former examples don’t interrupt the pro-abortion mantra while the latter example does.

I’d rather take the bullet then die in child birth. It is much faster and less painful. Why must everything suffer to be catholic? Let it suffer give it to God, no! God dont want that he already took my place, what ales you? raggetyann

 

[raggetyann]

You may want to study human biology. A female cannot conceive a child unless she has entered puberty. When she enters puberty, her body is able to carry a child to term.

I am sorry i am a female so do not try that on me, do not tell me that children cannot get pregnant at-an early age. I just read in a Catholic site that the recommended age for a woman to have children is 20 because her uterus is well formed and better to carry and less miscarriages and deaths etc.

raggetyann some men never think of others, just the joy of them selfs.

 

[raggetyann]

OMG you’re right!!! I had to go back and read that slower
Yeah, that’s crazy, little kids can’t have babies.

However, I heartily agree with you: If a “child” is old enough to have sex and get pregnant, they’re no longer a child, they’re a parent. Like it or not.

I hope if you have a little girl and she gets pregnant at age 6 or 7 because she matured in her body and not her mind you have fun raising it for her. And visit her grave every day with the baby. Good Luck. raggetyann What i posted was true and you people seem to be mean about children., having children. How awful, this is sad.

 

[Rence]

I hope if you have a little girl and she gets pregnant at age 6 or 7 because she matured in her body and not her mind you have fun raising it for her. And visit her grave every day with the baby. Good Luck. raggetyann What i posted was true and you people seem to be mean about children., having children. How awful, this is sad.

Ok, I’ll bite: Can you please point me to this website? I’d like to read about how these 5, 6 and 7 year old children are having babies.

 

[Rence]

I am sorry i am a female so do not try that on me, do not tell me that children cannot get pregnant at-an early age. I just read in a Catholic site that the recommended age for a woman to have children is 20 because her uterus is well formed and better to carry and less miscarriages and deaths etc.

raggetyann some men never think of others, just the joy of them selfs.

how does that translate to your notion that 5, 6, and 7 year old girls can have babies?