Abortion and saving a woman's life

[Dan_Grelinger]

II also think it’s the more moral decision to abort the baby if they are are thought to have an inevitable genetic disease. While I’d wish parents would go for genetic testing before conceiving to rule this out, if the kid is going to die anyways, let them die peacefully NOT in suffering. I don’t think it is ever okay to let someone live a life of suffering in a hospital bed. I’ve had to have the vet put one of my dogs to sleep after she was diagnosed with an inevitable disease and was in such unbearable pain I couldn’t watch her suffer. I think the same ideology should apply to humans. This is why I also support physician assisted suicide.

Is this a decision that you would inflict on someone else without their approval? It would seem so.

 

[SparkleFly]

Is this a decision that you would inflict on someone else without their approval? It would seem so.

Well, you would ask the parent’s permission. The fact that the baby WILL die, there is NO HOPE for survival and it will greatly reduce their quality of life leading to a painful death before they can choose for themselves kind of makes it impossible for them to choose. I mean some people with these diseases will never be able to talk, see, communicate, etc. If I were in that place, I wouldn’t want to suffer and would assume most would agree. In my living will I even put that if I am in that situation (unable to communicate with a health condition that will result in death and nothing to do about it) I want to leave peacefully, not as a vegetable hooked up to life support in suffering and pain. At the point, I think it’s my time to go, and is it worth me spending my last few days in pain and misery unable to do anymore of God’s work, I don’t think so.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Well, you would ask the parent’s permission. The fact that the baby WILL die, there is NO HOPE for survival and it will greatly reduce their quality of life leading to a painful death before they can choose for themselves kind of makes it impossible for them to choose. I mean some people with these diseases will never be able to talk, see, communicate, etc. If I were in that place, I wouldn’t want to suffer and would assume most would agree. In my living will I even put that if I am in that situation (unable to communicate with a health condition that will result in death and nothing to do about it) I want to leave peacefully, not as a vegetable hooked up to life support in suffering and pain. At the point, I think it’s my time to go, and is it worth me spending my last few days in pain and misery unable to do anymore of God’s work, I don’t think so.

A lot of words just to say that no, you would not give them a choice in the matter of killing them.

 

[PumpkinSeed]

If a pregnancy is ectopic and the fallopian tube is not removed, eventually her tube will explode and she along with the baby will die.

However, under the churches teaching, you CAN get the tube removed if it is an ectopic pregnancy, but you cannot abort the baby.

So if you are unable to get the surgery, then you will have to explode because abortions are not allowed.

 

[SparkleFly]

Well, many don’t. Some lack a developed mouth to speak from, or brain aside from the stem (which is the only thing keeping them alive.) No one wants to live in pain and suffering. These diseases are horrific and disgusting in nature–many die in the womb, or go from the delivery room to the hospice unit. I believe some assisted deaths are more moral than leaving the creature to suffer.

 

[SparkleFly]

If a pregnancy is ectopic and the fallopian tube is not removed, eventually her tube will explode and she along with the baby will die.

However, under the churches teaching, you CAN get the tube removed if it is an ectopic pregnancy, but you cannot abort the baby.

So if you are unable to get the surgery, then you will have to explode because abortions are not allowed.

That’s disgusting–why is it okay to let the mother and baby knowingly die? This is about SAVING lives, so at least save hers and abort the baby-- an ectopic fetus cannot survive anyway and will die, so why not remove it and save the mother. Who knows, maybe God will send this spirit down in another body (the mom’s next conception.)

 

[PumpkinSeed]

That’s disgusting–why is it okay to let the mother and baby knowingly die? This is about SAVING lives, so at least save hers and abort the baby-- an ectopic fetus cannot survive anyway and will die, so why not remove it and save the mother. Who knows, maybe God will send this spirit down in another body (the mom’s next conception.)

What if she is unable to get the surgery? What if shes poor and has no health insurance or is living in a place which would be hard to get medical care?

If she is unable to get the surgery, then she & the baby will die. Abortion is not allowed under ANY circumstances. So, yes, her fallopian tube will eventually explode and she along with the baby will die.

i didn’t make the rules. Dont get mad at me.

 

[SparkleFly]

What if she is unable to get the surgery? What if shes poor and has no health insurance or is living in a place which would be hard to get medical care?

If she is unable to get the surgery, then she & the baby will die. Abortion is not allowed. Don’t get mad at me, I didn’t make the rules.

Well, I don’t mean to come across as mad. I also don’t know what rule you are referring to, but I feel like God would want us to save her life–who knows, maybe he has a plan for her and the fetus. Maybe he will send that spirit down in the next body she conceives. He made a plan and will find a way to make it work. God has more power than us.

I once saw a story about a woman that miscarried, then found she had breast cancer. If she never miscarried, the hormones from the pregnancy would have taken her cancer to end stage and killed her. Her miscarriage saved her and after treatment and being cured she had a successful pregnancy!

 

[PumpkinSeed]

Sparkle, I know it sounds harsh.

But abortion is not allowed under ANY circumstances. There is a surgery you can get to remove the fallopian tube in cases of ectopic pregnancies which is not considered abortion.

However, if you are unable to get that surgery, you are still not allowed to abort, in which case, yes, both the mother and baby will die.

That’s just the churches rules. No abortion no matter what. They will not allow abortion even to save the mothers life. Its just not allowed. Harsh but rules are rules.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

No one wants to live in pain and suffering. These diseases are horrific and disgusting in nature–many die in the womb, or go from the delivery room to the hospice unit. I believe some assisted deaths are more moral than leaving the creature to suffer.

You presuppose that no suffering could ever be a blessing. If I agreed with you, I may reach the same conclusion as you.

I would rather take my suffering in this world rather than in the next. If you robbed me of this choice, you would be the tyrant inflicting your beliefs on me.

 

[underacloud]

Well, many don’t. Some lack a developed mouth to speak from, or brain aside from the stem (which is the only thing keeping them alive.) No one wants to live in pain and suffering. These diseases are horrific and disgusting in nature–many die in the womb, or go from the delivery room to the hospice unit. I believe some assisted deaths are more moral than leaving the creature to suffer.

A couple of comments:

a) Where do you draw the line? At what point is it moral to terminate a life and at what point is it not. For example, many people test for chromosomal/genetic disorders and no doubt uncounted down syndrome kids have not been born because of this. But only someone who doesn’t know people with down syndrome could conclude that it’s in the best interest of that child to never live. Some kids suffer more horrifically, but who is to say that non-existance (well, non-birth) is the better path?

b) Christ suffered and all people who suffer share in a special bond with our Lord and Saviour. You do not know the role that each life plays in the salvation story. You are not the author or life and only God has the right to give or take it. If God brings suffering and misery to some, we must trust, no matter how hard, that He has a purpose. Are you so wise that you know better than God?

 

[PumpkinSeed]

Well, I don’t mean to come across as mad. I also don’t know what rule you are referring to, but I feel like God would want us to save her life–who knows, maybe he has a plan for her and the fetus. Maybe he will send that spirit down in the next body she conceives. He made a plan and will find a way to make it work. God has more power than us.

I once saw a story about a woman that miscarried, then found she had breast cancer. If she never miscarried, the hormones from the pregnancy would have taken her cancer to end stage and killed her. Her miscarriage saved her and after treatment and being cured she had a successful pregnancy!

Sparkle, I know it sounds harsh.

But abortion is not allowed under ANY circumstances. Not even to save the mothers life.. There is a surgery you can get to remove the fallopian tube in cases of ectopic pregnancies which is not considered abortion.

However, if you are unable to get that surgery, you are still not allowed to abort, in which case, yes, both the mother and baby will die.

That’s just the churches rules. No abortion no matter what. They will not allow abortion even to save the mothers life. Its just not allowed. Harsh but rules are rules.
Edit/Delete Message

 

[underacloud]

Your presuppose that no suffering could ever be a blessing. If I agreed with you, I may reach the same conclusion as you.

I would rather take my suffering in this world rather than in the next. If you robbed me of this choice, you would be the tyrant inflicting your beliefs on me.

Seconded!

 

[SparkleFly]

I just don’t agree with this. I, and many other christian people would agree that in certain circumstances, an abortion would be acceptable if it meant saving the mother’s life. Not doing anything to save the mother’s life is equally wrong as some teen going out there, having sex with their boyfriend and getting pregnant then going for an abortion.

 

[PumpkinSeed]

I just don’t agree with this. I, and many other christian people would agree that in certain circumstances, an abortion would be acceptable if it meant saving the mother’s life. Not doing anything to save the mother’s life is equally wrong as some teen going out there, having sex with their boyfriend and getting pregnant then going for an abortion.

Well under the Catholic church, abortion cannot be performed even to save the mothers life.

It’s just church rules. Abortion is never allowed, ever.

 

[underacloud]

I just don’t agree with this. I, and many other christian people would agree that in certain circumstances, an abortion would be acceptable if it meant saving the mother’s life. Not doing anything to save the mother’s life is equally wrong as some teen going out there, having sex with their boyfriend and getting pregnant then going for an abortion.

The Church does not say to do nothing. Yet there are constraints on what can be done. There is an over-riding principle that we may not do evil (in this case, an abortion) that good may come of it.

You may not agree with the Catholic Church on this, but you may find yourself disagreement also with St Paul, when he wrote in Romans 3:8: “Why not say–as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say–“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is deserved.”

The principle comes directly from St Paul. As a protestant, I presume St Pauls teachings would be binging for you?

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

What if she is unable to get the surgery? What if shes poor and has no health insurance or is living in a place which would be hard to get medical care?

If she is unable to get the surgery, then she & the baby will die. Abortion is not allowed under ANY circumstances. So, yes, her fallopian tube will eventually explode and she along with the baby will die.

i didn’t make the rules. Dont get mad at me.

Something is very wrong here.

Abortion is surgery. How could one surgery be available but simultaneously another, practically identical, kind would not?

It is licit (allowed) by Catholic Church teaching for a woman to be treated for an ectopic pregnancy, even if that treatment would have the unintended consequence (known as double effect) of very likely causing the death of the child. In all cases involving these situations, if there is any way to save the child as well as the mother, it must be done.

In an abortion, the child must die for it to be successful. The intent is to kill the child. An abortion where the child lives is considered to be unsuccessful.

 

[SparkleFly]

A couple of comments:

a) Where do you draw the line? At what point is it moral to terminate a life and at what point is it not. For example, many people test for chromosomal/genetic disorders and no doubt uncounted down syndrome kids have not been born because of this. But only someone who doesn’t know people with down syndrome could conclude that it’s in the best interest of that child to never live. Some kids suffer more horrifically, but who is to say that non-existance (well, non-birth) is the better path?

b) Christ suffered and all people who suffer share in a special bond with our Lord and Saviour. You do not know the role that each life plays in the salvation story. You are not the author or life and only God has the right to give or take it. If God brings suffering and misery to some, we must trust, no matter how hard, that He has a purpose. Are you so wise that you know better than God?

Some of these people die in the womb. Others die shortly after birth. Some of these diseases are the result of factors like having children within the family bloodline (two copies of the harmful allele are inherited, so the offspring has the disease, siblings and relatives are more likely to carry the same harmful alleles.) Also, there is a lot of evidence on the toxins used in the modern world, mutations, etc. Humans reproduce sexually so we have a more diverse genome (unlike species that produce asexually) so this protects us, but some believe that these diseases also exist to clean out the population. God did say to fill the earth with people, but he also said to respect the earth and there are some scriptures that suggest birth control. When we have oodles of kids and neglect to care for the plant and do other things, we aren’t fulfilling all commands. I’m making any conclusions, but just throwing it out there that we don’t really know why disease exists, but these are some of the ideas behind why it exists. Some harmful alleles are beneficial–if you inherit one copy, it can protect you from disease, but if you are the unlucky sibling to not, then you suffer and may die from it.

I at least feel like babies that die in the womb they should be removed (uterine contractions don’t always begin once the baby dies) or if we know they are going to die, an abortion may be the best decision, so the mom doesn’t go months with a baby that will ultimately die making delivery very difficult.

 

[PumpkinSeed]

I at least feel like babies that die in the womb they should be removed (uterine contractions don’t always begin once the baby dies) or if we know they are going to die, an abortion may be the best decision, so the mom doesn’t go months with a baby that will ultimately die making delivery very difficult.

That’s not an option either. You can’t have an abortion because you think the baby is going to die. You have to let it die on its own first before anything is taken out.

 

[SparkleFly]

The Church does not say to do nothing. Yet there are constraints on what can be done. There is an over-riding principle that we may not do evil (in this case, an abortion) that good may come of it.

You may not agree with the Catholic Church on this, but you may find yourself disagreement also with St Paul, when he wrote in Romans 3:8: “Why not say–as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say–“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is deserved.”

The principle comes directly from St Paul. As a protestant, I presume St Pauls teachings would be binging for you?

But it doesn’t come from God.
When the vet put my dog to sleep it was more moral than leaving her to suffer. We knew she wouldn’t make it, but would rather see her die peacefully than in pain. If we use medicine to artificially save lives and keep life here, why can’t it be used to give on a dignified death when the moment arises?