Abortion and saving a woman's life

[Dan_Grelinger]

What if God calls us home but we say “No, thanks, I’m enjoying life and I have drugs and modern medicine to treat me and keep me living so ask me some other time.” Isn’t that opposing God’s will too?

No. How would you know that God was calling you home? Only because your health suffers in some way? If you get a small scratch that might get infected, and might lead to cellulitis, which might lead to sepsis, which might lead to death, does that mean that God is calling you home? Then does that mean that we should not use a little antibiotic ointment and a band-aid to help us become healthy again? Besides, isn’t it always ridiculous to suggest we know the mind of God, no matter what the issue is?

I would suggest that the only way we know that God is calling us home is that we died. Before that, His will is unclear to us, and we are free to work towards restoring and maintaining the gift of life that he gave us, not by trying to prematurely end it.

This confusion goes away when we place God’s gift of life to us in its proper place. When life is respected as it should be, then it makes perfect sense that we reasonably use what we have learned (technology) to aid it (healing), and we don’t use it to destroy it (abortion, assisted suicide, euthanasia).

 

[underacloud]

But it doesn’t come from God.

I missed this earlier SparkleFly.

I was pretty sure for Methodists that St Paul’s teachings in the bible were considered to be inspired directly by God and that the bible is the authoritative basis for faith. Is even scriptural authority open for debate now?

 

[PumpkinSeed]

Your comments are more and more deflecting from the real issues raised.

But, anyway… Whereas there has been significant revelation from God (including Jesus) about the human afterlife, there has been absolutely none concerning animals. Making the assumption would be doing so with no evidence whatsoever.

The bible was written for people, not animals.

Having them in heaven would be a ‘bonus’. They are not God’s focus though. Why would he mention animals? Salvation has nothing to do with animals. Animals are incapable of sin, so its a little obvious that if they were to go to heaven, it would be by a free pass. Religion is not for animals, but they are still God’s creation. I see no reason not to have our pets in heaven. Pets make life better and I thank God for giving me a life filled with animals.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

The bible was written for people, not animals.

Having them in heaven would be a ‘bonus’. They are not God’s focus though. Why would he mention animals? Salvation has nothing to do with animals. Animals are incapable of sin, so its a little obvious that if they were to go to heaven, it would be by a free pass. Religion is not for animals, but they are still God’s creation. I see no reason not to have our pets in heaven. Pets make life better and I thank God for giving me a life filled with animals.

(My post has been edited to be more charitable.)

You don’t understand God if you believe that there will be animals in heaven. Suggesting that your ‘life’ in heaven will be better with animals is saying that God is not enough for you. ‘Life’ in heaven is not as you know it here on earth. God is not infinite if being in his presence leaves you yearning to be with an animal.

By the way, in my post referencing your beliefs about animals immortality, I made other points more pertinent to this thread, but you did not address them. May I assume that you concede those more important points?

 

[Mary_Fleurdelis]

What would be a good argument for a self-defense challenge? That killing the baby would be a necessary defense; self-defense killing is morally allowed. Abortion is intrinsically evil, I know, but how can I explain that having an abortion due to a dangerous pregnancy is not the same as defending yourself from an attacker? We hear this a lot when very young girls are pregnant due to rape/incest. Thanks!

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

What would be a good argument for a self-defense challenge? That killing the baby would be a necessary defense; self-defense killing is morally allowed. Abortion is intrinsically evil, I know, but how can I explain that having an abortion due to a dangerous pregnancy is not the same as defending yourself from an attacker? We hear this a lot when very young girls are pregnant due to rape/incest. Thanks!

I probably misunderstand, but your post draws a definitive connection between a ‘dangerous pregnancy’ and ‘rape/incest’. I don’t see the connection.

 

[underacloud]

What would be a good argument for a self-defense challenge? That killing the baby would be a necessary defense; self-defense killing is morally allowed. Abortion is intrinsically evil, I know, but how can I explain that having an abortion due to a dangerous pregnancy is not the same as defending yourself from an attacker? We hear this a lot when very young girls are pregnant due to rape/incest. Thanks!

Self defence is allowable when someone unjustly attacks. It is not applicable to innocent people who, through no fault of their own, endanger one’s safety.

So in the case of rape, the rapist is an unjust attacker.and one has every right to protect themselves against such (very aggressively I might add, to the point of death potentially). Many theologians, and I thoroughly agree, argue that this self defence includes defence against the sperm of the attacker, so emergency contraceptive may be allowable (provided pregnancy and recent ovulation can be ruled out).

However, if a pregnancy results, the new life is not that of the attackers. It is a new person, innocent of any injustice against the mother. The mother has no claim of self defence against this innocent person.

As for the question “how can I explain that having an abortion due to a dangerous pregnancy is not the same as defending yourself from an attacker”…well, both are wrong. Abortion cannot be tolerated in either case. The Catholic Church is clear in both cases that abortion is not the solution. Rape and dangerous pregnancies are terrible, but the deliberate killing of an innocent life is not a tolerable solution.

 

[Mary_Fleurdelis]

I probably misunderstand, but your post draws a definitive connection between a ‘dangerous pregnancy’ and ‘rape/incest’. I don’t see the connection.

When a young girl, such as 10-13 year-olds have become pregnant, mostly to abuse, some claim that when the young girl’s life is in danger the unborn child is allowed to be aborted. Sorry, is that clearer?

Many theologians, and I thoroughly agree, argue that this self defence includes defence against the sperm of the attacker, so emergency contraceptive may be allowable (provided pregnancy and recent ovulation can be ruled out).

OT, but I’m not sure about the emergency contraceptive route. Emergency contraceptives are hormonal and therefore abortifacient, correct? I would be very wary of that in case there was fertilization, and also using contraception for the contraceptive purpose. I’ve never heard the self-defense side of that argument, though.

Ok, so I’ll just say that the unborn has not committed injustice. I agree that the Catholic Church teaches abortion is an intrinsic evil, but when arguing with non-Catholics, that route isn’t very productive.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

When a young girl, such as 10-13 year-olds have become pregnant, mostly to abuse, some claim that when the young girl’s life is in danger the unborn child is allowed to be aborted. Sorry, is that clearer?

Yes that is clearer. In this case rape/incest has nothing to do with any risk or danger to the girl. The only issue is her age. Nature tends to do a pretty good job on its own, and when a girl becomes fertile it is generally when her body is mature enough to have a high probability of carrying a child to term. Pregnancies of young girls can be considered ‘high risk’, but in these cases, ‘high risk’ means that there is a greater risk to the baby. Just because there is a greater risk to the baby, does not mean that it is OK to then kill it. That is absurd. “Whoops, sorry, you might die before you are born, so we will just make sure it happens now.”

 

[tabycat]

One slightly off topic questin: A 13 year old is expecting, what do you do with her repist? Let he go free?

 

[meltzerboy]

Self defence is allowable when someone unjustly attacks. It is not applicable to innocent people who, through no fault of their own, endanger one’s safety.

So in the case of rape, the rapist is an unjust attacker.and one has every right to protect themselves against such (very aggressively I might add, to the point of death potentially). Many theologians, and I thoroughly agree, argue that this self defence includes defence against the sperm of the attacker, so emergency contraceptive may be allowable (provided pregnancy and recent ovulation can be ruled out).

However, if a pregnancy results, the new life is not that of the attackers. It is a new person, innocent of any injustice against the mother. The mother has no claim of self defence against this innocent person.

As for the question “how can I explain that having an abortion due to a dangerous pregnancy is not the same as defending yourself from an attacker”…well, both are wrong. Abortion cannot be tolerated in either case. The Catholic Church is clear in both cases that abortion is not the solution. Rape and dangerous pregnancies are terrible, but the deliberate killing of an innocent life is not a tolerable solution.

According to Jewish Law, the innocent baby is nonetheless a “pursuer” and the mother does have the right of self-defense if the baby threatens her life.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

According to Jewish Law, the innocent baby is nonetheless a “pursuer” and the mother does have the right of self-defense if the baby threatens her life.

Sounds like blatant rationalization to me. Pursuing is a word with a specific meaning. A very specific meaning which does not in any way fit what the child is actually doing.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

OT, but I’m not sure about the emergency contraceptive route. Emergency contraceptives are hormonal and therefore abortifacient, correct? I would be very wary of that in case there was fertilization, and also using contraception for the contraceptive purpose. I’ve never heard the self-defense side of that argument, though.

A good summary from Ascension health:

ascensionhealth.org/assets/docs/Emergency_Contraception_in_the_Care_of_Rape_Victims_A_Summary_of_the_Issues_and_Debate.pdf

But then there is this side also:

zenit.org/article-34141?l=english

 

[meltzerboy]

Sounds like blatant rationalization to me. Pursuing is a word with a specific meaning. A very specific meaning which does not in any way fit what the child is actually doing.

The concept of the law of rodef (literally, pursuer) in Jewish Oral Torah is quite complicated and cannot be reduced to simpler formulas derived from the English meaning of the word. It may seem like rationalization, but it is actually based on several principles involving life, sin, self-defense, and the like. I couldn’t begin to explain it all.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

The concept of the law of rodef (literally, pursuer) in Jewish Oral Torah is quite complicated and cannot be reduced to simpler formulas derived from the English meaning of the word. It may seem like rationalization, but it is actually based on several principles involving life, sin, self-defense, and the like. I couldn’t begin to explain it all.

And so goes most rationalization.

 

[Mary_Fleurdelis]

Just because there is a greater risk to the baby, does not mean that it is OK to then kill it.

Thanks!

A good summary from Ascension health:

ascensionhealth.org/assets/docs/Emergency_Contraception_in_the_Care_of_Rape_Victims_A_Summary_of_the_Issues_and_Debate.pdf

But then there is this side also:

zenit.org/article-34141?l=english

Thank you, thank you, thank you. Now I have some more literature to go on! I have asked numerous people about this, and no one had heard of it but me. I had never even heard a Catholic defense of it until you mentioned the self-defense justification.

“So too, there is no test that will indicate within 72 hours following a rape (while the sperm are still alive) whether conception has occurred.”

Unfortunately.

 

[ryecroft]

Well…that is certainly one way to look at it…but maybe not based on facts.

Do you have any idea what the medical statistics are for the type scenario you envision…want to avoid?..where it truly is an…“either or situation”…that is, the mother or child must die…both can’t live? I have heard that it is…a near “zero” [0 %] chance of that “either-or” scenario happening. Medical science, procedures and medicines/protocols have advanced way beyond that scenario.

I am curious if you know otherwise…or have some data or statistics that contradict my understanding?

Pax Christi

I can tell you for sure and for certain, from personal experience, yes it does occur - yes it’s rare but it happened to me where it came down to two possibilities as I had carried as long as could - well beyond the limits of safety- me possibly living and the fetus dying or me dying and the fetus dying. Carried as long as I could - just wanted to note this because some say this type of situation doesn’t exist - I can tell you personally it DOES and it’s a bad situation to be in but I’m glad I’m still here to tell you about it.
God Bless
Rye