Abortion Exceptions

[Linusthe2nd]

I’m completely pro-life, but I’ve been wondering. What if it’s a guarentee that the pregnant woman will die in one hour, and having the abortion is the only way to save her life? Months ago, a co-worker asked me a similar question, and I was unable to provide an answer.

That is a really dumb hypothetical, an absolutely impossible situation. If the lady is so ill that she will die in one hour " without an abortion, " the trauma and pain of an abortion will surely kill her. On the other hand, no one can guarantee that having the child will kill her, only God know the future.

But you know the answer anyway. Abortions are forbidden absolutely, there are no special " situatiions " as you put it. None, None, None.

A favorite tactic of the Enemy is to dream up " hard cases " to break you down or to show how " cruel " the Church is. Don’t fall for it.

 

[minion]

I’m completely pro-life, but I’ve been wondering. What if it’s a guarentee that the pregnant woman will die in one hour, and having the abortion is the only way to save her life? Months ago, a co-worker asked me a similar question, and I was unable to provide an answer.

Never say die, try to save both.

Imagine if you’re hanging with one hand on the edge of a cliff, and your other hand onto someone else. Would you let go of the other person to save yourself? Or do your best to save yourself and the other?

 

[Lapey]

deleted…duplicate answer…sorry.

 

[MWin]

“Indian woman dies after being refused abortion”
A woman of Indian origin has died after doctors in Ireland refused to perform an abortion, telling her that “this is a Catholic country”, sparking widespread outrage and renewed calls for immediate reforms to the Irish law to allow termination if the life of the mother is at risk.
thehindu.com/news/international/indian-woman-dies-after-being-refused-abortion/article4097428.ece

Let’s conclude that nothing is easy. The sixth commandment, “Thou shalt not kill”, is a rule of thumb, but not an absolute law that must always be followed. In wartime, to set up a defense against an invading army is obviously an exception. Of course, it must sometimes be allowed to make abortion. It is high time that the Catholic Church adopts an ethics that depends more on the human heart than on absolute rules. We aren’t robots that need to be programmed with infallible rules.

Did Jesus give us absolute rules to follow? The answer is no. He preached the message of love, but he called his closest man “Satan” (Matthew 16:23). He could also react with violence. “So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.” (John 2:15).

Jesus said, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters–yes, even his own life–he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26). This standpoint is borne out at the episode in Maria’s house (Mark 3) when he rejected his mother and brothers who wanted to speak with him. "Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, ‘Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.’ "

Yet, in the gospels, Jesus affirmed the importance of honouring one’s father and mother. (Matthew 19:17-19, Mark 10:17-19, Luke 8:18-21). So it is evident that Jesus didn’t believe in absolute rules. Life on earth demands that strong faith is complemented by a slightly pragmatic attitude. But a zealous belief in rules is an attitude strongly reminiscent of Islamism. It deflects the believer from the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The letter kills, but the spirit gives life. The message is, follow the spirit rather than religious paragraphs.

Mats Winther

 

[Gorgias]

“Indian woman dies after being refused abortion”
A woman of Indian origin has died after doctors in Ireland refused to perform an abortion

There are a couple of threads around here discussing that sad situation. The problem is, the media is reporting it as if it were “Indian woman dies because she was refused abortion”, and it isn’t clear that this is the situation at all.

renewed calls for immediate reforms to the Irish law to allow termination if the life of the mother is at risk.

And yet, if you look at the details of the case (which are only partially available at this point), it’s not clear that the mother’s life was at risk at the time she was requesting an abortion.

Of course, it must sometimes be allowed to make abortion.

Why?

Did Jesus give us absolute rules to follow? The answer is no.

I think your exegesis here is somewhat facile:

He preached the message of love, but he called his closest man “Satan” (Matthew 16:23).

So, when someone you love is going down the wrong path, you don’t correct them?

Jesus said, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters–yes, even his own life–he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26).

The use of the word ‘hate’ here is unfortunate, as the meaning that Jesus was going for appears to be different than the way we use the word ‘hate’ today. The Greek word he used is μισεῖ – it means to ‘detest on a comparative basis’ (that is, to renounce it in favor of something greater). In other words, Jesus wasn’t telling us to hate, per se, but to esteem love of Christ more highly than love of anything in creation.

This standpoint is borne out at the episode in Maria’s house (Mark 3) when he rejected his mother and brothers who wanted to speak with him. "Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, ‘Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.’ "

He was rejecting their desire to pull him away from his ministry. It fits well with your citation from Luke: they were telling him to hold his family relationships in more esteem than his ministry, and Jesus pointed out that he held his ministry as more important. This is not the same as ‘rejecting’ his family…

Yet, in the gospels, Jesus affirmed the importance of honouring one’s father and mother. (Matthew 19:17-19, Mark 10:17-19, Luke 8:18-21).

Certainly. Yet, he doesn’t say “honor your mother and father above all else.”

So it is evident that Jesus didn’t believe in absolute rules.

No… Jesus didn’t believe in simplistic rules; his statements showed a nuanced approach to loving God and loving people that showed both rigor and compassion. And, attempting to say that abortion is ok shows a complete lack of compassion. Implying that Jesus would’ve been ok with it shows a complete lack of rigor in understanding his message…

But a zealous belief in rules is an attitude strongly reminiscent of Islamism.

Ad hominem attacks now? Please…

It deflects the believer from the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The letter kills, but the spirit gives life. The message is, follow the spirit rather than religious paragraphs.

Of course, when you believe that the Holy Spirit was involved in the development of the “religious paragraphs”, then you’ve got a problem: your ‘rule’ devolves into “follow the spirit rather than the words of the spirit.” It’s unworkable, and requires one to presume that the Holy Spirit is schizophrenic, saying one thing in one case but something totally different in another similar case.

 

[Patrick1540]

I’m completely pro-life, but I’ve been wondering. What if it’s a guarentee that the pregnant woman will die in one hour, and having the abortion is the only way to save her life? Months ago, a co-worker asked me a similar question, and I was unable to provide an answer.

I too don’t like hypathedic situations. According to the CCC 2270-2275 the sanctity of life for the embryo must be preserved at all times. I was once told there is the Law and the spirit law, by a priest. With that being said doctors can not guarantee anything, they are not God, they are only practicing physicians.Personally I believe when a society stops seeing the sanctity of life, you have moral decay. Every woman, I have seen, that has had an abortion for any reason, it did damage to her mental health.We do not have the right to play God. Only God knows when life will fall.Doctors once gave me, 45 minutes to live,my wife and Mom prayed over me, and I lived. Doctors are not always right." Give an inch they will take a mile". Case in point: This week in Ireland by the media reports, woman from India died because doctors told her she was going to loose her baby. I don’t know all the details, but the woman died. Now people are protesting for the law to be changed to pro-choice… Yet since Roe Vs Wade millions of babies have been destroyed in the USA.I would tell your friend,"We don’t know God’s Wisdom, all unborn life is sacred,Holy,and has a right to life. We can’t play God and neither should Doctors, when it comes to sanctity of life.All life is to be preserved.Mother and baby!

 

[MWin]

So, when someone you love is going down the wrong path, you don’t correct them?

That’s my point. It was natural to react with anger at Peter although Peter only expressed worriment about his life. Jesus called him “Satan” because, in effect, he tempted Jesus to abandon his calling. Jesus is being very cruel towards the well-meaning Peter, because nothing must stand in the way of the inner calling, which is the path of individuation. Likewise, the birth of a child can deflect a woman from her calling. In such cases, it is legitimate to do abortion. It seems to be the rule that nothing must stand in the way of the spirit. It will break through at all costs. Nothing else matters.

Of course, when you believe that the Holy Spirit was involved in the development of the “religious paragraphs”, then you’ve got a problem: your ‘rule’ devolves into “follow the spirit rather than the words of the spirit.” It’s unworkable, and requires one to presume that the Holy Spirit is schizophrenic, saying one thing in one case but something totally different in another similar case.

Of course, scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit. I hold no doubts about that. But characteristic of the spirit is that it “bloweth where it listeth”. Jesus told Nicodemus: “The wind blows where it wants, and you hear the sound thereof, but can not tell from where it comes, and where it goes: so is every one that is born of the Spirit” (John 3:8).

The mercurialness of the spirit means that certain scriptural paragraphs now ring empty and hollow, because the spirit has gone elsewhere. They were once true, but only because they accommodated the spirit. Evidently, the old-testamental religious laws of stoning don’t ring true to us anymore. Arguably, that’s why Paul tells us in the first place to follow the spirit. The letter is merely the emergency system, the life boat at the stern. But if the letter is given first priority, we make ourselves blind to the spirit. Paul had himself been a zealous follower of the letter. He experienced a harsh awakening at the road to Damascus.

Mats Winther

 

[Gorgias]

Jesus is being very cruel towards the well-meaning Peter, because nothing must stand in the way of the inner calling, which is the path of individuation.

No: Jesus rebuked Peter not because Peter stood in the way of Jesus’ “inner calling” – whatever that’s supposed to mean – but because Peter was telling Jesus what God’s plan for Jesus was. That’s just absurd: telling Jesus that he misunderstood God? Please…

Likewise, the birth of a child can deflect a woman from her calling. In such cases, it is legitimate to do abortion. It seems to be the rule that nothing must stand in the way of the spirit. It will break through at all costs. Nothing else matters.

Ugh! No! What about the “calling” of the infant?

Abortion is not a ‘solution’ to a perceived vocational misstep!

The mercurialness of the spirit means that certain scriptural paragraphs now ring empty and hollow, because the spirit has gone elsewhere. They were once true, but only because they accommodated the spirit.

No, that’s not what the Catholic Church teaches. There are, of course, situations in Scripture which were applicable to a certain time and place – naturally, we don’t hold to these any longer. However, we do not assert that the Spirit abandons Revelation!

Paul had himself been a zealous follower of the letter. He experienced a harsh awakening at the road to Damascus.

Yes he did! But it wasn’t “hey, the Spirit has changed its mind!” – it was “hey! you’re following the wrong Letter!” Certainly, Paul taught a new letter; one that was inspired by the Spirit, certainly, but it was a new Gospel and a new Law!

 

[catholicmamajoy]

A doctor in another country did reimplant an embryo. I’m thinking it was in Canada, but I could be wrong. It’s the only case I’ve ever heard of, but I believe that it was successful so far.

Do you have a link for that story?

I cannot find any indications of that occurring or even being possible after an extensive internet search. I’ve heard of rare cases where the embryonic sac in a tubal pregnancy may dislodge and spontaneously reimplant in the abdominal cavity, but that again is still an ectopic pregnancy.

There were numerous articles about reimplanting with IVF, but of course, that is part of IVF and the age of the embryo would be much younger than in cases of an ectopic pregnancy.

If what you mentioned is truly accurate, that’s an amazing advance in reproductive and life-saving science.

 

[Newbie2]

From PubMed:
"Treatment

Ectopic pregnancies [sic] is a life-threatening condition. The pregnancy cannot continue to birth (term). The developing cells must be removed to save the mother’s life."

So what’s this?

“The developing cells”. Never heard this dehumanizing term before; usually it’s a “glob” of cells.

 

[catholicmamajoy]

“The developing cells”. Never heard this dehumanizing term before; usually it’s a “glob” of cells.

Never underestimate the ability of abortion proponents to use new phrases for shifting the focus off what is really going on.

 

[Kenny_Kamel]

I’m completely pro-life, but I’ve been wondering. What if it’s a guarentee that the pregnant woman will die in one hour, and having the abortion is the only way to save her life? Months ago, a co-worker asked me a similar question, and I was unable to provide an answer.

I do not know why people continually try to make up scenarios that are (a) unrealistic and (b) do nothing to change the fact that abortion is always wrong.

In such a case, you do all you can to save both the mother and the child, but you may not kill either of them on purpose.

The OP is induldging in a Boolean Fallacy, essentially they are creating an extreme hypothetical to try to justify all. This is the premise by which the intention Roe v. Wade carried has expanded to include all forms of “safe, legal” abortion.

 

[MWin]

No: Jesus rebuked Peter not because Peter stood in the way of Jesus’ “inner calling” – whatever that’s supposed to mean – but because Peter was telling Jesus what God’s plan for Jesus was. That’s just absurd: telling Jesus that he misunderstood God? Please…

No, it is evident that Jesus is mad at Peter because he tempts him to abandon his path. That’s why he calls him by the tempter’s name: Satan. Jesus says to Peter: “You are a stumbling block to me”. This means that Jesus is not mad at him for telling God’s son what to do, but because Peter unwittingly tries to intercept his plans. Jesus appears fully human here. The human part in him does not want to sacrifice his life. Jesus gets angry when Peter awakens this side of himself, which would like to evade the awaiting horrible fate.

No, that’s not what the Catholic Church teaches. There are, of course, situations in Scripture which were applicable to a certain time and place – naturally, we don’t hold to these any longer. However, we do not assert that the Spirit abandons Revelation!

The revelation of Jesus Christ means that, from now on, the law resides in the heart and not in the book. The Spirit of Truth, which is the Holy Spirit, has gained ascendancy whereas the bookish and ritualistic form of religion now recedes into the shadows. This does not mean that the Old Testament is thrown out, it only means that it has lost much of its potency. Thus the spirit has not abandoned Revelation wholly, but it has invested its light in a new Revelation. The floodlights are now on the new covenant, and the old covenant gets only a little light. That’s the correct way of seeing it. Those who hold to a bookish form of religion have chosen to dwell in the shadows, where only little spiritual light remains.

Mats Winther