Abortion: extreme cases (life and health of the mother)

[benedictus2]

I would choose for me to live and for the newborn to die. As I said in the other abortion thread, I don’t think human beings become persons until they become conscious. Newborns don’t seem to be.

As a matter of curiosity. If your newborn is not a human person, what sort of being is it? A dog, cat? Perhaps someone more like a plant?

To be more precise, what genus and specie is it?

 

[flyingfish]

Well, well, well. A mother who would actually allow a gunman to shoot her own child.

I hope you can actually play that scenario over and over and over in your head.

Nothing else to add here but to say that I have never ever thought I would actually come across someone here who would be that cold heartedly evil.

But I suppose that is not surprising. Mother’s kill their own child are always in the news. Psychopathy and sociopahy it seems is on the rise.

Don’t worry, I don’t have children.

 

[flyingfish]

As a matter of curiosity. If your newborn is not a human person, what sort of being is it? A dog, cat? Perhaps someone more like a plant?

To be more precise, what genus and specie is it?

It’s human, but in my view it doesn’t become a person until it gains self awareness. I don’t know how it compares to a dog or a cat in terms of what it understands about the world.

Either way, I just don’t see the argument for valuing someone else’s life more than my own. I don’t have any desire to impress anyone by claiming I would act heroically. I wouldn’t. I might take an acceptable risk to save someone, but I certainly wouldn’t choose certain death so that someone else could live.

You’re just not going to be able to convince me that it’s somehow evil to think this way. Self preservation is probably the strongest instinct. I can’t really see a situation where I would give up the one life that I have so that someone else could live.

 

[Zooey]

Christopher1956:

Just considering the simplicity of the poll questions and the answers and not getting into all the nuancing. The poll questions cut the argument to the quick. The surprise to me is how they cut.

Do 80% who follow the Catholic teachings of Christ actually believe that a woman’s health or mortality doesn’t matter on this issue? – Or is this just a measure of the bias of this particular forum?

Very curious to me.

I have to ask: Do** you** have any idea what a horrifically dangerous and brutalizing procedure that an abortion actually is?
This whole question is demanding that all of us (including one Zooey, over here in the Methodist Amen Corner) totally accept the lie that abortion is “simple, safe, & easy”; as well as devaluing the life of the unborn child, abortion treats women like trash to be sliced up as well.

Don’t worry, I don’t have children.

Neither do I. But I have to tell you, I wouldn’t treat my **cat **the way you are suggesting that women should treat their children by murdering them.
Shame on you. Shame!!!

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

I have to be honest, I can’t say I know of any circumstances where what the OP is referring to could exist except an ectopic pregnancy, it for as prolife as I am, I persoally wouldn’t get the abortion, but I couldn’t demand the same for someone else. I’m going to be brutally honest for the first time in my life, but I can’t see why on earth the so an’s life always has to be second class to that of an unborn child. I think this attitude just continutes to the idea that women are nothing but breeding machines and have no value. This angers me. The child in this case poses a direct threat to the woman. It’s a case of self defense. Should both be saved?absoluely! But in some instances this can not be achieved, so why does the woman automatically have to die? This makes no sense! And as a woman it aggrivates me that some people think that we
Can have such little value! I see so much sexism in the catholic church and it angers me. Should a woman deliberatly kill her own child? Heck no! But should A woman always be demanded to die so that her child MIGHT live? No! It’s no wonder to me that women seem to have no value in the church, since we are All so dispensable! Since the OP asked our opinion and not church teaching, I am giving my opinion! Since I am certain to be flamed for this, J
I am not going to subscribe. But I am going to leave you with this: women are NOT here to be sex objects, breeding slaves, or servants to men. Which is unfortunatly the attitude I see too often I. The RCC.

 

[flyingfish]

Neither do I. But I have to tell you, I wouldn’t treat my **cat **the way you are suggesting that women should treat their children by murdering them.
Shame on you. Shame!!!

Where did I say women should murder their children? I simply said I wouldn’t choose certain death to save a child. Maybe if you read what I said, you wouldn’t get so mad.

If you think that a woman who wouldn’t give her life to save a child is a murderer, well then, what can I say to that.

 

[benedictus2]

If you think that a woman who wouldn’t give her life to save a child is a murderer, well then, what can I say to that.

There is something very disturbing and very chilling in this reply.

The question was not about any child, but your very own child. So yes, terribly troubling. This kind of cold calculating evil is very frightening.

 

[flyingfish]

There is something very disturbing and very chilling in this reply.

The question was not about any child, but your very own child. So yes, terribly troubling. This kind of cold calculating evil is very frightening.

What frightens me is that you automatically assume that the lives of children are more valuable than the lives of their mothers, I guess that is the kind of thinking that would expect a woman to die to save an infant. And also the kind of thinking that forced the Polish woman to become blind in order to save a fetus.

 

[benedictus2]

I have to be honest, I can’t say I know of any circumstances where what the OP is referring to could exist except an ectopic pregnancy, it for as prolife as I am, I persoally wouldn’t get the abortion, but I couldn’t demand the same for someone else. I’m going to be brutally honest for the first time in my life, but I can’t see why on earth the so an’s life always has to be second class to that of an unborn child.

And who says the mother’s is second class to that of the unborn child? It isn’t. What we are saying is they are equally important. If anything, it is the unborn child’s life that is considered second class, which is why they think it is justifiable to kill the baby in order for the mother to live.

But if we believe that the author of life is God, then, every life is equally important. And if God is the author of all our lives, then only God has the right to choose. That is why the only option if all possible solutions to enable both live has been exhausted, is to let nature take it’s course.

I think this attitude just continutes to the idea that women are nothing but breeding machines and have no value.

No it doesn’t.This kind of non-sequitur does not help the discussion.

This angers me. The child in this case poses a direct threat to the woman. It’s a case of self defense. Should both be saved?absoluely!

No it is not. That is a very absurd line of reasoning. The child is not attacking the woman. All the baby is doing is existing. Self defense is when someone is coming at you to kill you. Even then, for self defense to be invoked the person has to be actually in the act of killing you.

But in some instances this can not be achieved, so why does the woman automatically have to die?

Aahhh, the question of the I/Me/Myself generation. There is nothing “automatic” about it. We pray. We pray that both may live. And if it is not possible that God will let live who He wants to let live.

This makes no sense! And as a woman it aggrivates me that some people think that we Can have such little value! I see so much sexism in the catholic church and it angers me.

Again, a non-sequitur. How did you get from abortion to sexism? This is the devil’s tactic - confuse the issue with a very illogical argument.

Should a woman deliberatly kill her own child? Heck no! But should A woman always be demanded to die so that her child MIGHT live?

This is hysterical nonsense. No one is demanding that the woman die. We say allow nature to take its course. Only God has a right as to decide as to who dies and who lives.

No! It’s no wonder to me that women seem to have no value in the church, since we are All so dispensable!

Rubbish. And if the child is female, how does that support your argument?

It’s irrational arguments like that that gives us a women a bad name.

Since the OP asked our opinion and not church teaching, I am giving my opinion! Since I am certain to be flamed for this, J
I am not going to subscribe. But I am going to leave you with this: women are NOT here to be sex objects, breeding slaves, or servants to men.

And the Catholic Church never ever said they are. It seems to me that you have forgotten that it takes two tango. Women are pregnant because they joined in the tango.

Which is unfortunatly the attitude I see too often I. The RCC.

Nope. It is not there if you will actually take the time to understand her teaching.

What you are trying to do is rationalize murder of unborn children. Whenever you go into rationalization, that is a sure sign that the deed is evil.

 

[benedictus2]

What frightens me is that you automatically assume that the lives of children are more valuable than the lives of their mothers,

Nope, you are not diverting the discussion. I never ever said that the lives of children are more important than the mothers. They are equally important.

I guess that is the kind of thinking that would expect a woman to die to save an infant.

Good women yes, they die for their children. Evil women, they kill their children. Some do it because they have gone mad others are plain psychopaths.

And also the kind of thinking that forced the Polish woman to become blind in order to save a fetus.

Nice try at divertion. Foetus is only a stage in the development of a human being. A human being is a human being is a human being.

Choice between lose of sight and lose of life? No contest there.

I suppose if someone were to come to you and say I either blind you or kill you you would choose to be killed.

 

[flyingfish]

I suppose if someone were to come to you and say I either blind you or kill you you would choose to be killed.

The proper analogy would be you telling me that you either blind me or a human without self awareness be killed.

Also, may I ask why you are paying for an internet subscription and purchased a computer instead of giving that money to feed starving children in the third world? Are you saying that your personal comfort is more important than someone’s life?

Further, why aren’t you taking up extra jobs? Think of all that money you could earn and give to starving children in Africa, and it wouldn’t even require you to give up your life or your eyesight, just your free time and unnecessary luxuries.

But I guess that would require YOU to make a sacrifice, which is quite a bit more unpleasant than telling women that they should be willing to sacrifice their health and life for children.

 

[benedictus2]

The proper analogy would be you telling me that you either blind me or a human without self awareness be killed.

So therefore your sight is more important that someone’s life? No contest there. Self obsession.

Also, may I ask why you are paying for an internet subscription and purchased a computer instead of giving that money to feed starving children in the third world? Are you saying that your personal comfort is more important than someone’s life?

As a matter of fact (and this is not to bignote myself but more to correct your ignorant post) I am giving money to support and feed starving children in the world far, far greater than the cost of my internet subscription. And I live very, very simply even though I earn a decent living so that I can give to others. So before you start going down that track you better know that which you speak of.

Further, why aren’t you taking up extra jobs?

Oh but I have taken extra jobs but they are non paying ones. You know the kind of thing one does just so one can help called volunteer work.

Think of all that money you could earn and give to starving children in Africa, and it wouldn’t even require you to give up your life or your eyesight, just your free time and unnecessary luxuries.

Aahh the hysterical illogical non-sequitur you have degeneratated to. What has that got to do with your decision to murder your own child?

But I guess that would require YOU to make a sacrifice, which is quite a bit more unpleasant than telling women that they should be willing to sacrifice their health and life for children.

Oh but I have made a lot of sacrifices. You see you are attacking a person you do not know at all. As I said, hysterical irrational tirade. Keep to logic. This kind of outburst give us women bad press.

 

[Adrienne5678]

Flying Fish:

I can’t picture Our Holy Mother making the decision you would make.

If a killer came up to her while she was holding the Sacred Infant, I could tell you with absolute certainty that she would choose her own death than that of the Holy Newborn. Our Savior, Jesus Christ.

Do you think men and women with severe cerebral palsy are persons? Many of them aren’t aware of anything.

 

[surritter]

It’s human, but in my view it doesn’t become a person until it gains self awareness. I don’t know how it compares to a dog or a cat in terms of what it understands about the world.

Either way, I just don’t see the argument for valuing someone else’s life more than my own. I don’t have any desire to impress anyone by claiming I would act heroically. I wouldn’t. I might take an acceptable risk to save someone, but I certainly wouldn’t choose certain death so that someone else could live.

You’re just not going to be able to convince me that it’s somehow evil to think this way. Self preservation is probably the strongest instinct. I can’t really see a situation where I would give up the one life that I have so that someone else could live.

Allow me to attempt to convince you that “it’s somehow evil to think this way.” First, you state that you would never choose certain death so that someone else could live. Perhaps you are incapable of love. The greatest expression of love is to lay down one’s life for another. I agree that self-preservation is of course a natural instinct, but unlike animals, our human intellect can rise above mere biological feelings and have us do things that are right, not just those things that are comforting.

Here’s an analogy: Suppose you need to take your child to the doctor for a shot (or since you are childless, it could simply be you). While the natural desire to avoid pain should keep you from going, you will go because your intellect tells you that it is for a greater good. Too bad if you “don’t feel like it” – your mind wants you to get the shot even though your body doesn’t.

Similarly, to offer your life for another is unpleasant, but it is for a greater good IF you are a person who can think outside of yourself.

Even more troublesome is your first statement: “in my view it doesn’t become a person until it gains self awareness.” So apparently ALL are human beings, but only SOME are “persons.” You believe that babies, toddlers, older children, teens, young adults, older adults, and senior citizens are all human, but here’s the fatal flaw in your argument: someone now has to decide WHO among those groups qualify as “people.”

The Supreme Court tried this in 1973, and you along with Peter Singer are trying to extend that right to kill further, to include kids who have been out of the womb for many months! May your cause go down in flames…

Fish, you think the criteria is self-awareness. Hmmmm, suppose my criteria for personhood is the ability to communicate. I say that if you can’t speak, write, or are incapacitated in any other way which prevents communicating with others, then you are not a person.

Are you legitimately able to say that I am wrong? No. So you must certainly see what a slippery slope your contention is.

I must presume that you are being intellectually honest, Fish, and not simply trying to stir the pot. But I ask you to really think about the ideas that you have posted, and realize that they can’t hold any water. This notion of personhood as separate from being alive is fraught with philosophical, medical, legal, and logical problems.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

There is something very disturbing and very chilling in this reply.

The question was not about any child, but your very own child. So yes, terribly troubling. This kind of cold calculating evil is very frightening.

One time my DH and then 3 year old son were taking a walk. They witnessed a blue-jay trying to defend her nest of baby blue-jays from a cat. The blue-jay would swoop down, dive bomber like and peck the cat. The cat gave up.

Another example I can give is a video I saw of grizzly bears. A mother grizzly fought off a larger male who thretened her cub.

My point, sure self preservation might be an instinct, but even in the animal kingdom, mothers posess the instinct to protect their offspring.

 

[Rence]

I changed my mind.

 

[Christopher68]

I ask you to assume that the scenarios are true, please don’t make arguments about how such a scenario is unlikely, or how most abortions are not performed for this reason.

I am asking you to assume they are true for the purpose of this poll.

Here are the 2 scenarios:

Scenario 1. A woman wants to have a child, she gets pregnant. Later on she develops severe complications (maybe a heart condition is discovered), and she is told that if she continues with the pregnancy she will likely die. Having an abortion is the only way to save her life.

Scenario 2. A woman wants to have a child, gets pregnant. Later she develops severe complications and is told that if she continues with the pregnancy she will suffer serious health consequences (like the Polish woman who lost her eyesight), but will remain alive. Having an abortion is the only way to prevent this.

Do you personally think that it would be moral for her to have the abortion (I’m asking what you think, not what the Church teaches).

Most of the responses I’ve read either state the church position (not what the OP asked), or they confront the OP for even asking the questions. I give the OP credit for asking challenging questions.

 

[Rence]

I have to be honest, I can’t say I know of any circumstances where what the OP is referring to could exist except an ectopic pregnancy, it for as prolife as I am, I persoally wouldn’t get the abortion, but I couldn’t demand the same for someone else. I’m going to be brutally honest for the first time in my life, but I can’t see why on earth the so an’s life always has to be second class to that of an unborn child. I think this attitude just continutes to the idea that women are nothing but breeding machines and have no value. This angers me. The child in this case poses a direct threat to the woman. It’s a case of self defense. Should both be saved?absoluely! But in some instances this can not be achieved, so why does the woman automatically have to die? This makes no sense! And as a woman it aggrivates me that some people think that we
Can have such little value! I see so much sexism in the catholic church and it angers me. Should a woman deliberatly kill her own child? Heck no! But should A woman always be demanded to die so that her child MIGHT live? No! It’s no wonder to me that women seem to have no value in the church, since we are All so dispensable! Since the OP asked our opinion and not church teaching, I am giving my opinion! Since I am certain to be flamed for this, J
I am not going to subscribe. But I am going to leave you with this: women are NOT here to be sex objects, breeding slaves, or servants to men. Which is unfortunatly the attitude I see too often I. The RCC.

Whitacre_Girl, I’m going to go ahead and be bluntly honest as well. I completely agree with your post. Every sentence you wrote reflects what I think as well. And I feel very strongly about it. And in my life I will fight every effort to take away women’s rights any way I can. But I would like you to please take the time to read the rest of my post.

This thread was created to divide and cause people to bicker back and forth. And even though I know it is SO not worth my time and effort, I fall for these types of posts as well because these topics bring out a lot of emotion in people. No matter which side of the fence we are, we feel very strongly about this topic. And I would go so far as to say that we feel so strongly about it, that some of us are replying with a total disregard for feelings and emotions of those who are reading the replies.

But, according to research, only 1% of abortions are done to save the woman’s life. Second of all, I can’t think of a single medical senario that would require an abortion to save a woman’s life, and neither can you. With good reason While I believe it’s a woman’s choice, I don’t believe it’s a valid reason to fight for or against abortion because truly there is no reason to have an abortion to save a woman’s life or health. There are medical treatments available to treat both. But because the OP got people so upset and emotional, it caused people to shoot back with a few nasty (and quite frankly, a few nauseating) replies about how they feel about women and women’s rights, which just riled some people up more. For what it’s worth, I don’t think abortion will ever be denied to a woman’s whose life is in peril, so please stop getting upset about this thread. I’m not sure if the people who posted against women’s rights were just replying out of anger, or if they really feel the way they do, but honestly, it’s not worth your time and effort to get upset in reponse. It’s a big world out there, and we should surround ourselves with people who respect and treat us with dignity, not people who think less of us because of who we are. :hug1:

 

[surritter]

I changed my mind.

Rence, your previous posts indicate that you were quite pro-life (yeah!). Why do you now change your mind?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

This is from the EWTN website. Dr. Dardano is a pro-life doctor.

Your question is a bit complex because more than one issue is at hand here. First of all, there are never only the two options you mentioned. I assume you are referring to a case where there is a premature rupture of the membranes and the fetus has not yet reached viability. This is a rather common problem but the potent antibiotics of today have made this manageable in a good percentage of the cases. Your examples of treatment options are both unacceptable. First of all, no one lets both mother and child die. An attempt to save both with the long term use of antibiotics, bedrest, uterine relaxants, steroids to hasten fetal lung maturity, etc., are all widely used today. If per chance, the treatment is not successful, early labor starts and nature expels the fetus. Should the fetal heart stop on its own due to the infection, then labor may be induced artificially. I emphasize “if the fetal heart stops on its own” as an essential part of my answer. To directly attack the fetus while still alive is a direct abortion and always forbidden. The principle of double effect does not apply here because the maternal organs are not where the infection is, it’s the fetal side that is septic. Therefore one cannot empty the uterus with a viable fetus inside. There is a major medical difference which is difficult for a lay person to understand. When removing a cancerous uterus which contains a viable fetus, the principle of double effect applies in that the main intent is to remove a cancerous maternal organ which unfortunately happens to be pregnant. The fetal loss is secondary to a primary maternal therapy. The same is true for removing the whole fallopian tube which contains the ectopic pregnancy. The diseased tube is the problem and the intent is to remove this diseased maternal organ which unfortunately contains a fetus. This is especially important to understand in that the newer treatments for an ectopic which include opening up the tube and removing the pregnancy, is a direct abortive process and is in this mode of therapy, forbidden. Many times as I have said before, the physician who offers such drastic therapy options is more concerned over the potential liability issue at hand rather than what is sound medical/moral management. This unfortunately is a sad sign of the times. Yes, these are difficult situations and to follow the right path requires a basic understanding of sound moral principles. Cases vary from patient to patient but principles remain the same. I can assure you I have been in many such situations over my 41 years. I have never lost a mother. Yes, I have had my share of fetal loss but never without a valiant effort to salvage the pregnancy as well. Another basic moral principle that one must remember. You can never sacrifice a life to save a life. A good physician will do his or her best to preserve all life from natural conception to natural death. Finally, always in the back of my mind over the years when such situations arise is this: there is only one God and it’s not me.

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=570951&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2009&Author=&Keyword=dardano&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=41&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=