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

[Rence]

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

Awww, I’m sorry surritter, you misunderstood me. I changed my mind about what I wanted to post at the time.

 

[surritter]

Awww, I’m sorry surritter, you misunderstood me. I changed my mind about what I wanted to post at the time.

Whew

 

[ac_claire]

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.

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.

Like others have said…these positions don’t make sense; they aren’t based on any reality. Why? Because the scneario of a woman being pregnant and either she aborts the child or dies isn’t real, and doesn’t happen, as many in the thread have proven. In the very, very rare instances where it might happen, also in instances such as ectopic pregnancies, the Church protects the life of the mother by the principle of double effect: do whatever you can to save the mother’s life. What happens in an ectopic pregnancy? The fetus/embryo is removed, to save the life and health of the mother. This is what the Church allows.

Nobody has said or implied that women are: breeding slaves, servants of men, sex objects, worth less than babies, etc. The Church doesn’t promote that and nobody here has said it, so I think that the emotional reactions toward what the Church doesn’t actually teach or practice are a bit misplaced.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

A PM brought something to my attention, and I think I need to clairify. I didn’t mean to say that this is what the church teaches. I merely meant it in regards to some of the attitudes posters on this board seem to have towards women in light of a select few teachings. I sat down and showed a lot of this to my husband and he was pretty appalled at a lot of it. I apologize if I came off strongly, and I apologize if I made it out that the church teaches these things. I know it doesn’t…but that doesn’t mean some of her followers are the same.

I personally see the church as the most open armed and embracing towards women, it’s members seem to be quite a different story from time to time, and this aggrivates me to no end. I don’t see how an organization can be one way, and yet have some members that are so radically different.

I also want to say that I do not in any way support abortion on demand for ANY reason. I accept totally what the church says. There is no condition known of to date where if an abortion isn’t performed the woman will certainly die with the exception of an ectopic pregnancy, and the church has already ruled on that. We should always be trying to save both, and praying for both, but sometimes the unspeakable comes up, and it seems that some people defect to “let the mother die, it’s God’s will” and I just find that horrible when we have medicine and other means necessary to save her that may endanger the child. There are procedures that can be performed (like a caesarian) where the child can be removed, alive and given the best treatment to keep it alive. Why do we automatically spring to choose that option which will give the child the best chance for survival and will most certainly harm (if not kill) the mother, instead of the other way around? Shouldn’t we protect the mother who already has so many things depending on her? Her husband, her family (especially if she already has other children) can we choose an option that will harm her at a chance to protect the child? Or should we remove the child, and try to keep it alive through other means, since the first already failed? Yes, most children will die, but at least the woman can continue to provide for her family. I don’t believe we should just automatically kill the child right off the bat (or ever), there are a million options that don’t resort to that. And I just can’t understand how anyone could label such a thing as immoral. No one is killing anyone else, they are just looking for another way to let the child grow that will also allow the mother to live with her full health so she can care for her other children, husband, etc. These cases are so rare, and certainly not at even the 1% rate that is currently happening. That number needs to come down as well. There are better options.

No matter how you look at it, it’s tough. I just can’t believe the things I have seen on some threads like this where people automatically spring to choosing to let the mother die or come to extreme harm, rather than try to earnestly save the life and health of both. It seems that once a mother becomes pregnant, her life is always secondary to her unborn infant’s in the eyes of some individuals. Not the church. Just individuals. And again I apologize for the heated post, and I apologize for making it look like the church is this way. That was not my intent.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Due to declining charity…
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)