Abortion: the Woman or Child

  • Thread starter Thread starter ianonavy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Phemie said:
Those same two articles are what allows an ectopic pregnancy to be treated by salpingectomy, the removal of part or all of the affected tube, even though the embryo will certainly die, but doesn’t allow a salpingotomy, the removal of the embryo from the tube, or the use of various drugs, such as methotrexate, to stop the growth of the embryo – both of which are routinely done in non-Catholic hospitals.
Click to expand...
It is the distinction which puzzles me. As I understand it, the distinction is not based on Scripture but on natural law as articulated in Evangelium Vitae: On the Value and Inviolability of Human Life*****. I have reread portions of it, the ones which seem critical to this discussion. I have also looked at other sources, not necessarily comparable, such as the 12-24-2010 NCBC Commentary on the “Phoenix Case”, the May 14, 2010 Statement of the Diocese of Phoenix re: Situation at St. Joseph Hospital, including the statement of Fr. John Ehrich, STL, Medical Ethics Director, Diocese of Phoenix, The Distinction between Direct Abortion and Legitimate Medical Procedures of the Committee on Doctrine of the USCCB (notable for its further distinction between a procedure which “directly” targets the life of the unborn child so as “to improve the function of the organ or organs, but only in an ‘indirect’ way, i.e., by lessening the overall demands placed upon the organ or organs, since the burden posed by the pregnancy will be removed” from a “second scenario”, “in which an urgently needed medical procedure indirectly and unintentionally (although foreseeably) results in the death of an unborn child”), the 4th edition of the ERDs, the 10-27-10 letter of M. Therese Lysaught, Ph.D. to Lloyd H. Dean of Catholic Healthcare West, with its enclosure entitled “Moral Analysis of an Intervention Performed at St. Joseph Hospital and Medical Center”. After prayerful consideration, I do not find your analysis and that of Bishop Olmstead, after doing my best to give to it the consideration which it deserves, pursuasive. I do not claim to stand in your shoes, or those of Bishop Olmstead, or of the other souls who were forced to deal with this situation. Putting myself in the position of the father of the five children who were involved, also the husband of the mother of those five children, it is my judgment that he, and those who supported him, made the correct moral decision, and that those now criticize that decision, implicitely or otherwise, are lacking in dicernment of the Gospel message of Jesus Christ, who was critical of the pharisaic rules of the leaders of His church, while supportive of those who, facing the daily struggles of life, did the best they could to love. What you and Bishop Olmstead say is the natural law written on our hearts is not, as I can best discern it, the law written on my heart. ( From media reports, it appears I am far from alone.)

Attributing my judgment, and that of others, to a “culture of death” is something I have considered, especially in light of Evangelium Vitae****. To me, the decision that two lives must be lost when one can be saved has little, if anything, to do with the distinction between a culture of life and a culture of death. It is more akin to that totally different circumstance, faced by our military in Viet Nam, in which the unfortunate decision was made that “to save the village, we have to destroy it”.*
 
I find catholic views somewhat jewish. say I had 100 children locked up in a gas chamber and they could only escape if you had an abortion. if you refused the 100 children would be gassed. you would send 100 children to their deaths because a good little catholic can NEVER condon an abortion. :rotfl:
you would be a murderer witch is punishable by death. thats what god says in the bible. so put that (heroine) in your pipe and smoke it. cuz your going to hell! MUHAHAHAHA.
man, being high is good fun.
 
With all charity, JReducation, you have most of it right but not all of it.

You say that delivering a child early before it is viable to save the life of the mother is immoral and an abortion. I don’t think you understand preeclampsia or eclampsia. What happens in some situations is that the mother’s blood pressure continues to rise until she dies. This can be treated with magnesium but sometimes the mothers body will not respond and the only cure is to deliver the baby. Hopefully the baby is viable but if the baby is not viable it still must be delivered (not aborted). If you leave the baby inside the mother before it is viable she will die and so will the baby. The baby will die either way. The baby should be treated with love and respect through the whole process and hopefully will be able to be baptized. There is no reason to remove the uterus with the child. Hopefully, the mother will be able to another child in the future.
 
I do not claim any greater access to the Scriptures than Bishop Olmstead or others who take the position he has taken in the St. Joseph Hospital matter in Phoenix. Nonetheless, this morning, hearing the Gospel proclaimed, Jesus assuring us that he will not leave us orphans, gave me a sense of affirmation, and, I would assume, would give the father in that situation a similar sense of confidence in his decision to undertake the medically necessary procedure which would predictably, but not intentionally, end his youngest child’s life, absent a miracle, but preserve the life of the mother of that child and his four other young children. May G-d bless all who were called upon to deal with that unfortunate set of circumstances, may the Spirit bring healing to what has since transpired as a result and may the Gospel of Life remain pursuasive to the sisters and brothers of our country who do not share our faith in Jesus Christ. Amen.
 
Janet Smith was quoted in this article:

Here is the paragraph with the quote: Early inductions are used in many cases where there is danger to the life of the mother, such as with severe toxemia or pre-eclampsia. But “just because you can have early inductions [for some reasons] doesn’t mean you can do early inductions for any reason,” said Janet Smith, a professor of moral theology at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit.

Article link: newcesite.com/2004/09/21/9
 
lpmulligan said:
It is the distinction which puzzles me. As I understand it, the distinction is not based on Scripture but on natural law as articulated in Evangelium Vitae: On the Value and Inviolability of Human Life******. I have reread portions of it, the ones which seem critical to this discussion. I have also looked at other sources, not necessarily comparable, such as the 12-24-2010 NCBC Commentary on the “Phoenix Case”, the May 14, 2010 Statement of the Diocese of Phoenix re: Situation at St. Joseph Hospital, including the statement of Fr. John Ehrich, STL, Medical Ethics Director, Diocese of Phoenix, The Distinction between Direct Abortion and Legitimate Medical Procedures of the Committee on Doctrine of the USCCB (notable for its further distinction between a procedure which “directly” targets the life of the unborn child so as “to improve the function of the organ or organs, but only in an ‘indirect’ way, i.e., by lessening the overall demands placed upon the organ or organs, since the burden posed by the pregnancy will be removed” from a “second scenario”, “in which an urgently needed medical procedure indirectly and unintentionally (although foreseeably) results in the death of an unborn child”), the 4th edition of the ERDs, the 10-27-10 letter of M. Therese Lysaught, Ph.D. to Lloyd H. Dean of Catholic Healthcare West, with its enclosure entitled “Moral Analysis of an Intervention Performed at St. Joseph Hospital and Medical Center”. After prayerful consideration, I do not find your analysis and that of Bishop Olmstead, after doing my best to give to it the consideration which it deserves, pursuasive. I do not claim to stand in your shoes, or those of Bishop Olmstead, or of the other souls who were forced to deal with this situation. **
LucyLight;7924861:
You say that delivering a child early before it is viable to save the life of the mother is immoral and an abortion. I don’t think you understand preeclampsia or eclampsia. What happens in some situations is that the mother’s blood pressure continues to rise until she dies. This can be treated with magnesium but sometimes the mothers body will not respond and the only cure is to deliver the baby. Hopefully the baby is viable but if the baby is not viable it still must be delivered (not aborted). If you leave the baby inside the mother before it is viable she will die and so will the baby. The baby will die either way. The baby should be treated with love and respect through the whole process and hopefully will be able to be baptized. There is no reason to remove the uterus with the child. Hopefully, the mother will be able to another child in the future.
Click to expand...
lpmulligan said:
I do not claim any greater access to the Scriptures than Bishop Olmstead or others who take the position he has taken in the St. Joseph Hospital matter in Phoenix. Nonetheless, this morning, hearing the Gospel proclaimed, Jesus assuring us that he will not leave us orphans, gave me a sense of affirmation, and, I would assume, would give the father in that situation a similar sense of confidence in his decision to undertake the medically necessary procedure which would predictably, but not intentionally, end his youngest child’s life, absent a miracle, but preserve the life of the mother of that child and his four other young children. .
Click to expand...
Folks, the Catholic Church is not putting this up to a vote for us to accept or reject. This is an infallible statement made by Bl. John Paul II invoking the authority of Peter. One may never, under any circumstances, do any thing that directly harms the unborn child, regardless of whose life is in danger. The life of the mother does not have greater value than the life of the child.

This is the moral law that God implants in our hearts and in our conscience. What the Church is telling us is that if our hearts and consciences are out of sync with the truth, the problem does not lie with the Church, but with our hearts and consciences, which must be corrected to conform to the mind of the Church.

The answer is that we may not abort, nor may we induce a labor before the child is viable. It is gravely immoral to do both.

As to the hospital and the people involved, the bishop has Apostolic authority to deny them the use of the name Catholic and to deny that the Eucharist be celebrated at that hospital or kept at the hospital, because to do so is an affront to the Holy Eucharist.

Those who want to quote scripture need to remember that the scripture does not dictate to the Church. The scriptures were put together to reflect the faith of the Church. The Church came first. Therefore, the Church has the authority to interpret the scripture and natural law. It is an authority given to her by Christ and handed down by an Apostolic Tradition.

Case in point . . . the sister who was excommunicated was facing a tribunal for dismissal from her religious community unless she recanted her actions. I have no idea how that ended, because the media dropped the story. That’s how seriously the Church considers this sin. You can live an entire life as a religious and it comes to a sudden conclusion when your vows are declared null and void by the Church. Because if you are a party to the murder of an unborn child, your word is not credible and you forfeit the privilege of living in community with consecrated people.

This is not optional. I fail to understand why there is such a desire to discuss this or debate the pros and con when Evangelium Vitae has already decided this for the millions of men and women who identify themselves as Catholic. The Church has spoken for us and to us. We can assent or we can leave. The Church is not giving us another choice here.

It is very dangerous to go down this road of seeking ways around this doctrine.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
 
Thread has been answered according to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

CLOSED
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top