C
catharina
Guest
Surely your mind-set is simply perfection.
You are correct because you INSIST that you are correct.
Sure.
Bye now.
- Status
You are correct because you INSIST that you are correct.
Sure.
Bye now.
R
Rence
Guest
This is why it is so important to talk with your priests about matters such as these. You really just can’t rely on lay people to understand every rule and regulation of the Church, and every ethical medical treatment for every medical condition out there. There’s too much to sort through.
And this is why it is so important to know how you will be treated when you enter an emergency room. I wouldn’t want my caregivers hemming and hawing over my body trying to figure out the rules of their religion over standard medical treatments done to save lives.
Prayerfully and Heart4home are correct. These are serious, dangerous and very real senarios that happen all the time. I’ve never used these examples of pregnancy risks because it never occured to me that someone would claim that early c-section or delivery would be considered an “abortion” and against the rules of the Church. Just never occured to me that these treatments for these senarios had to be defended as non-abortions. Really? For real? I don’t think so. Early delivery in these senarios is rare, but real, and attempts are made to save both the woman and the premmie. When all other interventions are done and not successful, early delivery is necessary. Remember, a baby cannot live without the woman who is carrying him or her. No woman equals no baby.
If the “pro-life” “movement” is opposed to early c-section with NICU intervention in order to save a woman who is at risk with eclampsia, placenta abruption or other traumas, it is no wonder why the majority (including Catholics) are pro-choice and the polls indicate the majority wants abortion to remain legal. What is to be expected when women are valued so little by a few? Who wants their mother, sister, daughter, granddaughter, aunt, best friend to die bleeding on the floor because someone taking care of them in the ER thinks it’s immoral to deliver early? And it’s really not the fault of the Church, it’s the fault of personal interpretation of those who put on us more than the Church does.
If the Church allows the removal of a cancerous uterus, even with a fetus in it, I can’t for the life of me understand how someone can claim that treating a hemorrhage by early delivery is “against the rules of the Church”…I guess because it’s NOT.
I have always been told that a c-section after the age of viability (my textbooks said the age of viability is 20 weeks), with attempts to save the life of the woman as well as the baby, were proper, acceptable, and within the teachings of the Church. Of course one would want to wait until there is no more time to wait. However, this is not an abortion. And abortion is when you remove a fetus from a uterus and no interventions are done to attempt to save it when there are interventions available. Is that not what the NICU is for after all?
No, women are not just supposed to die as they bleed to death on the floor of the ER. That’s why the right to consent or refuse treatment should be 100% up to the woman or her durable power of attorney and not an outside party who is butting in between the doctor and patient citing “religion” or “personal morals”. This is exactly why.
F
Flavius_Aetius
Guest
So at the end of the day, it’s pointless to be Pro-Life, because God allowed the human body to behave so poorly that even the Church has to rationalize situations where it’s either deliver a baby at points in time where the chance of death 100 percent, or let a woman die from blood loss.
Should start getting used to remembering a fetus in the womb is a worthless non-human.
Should start getting used to remembering a fetus in the womb is a worthless non-human.
C
catharina
Guest
This is why it is so important to talk with your priests about matters such as these. You really just can’t rely on lay people to understand every rule and regulation of the Church, and every ethical medical treatment for every medical condition out there. There’s too much to sort through.
And this is why it is so important to know how you will be treated when you enter an emergency room. I wouldn’t want my caregivers hemming and hawing over my body trying to figure out the rules of their religion over standard medical treatments done to save lives.
Prayerfully and Heart4home are correct. These are serious, dangerous and very real senarios that happen all the time. I’ve never used these examples of pregnancy risks because it never occured to me that someone would claim that early c-section or delivery would be considered an “abortion” and against the rules of the Church. Just never occured to me that these treatments for these senarios had to be defended as non-abortions. Really? For real? I don’t think so. Early delivery in these senarios is rare, but real, and attempts are made to save both the woman and the premmie. When all other interventions are done and not successful, early delivery is necessary. Remember, a baby cannot live without the woman who is carrying him or her. No woman equals no baby.
If the “pro-life” “movement” is opposed to early c-section with NICU intervention in order to save a woman who is at risk with eclampsia, placenta abruption or other traumas, it is no wonder why the majority (including Catholics) are pro-choice and the polls indicate the majority wants abortion to remain legal. What is to be expected when women are valued so little by a few? Who wants their mother, sister, daughter, granddaughter, aunt, best friend to die bleeding on the floor because someone taking care of them in the ER thinks it’s immoral to deliver early? And it’s really not the fault of the Church, it’s the fault of personal interpretation of those who put on us more than the Church does.
If the Church allows the removal of a cancerous uterus, even with a fetus in it, I can’t for the life of me understand how someone can claim that treating a hemorrhage by early delivery is “against the rules of the Church”…I guess because it’s NOT.
I have always been told that a c-section after the age of viability (my textbooks said the age of viability is 20 weeks), with attempts to save the life of the woman as well as the baby, were proper, acceptable, and within the teachings of the Church.
**Rence,do you actually believe that this is what the two posters were saying - or meant to say? I certainly do not. Remember also their mention of the trisomies. How does a trisomy pregnancy injure a mother? It DOESN’T. **
Of course one would want to wait until there is no more time to wait. However, this is not an abortion. And abortion is when you remove a fetus from a uterus and no interventions are done to attempt to save it when there are interventions available. Is that not what the NICU is for after all?
No, women are not just supposed to die as they bleed to death on the floor of the ER. That’s why the right to consent or refuse treatment should be 100% up to the woman or her durable power of attorney and not an outside party who is butting in between the doctor and patient citing “religion” or “personal morals”. This is exactly why.
C
catharina
Guest
Congrats. You’ve done an excellent job of reading
between the lines. I salute your insight.
F
Flavius_Aetius
Guest
Well then how about filling those holes I apparently missed? Because from where I am it’s God’s (or the lack of God’s existence) fault that the Church has to take a Pro-life-except-in-this-case stance.
C
catharina
Guest
The Church must take a pro-life stance in every case.
R
Rence
Guest
I thought you were being sarcastic in that first post up there…what do you mean it’s God’s fault, or the lack of His Existence? I’m afraid I don’t understand. Sorry…could you elaborate?
F
Flavius_Aetius
Guest
Well I’ll make my leave here then, because all I have to add is the spiritual issue that a loving benevolent God freely choose to make the female body capable of putting the Catholic Church in a situation where it’s either save the mother and let a fetus with a zero % chance of surviving die, or let the mother bleed out killing the child with her.
I think an All-Knowing God would know of what would happen if he allowed these forms of diseases to occur to the female reproductive organs. Meaning he accepts the allowance of indirect abortions…or you know God just doesn’t exist.
A
ANNE_2
Guest
Abortion the direct killing of the unborn baby is ALWAYS a mortal sin.
With over 1.4 MILLION abortions annually in the USA this is genocide.
Thou shall not kill - God’s commandment.
God gave life, only God can take it away.
It is a mortal sin to vote for any politician who supports abortion - regardless of Party.
This should clarify the issue of the original poster - please read carefully.
usccb.org/doctrine/direct-abortion-statement2010-06-23.pdf
All human beings have the right to live.
ehd.org/movies.php?mov_id=44
With over 1.4 MILLION abortions annually in the USA this is genocide.
Thou shall not kill - God’s commandment.
God gave life, only God can take it away.
It is a mortal sin to vote for any politician who supports abortion - regardless of Party.
This should clarify the issue of the original poster - please read carefully.
usccb.org/doctrine/direct-abortion-statement2010-06-23.pdf
All human beings have the right to live.
ehd.org/movies.php?mov_id=44
C
catharina
Guest
Yes, God and His church allow for indirect abortion.
Of course.
H
heart4home
Guest
Catharina said…
"Rence,do you actually believe that this is what the two posters were saying - or meant to say? I certainly do not. Remember also their mention of the trisomies. How does a trisomy pregnancy injure a mother? It DOESN’T. "
What in the world??? That is exactly what I said, and if you go back and read what I said, I SAID LOUD AND CLEAR that delivering early for a TRISOMY WAS ABORTION.
My only indication for delivering early was to save the mother’s life and I asked what would happen if the baby was at a non-viable age, but the mother’s full intent/wish was to have her baby.
Go back and show me where I said anything about delivering for a TRISOMY was NOT ABORTION? Please
You corrected my use of the word considered because you presumed to know my mind, but then you will see in later posts where I clearly said it WAS ABORTIOON
"Rence,do you actually believe that this is what the two posters were saying - or meant to say? I certainly do not. Remember also their mention of the trisomies. How does a trisomy pregnancy injure a mother? It DOESN’T. "
What in the world??? That is exactly what I said, and if you go back and read what I said, I SAID LOUD AND CLEAR that delivering early for a TRISOMY WAS ABORTION.
My only indication for delivering early was to save the mother’s life and I asked what would happen if the baby was at a non-viable age, but the mother’s full intent/wish was to have her baby.
Go back and show me where I said anything about delivering for a TRISOMY was NOT ABORTION? Please
You corrected my use of the word considered because you presumed to know my mind, but then you will see in later posts where I clearly said it WAS ABORTIOON
H
heart4home
Guest
Catharina, you said to somebody that we are inventing “MEDICAL CARE”.
Do you honestly believe that when a mother has TOXEMIA no matter what her stage of pregnancy a doctor would not recommend delivery of the baby. The removal of the placenta, with the delivery of the baby, via c-section is the way that they would treat this in most cases. Or induction of the baby which of course again would include removal of the placnta. I just don’t understand what other way they would treat it. Since you seem to have so much medical knowledge , could you PLEASE and sincerely tell me what they would do.
You seem to be jumping to a lot of conclusions. I’m quite sure that Prayerfully and myself both meant the same thing by removal of the placenta. We meant delivery of the baby that would also remove the placenta. We meant nothing more and nothing less.
Of course if the baby was 28 weeks as the previous posters or born with any chance of survival everything in the NICU’s power would be done to save it.
I just don’t for the life of me understand what you are saying.
Do you honestly believe that when a mother has TOXEMIA no matter what her stage of pregnancy a doctor would not recommend delivery of the baby. The removal of the placenta, with the delivery of the baby, via c-section is the way that they would treat this in most cases. Or induction of the baby which of course again would include removal of the placnta. I just don’t understand what other way they would treat it. Since you seem to have so much medical knowledge , could you PLEASE and sincerely tell me what they would do.
You seem to be jumping to a lot of conclusions. I’m quite sure that Prayerfully and myself both meant the same thing by removal of the placenta. We meant delivery of the baby that would also remove the placenta. We meant nothing more and nothing less.
Of course if the baby was 28 weeks as the previous posters or born with any chance of survival everything in the NICU’s power would be done to save it.
I just don’t for the life of me understand what you are saying.
P
Prayerfully
Guest
P
Prayerfully
Guest
I also stated that early delivery of a baby just because of an anomaly- whether it was compatible with life outside the womb or not- was abortion.
R
Rence
Guest
What would happen is that the premie would go in the NICU, taken care of by staff that are trained, and by the help and Grace of God, to nurse these little premies back to health until they can leave the hospital and go home. Sometimes, the baby doesn’t survive, but it’s certainly not for lack of trying and using the best medical treatments available. The Church doesn’t expect women to bleed out on the floor. If she’s hemorrhaging, she will die, and so will the fetus. If she’s hemorrhaging, the placenta (and everything else) needs to be removed — not to terminate the fetus, but to move it to the NICU to be treated, so that the woman doesn’t bleed out and die. It’s really unfair to tell people that the Church requires a woman to refuse life-saving treatment in this senario, and just bleed to death, because the Church doesn’t require this. There are probably some women out there, probably due to lack of understanding, who would refuse treatment. But the Church doesn’t require she refuse life-saving treatments. What the Church does forbid is direct abortions, where the removal of the fetus leads to its intentional death.
C
catharina
Guest
Lovely to see ALL of the passionate clarifications.
H
heart4home
Guest
n/m I’ll leave now. This is not a fruitful discussion.
R
Rence
Guest
Yes, Prayerfully and Heart4home, you’re both correct. Removing a baby with a lethal anomoly, such as Trisomy 18 or anacephaly, before viability just because it will die after birth, is a direct abortion and is forbidden. You two are both correct.
C
catharina
Guest
Fascinating presumption by you.
Or simply “your opinion.”
- Status