Alas, Abortion

[tjm190]

So your child is not your child until
you can see it
you can hear it
you can hold it
you can play with it
you can feed it … ?

Is that it?

No… I would not choose to allow myself to live over my child. Killing her would not have saved the child.

 

[catharina]

No… I would not choose to allow myself to live over my child. Killing her would not have saved the child.

You are very confused.

The discussion is about DYING, not killing.
The only KILLING done was done to the baby.

 

[tjm190]

You are very confused.

The discussion is about DYING, not killing.
The only KILLING done was done to the baby.

Possible scenarios based on action taken-
Nothing- Dead woman, dead baby
Kill the baby- Live woman, dead baby
Kill the woman- Dead woman, dead baby

That’s what I was referring to- I would not choose to have myself live INSTEAD of my child. Hence, the drowning scenario. That is NOT the scenario this woman faced.

 

[catharina]

Possible scenarios based on action taken-
Nothing- Dead woman, dead baby
Kill the baby- Live woman, dead baby
Kill the woman- Dead woman, dead baby

That’s what I was referring to- I would not choose to have myself live INSTEAD of my child. Hence, the drowning scenario. That is NOT the scenario this woman faced.

So you WOULD kill the child to save yourself.

 

[tjm190]

So you WOULD kill the child to save yourself.

Do you acknowledge the difference between choosing to allow yourself to live instead of your child or saving yourself at your child’s expense and the situation at hand? As someone who is not physically capable of getting pregnant, I can’t really see myself in that situation regardless.

 

[catharina]

Do you acknowledge the difference between choosing to allow yourself to live instead of your child or saving yourself at your child’s expense and the situation at hand? As someone who is not physically capable of getting pregnant, I can’t really see myself in that situation regardless.

Choosing to “allow” myself to live by killing my child?
Would I ever see that as OK, acceptable, fine, worthwhile? No.

Even knowing we would both certainly die? I’d go with that.
I have no delusions that I could ever possibly know better than God.

Killing my child, allowing my child to be killed, to save my life?
That’s against the law and will of God in every way.

 

[tjm190]

Choosing to “allow” myself to live by killing my child?
Would I ever see that as OK, acceptable, fine, worthwhile? No.

Even knowing we would both certainly die? I’d go with that.
I have no delusions that I could ever possibly know better than God.

Killing my child, allowing my child to be killed, to save my life?
That’s against the law and will of God in every way.

Even if your child is killing you?

Certainly ‘fixing’ an ectopic pregnancy kills the child. Is it the child’s fault that the egg landed in the wrong place? No. Does that mean the child is killing you any less?

 

[catharina]

Even if your child is killing you?

Certainly ‘fixing’ an ectopic pregnancy kills the child. Is it the child’s fault that the egg landed in the wrong place? No. Does that mean the child is killing you any less?

We are not talking of ectopic pregnancy.

The issue is the pregnancy that presents a risk that “demands” direct abortion.
The child is killing me? Are you on drugs?
The child and I are dying!
No one’s killing anyone until a doctor comes along and kills the baby to spare the mom.
If that’s the mom’s choice, then the mom has killed her baby.
NOT ALLOWED.

This is a PRIMARY moral teaching in the Catholic Church.
It’s not open to debate or equivocation. It’s an absolute teaching.

 

[tjm190]

We are not talking of ectopic pregnancy.

The issue is the pregnancy that presents a risk that “demands” direct abortion.
The child is killing me? Are you on drugs?
The child and I are dying!
No one’s killing anyone until a doctor comes along and kills the baby to spare the mom.
If that’s the mom’s choice, then the mom has killed her baby.
NOT ALLOWED.

This is a PRIMARY moral teaching in the Catholic Church.
It’s not open to debate or equivocation. It’s an absolute teaching.

The presence of the child in the womb was killing the woman, yes? What would you call it? I’m not claiming malice on the part of the child, but rather that due to factors outside his/her control, he/she is causing the mother to die. And by my definition of kill, borrowed from another source, that constitutes killing. (Kill: to cause the death of an organism, or the act of doing so.)

And you claimed it would be wrong to allow your child to be killed so that you may live. Certainly treating an ectopic pregnancy fits that description.

 

[catharina]

The presence of the child in the womb was killing the woman, yes? What would you call it?

And you claimed it would be wrong to allow your child to be killed so that you may live. Certainly treating an ectopic pregnancy fits that description.

A child in the womb is in the right place.
A complicated pregnancy is killing both mother and child.
Might I instead kill the child to save myself?
Yoo hoo? NO.

 

[tjm190]

A child in the womb is in the right place.
A complicated pregnancy is killing both mother and child.
Might I instead kill the child to save myself?
Yoo hoo? NO.

A complicated pregnancy, meaning the mother’s body’s response to the presence of a child. The child is causing a response that kills the mother. The child is killing the mother. Unless causing something that kills someone doesn’t count as killing them, which would be a strange position to take.

 

[catharina]

A complicated pregnancy, meaning the mother’s body’s response to the presence of a child. The child is causing a response that kills the mother. The child is killing the mother. Unless causing something that kills someone doesn’t count as killing them, which would be a strange position to take.

The relationship of mother to child is profound and unique.
In the first instance it is one of nurture, mother nurtures child.
In the second instance, bound to the first, mother PROTECTS child.
This is the moral order of things and the natural order of things.

What would be “strange” is the mother ignoring her duty and instinct in mothering.

 

[tjm190]

The relationship of mother to child is profound and unique.
In the first instance it is one of nurture, mother nurtures child.
In the second instance, bound to the first, mother PROTECTS child.
This is the moral order of things and the natural order of things.

What would be “strange” is the mother ignoring her duty and instinct in mothering.

And that order remains unchanged when the child is killing the mother?

 

[catharina]

And that order remains unchanged when the child is killing the mother?

You are assigning “intent” to someone who can form/have no intent.
Only the mother can have intent. The child has no intent to kill anyone.
It is the mother who should not, who MUST NOT, form intent to kill her child.

 

[tjm190]

You are assigning “intent” to someone who can form/have no intent.
Only the mother can have intent. The child has no intent to kill anyone.
It is the mother who should not, who MUST NOT, form intent to kill her child.

I am not assigning intent. killing≠murdering. You can be killed by lightning, earthquakes, and hail without those things actively seeking your death.

The child was killing the mother, in the same manner a poison would (or more appropriately, an otherwise benign substance that the mother happens to be allergic to)- as I’ve said, not through any fault of his or her own, but killing her all the same.

 

[VetA]

I am not assigning intent. killing≠murdering. You can be killed by lightning, earthquakes, and hail without those things actively seeking your death.

The child was killing the mother, in the same manner a poison would (or more appropriately, an otherwise benign substance that the mother happens to be allergic to)- as I’ve said, not through any fault of his or her own, but killing her all the same.

that does not mean that he/she should be murdered he/she did not ask to be put there, it was the mother and father’s decision (assuming of course the mother was not raped in which case the child should still not be murdered) and the baby has a right to life no matter what.

 

[tjm190]

that does not mean that he/she should be murdered he/she did not ask to be put there, it was the mother and father’s decision (assuming of course the mother was not raped in which case the child should still not be murdered) and the baby has a right to life no matter what.

I was moving towards claiming double effect- the intent is to remove a source of poison from the mother. The side effect is the death of the child.
E.g. if the woman had a piece of titanium in her uterus that was killing her (fun fact, titanium is 10% carcinogen) you would say that it should be removed- it’s killing her. So we don’t object to removing substances that are killing us from our bodies.
It just so happens that this ‘substance’ is a child- and removing the child kills the child.

 

[catharina]

I am not assigning intent. killing≠murdering. You can be killed by lightning, earthquakes, and hail without those things actively seeking your death.

The child was killing the mother, in the same manner a poison would (or more appropriately, an otherwise benign substance that the mother happens to be allergic to)- as I’ve said, not through any fault of his or her own, but killing her all the same.

The child’s presence might endanger the mother
but the child is a child with an immortal soul, not a toxic/fatal poison.

Your thinking is making certain lives seem expendable, acc to YOUR will.
Not so. NEVER SO. You might have to find assistance for your deep confusion/conflict.
At no time can a living human being be compared to a toxic agent.

I’ve no idea (can’t even imagine) how you reached such horrific thinking
about the value of any human life. You are simply off the charts re this.

 

[tjm190]

The child’s presence might endanger the mother
but the child is a child with an immortal soul, not a toxic/fatal poison.

Your thinking is making certain lives seem expendable, acc to YOUR will.
Not so. NEVER SO. You might have to find assistance for your deep confusion/conflict.
At no time can a living human being be compared to a toxic agent.

I’ve no idea (can’t even imagine) how you reached such horrific thinking
about the value of any human life. You are simply off the charts re this.

Even when a human being is acting as a toxic agent? I’m not claiming that the child wasn’t a human being. But, the child was clearly poisonous to the mother.

 

[catharina]

Even when a human being is acting as a toxic agent?

You need help - and very soon.
Have you NO regard for the value of a life???