Alas, Abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Marc_Anthony
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
catharina said:
You need help - and very soon.
Have you NO regard for the value of a life???
Click to expand...
“In the context of biology, poisons are substances that can cause disturbances to organisms, usually by chemical reaction or other activity on the molecular scale, when a sufficient quantity is absorbed by an organism.”

I admit, this definition doesn’t flow very well since the child was not consumed, but the point is- the child was causing the mother’s death in a way completely consistent with a poison. Of course the child is still a human being. But, by a stretch of the definition above, the child was clearly poisonous to the mother.
 
tjm190…why are you clamouring for or insisting on moral validation of your point of view or even begin to present an argument that is basically morally reprehensible to any practising Catholic ?

I guess this explains why you consider yourself a dissident catholic (even if that in itself is a contradiction in terms)

There is absolutely no moral ambiguity over the decision a mother must take in this circumstance.

Try and save the baby or die in God’s grace and mercy trying to do so,

The bigger picture is reconciling with God in Heaven for eternity.

Peace in Christ

Rob.
 
Marc_Anthony said:
Salve all,

In another thread we were discussing the recent case of Sister Mcbride (I believe that’s the name, right?). She was excommunicated for performing an abortion.

The apparent circumstances were that both mother and child had a 99% chance of dying if the abortion, and only an abortion, not a c-section, was not performed. The abortion WAS unfortunately performed by Sister Mcbride. The Mother survived.

Here’s the obvious question: Let’s assume that this scenario is accurate as presented, the Mother and baby dying if the baby isn’t killed. How can the Church justify letting two people die as opposed to one? I know the official teaching and I understand that we must follow it, I just want a satisfactory explanation here. What should be done in these situations? You should let both die? Because that seems to defy logic.

Again, I fully accept Church teaching and don’t wish to challenge it. I merely want to understand HOW this makes sense.

Thanks to all who post and God bless!
Click to expand...
sin very much lies on the intent

the Church doesn’t oppose the death of the fetus or the mother as a consequence, as death is a natural part of life on earth (we all will die some time). however, if the primary intention from the beginning is the extinguishing of life, then it is a sin. if death was never intended at any point of the medical procedure, and death came as a consequence of trying to save both lives, then it is acceptable as it is seen as a natural course of life.

the issue here is, which life is more valuable? sure, its easy to side with the mother. but we are not to be the judge of the value of one life over another. God would want us to do our best to save very life we can. that should be our sole intention at every instance. death should never be intended at any point
 
rms001 said:
tjm190…why are you clamouring for or insisting on moral validation of your point of view or even begin to present an argument that is basically morally reprehensible to any practising Catholic ?
Click to expand...
Except to Sister Mcbride.
I guess this explains why you consider yourself a dissident catholic (even if that in itself is a contradiction in terms)
Click to expand...
There is absolutely no moral ambiguity over the decision a mother must take in this circumstance.
Click to expand...
Try and save the baby or die in God’s grace and mercy trying to do so,
Click to expand...
The bigger picture is reconciling with God in Heaven for eternity.
Click to expand...
Peace in Christ
Click to expand...
Rob.
Click to expand...
Yes, yes it would have been swell if she had swallowed her disagreements and just laid back and died.
 
rms001 said:
tjm190…why are you clamouring for or insisting on moral validation of your point of view or even begin to present an argument that is basically morally reprehensible to any practising Catholic ?

I guess this explains why you consider yourself a dissident catholic (even if that in itself is a contradiction in terms)

There is absolutely no moral ambiguity over the decision a mother must take in this circumstance.

Try and save the baby or die in God’s grace and mercy trying to do so,

The bigger picture is reconciling with God in Heaven for eternity.

Peace in Christ

Rob.
Click to expand...
I agree. I have no idea why he would seek agreement here.
I can see clearly why he calls himself a dissident.
I’ve asked but received no real answer as to why he calls himself a Catholic.
Perhaps he will tell one of you gentlemen.
Me? I’m going to bed.
 
I admit, this definition doesn’t flow very well since the child was not consumed, but the point is- the child was causing the mother’s death in a way completely consistent with a poison. Of course the child is still a human being. But, by a stretch of the definition above, the child was clearly poisonous to the mother.QUOTE BY TJM 190

That’s the problem tjm190…“how far do you want to stretch the definition”…You have already stretched it to describe the baby as “consistent with poison”…!!!..by extension of your argument the baby will end up being …" a life sucking parasite"…
 
i’m not a doctor nor do i have any sort of medical background (my best claim to any medical knowledge is that my sister and brother-in-law are doctors)

but, how can a live child become “poisonous” to the mother?
 
catharina said:
I agree. I have no idea why he would seek agreement here.
I can see clearly why he calls himself a dissident.
I’ve asked but received no real answer as to why he calls himself a Catholic.
Perhaps he will tell one of you gentlemen.
Me? I’m going to bed.
Click to expand...
Only God truly knows what is in his heart.

Goodnite catharina.

Peace in Christ

Rob.
 
tjm190 said:
Do we ‘let God decide’ the outcome of cancer, heart attacks, or strokes?
Click to expand...
Now you are deliberately trying to confuse the issue. You don’t kill one person to save another in cancer, heart attacks or strokes.

We are allowed to take medicines and receive other treatment, but ultimately it is God who will determine whether we get better or not. But we are not allowed to embrace evil to try to postpone our death (and that is all medicine does, postpone our death).

–
Bill
 
choy said:
i’m not a doctor nor do i have any sort of medical background (my best claim to any medical knowledge is that my sister and brother-in-law are doctors)

but, how can a live child become “poisonous” to the mother?
Click to expand...
The same why sunlight, water, peanut butter, and just about anything else can- when those things cause adverse reactions in a person.
 
mchale said:
Now you are deliberately trying to confuse the issue. You don’t kill one person to save another in cancer, heart attacks or strokes.
Click to expand...
It appeared, to me, that it was implied that the "Catholic’ course of action would have been to sit back and hope God decided to preform a miracle. My claim is that we don’t do that- that’s tantamount to, oh I dunno, leaping from a cliff and hoping the Lord sends an angel to catch you.
We are allowed to take medicines and receive other treatment, but ultimately it is God who will determine whether we get better or not. But we are not allowed to embrace evil to try to postpone our death (and that is all medicine does, postpone our death).
Click to expand...
–
Bill
Click to expand...
You are using your conclusion to prove your conclusion- it’s evil, so we can’t do it because it’s evil.
 
rms001 said:
That’s the problem tjm190…“how far do you want to stretch the definition”…You have already stretched it to describe the baby as “consistent with poison”…!!!..by extension of your argument the baby will end up being …" a life sucking parasite"…
Click to expand...
The stretch was just that a baby is not a ‘substance’ that is ‘absorbed’ but the way the baby is affecting the mother is what you would expect from a poison- which is what I mean by ‘consistent with a poison.’
 
tjm190 said:
It appeared, to me, that it was implied that the "Catholic’ course of action would have been to sit back and hope God decided to preform a miracle. My claim is that we don’t do that- that’s tantamount to, oh I dunno, leaping from a cliff and hoping the Lord sends an angel to catch you.
Click to expand...
No, I think it is more like you fall off the cliff and hope that God Catches you, because the only way to save yourself is kill another person (who is not morally responsible for you falling off the cliff).

At some point, the ability of medicine to save us ends and we have to trust God. Sometimes we have to stop medicine because in this world, medicine is willing to do evil for a perceived good. Either way, you end up trusting God.
You are using your conclusion to prove your conclusion- it’s evil, so we can’t do it because it’s evil.
Click to expand...
No, I am using my premise (That abortion is always evil) to prove my conclusion (that we are not allowed to use it).

–
Bill
 
mchale said:
No, I think it is more like you fall off the cliff and hope that God Catches you, because the only way to save yourself is kill another person (who is not morally responsible for you falling off the cliff).
Click to expand...
Not morally responsible, but is still causing me to fall.
At some point, the ability of medicine to save us ends and we have to trust God. Sometimes we have to stop medicine because in this world, medicine is willing to do evil for a perceived good. Either way, you end up trusting God.
Click to expand...
No, I am using my premise (That abortion is always evil) to prove my conclusion (that we are not allowed to use it).
Click to expand...
–
Bill
Click to expand...
Since the general line is ‘treat both patients’, would it have been acceptable to do the following- Surgically remove the child to treat the mother (for her, the only viable course of action was to end the pregnancy) and then do everything in your power to save the baby, even though success was highly unlikely?
 
tjm190 said:
Not morally responsible, but is still causing me to fall.

Since the general line is ‘treat both patients’, would it have been acceptable to do the following- Surgically remove the child to treat the mother (for her, the only viable course of action was to end the pregnancy) and then do everything in your power to save the baby, even though success was highly unlikely?
Click to expand...
No.
Not OK.

Possible “treatment” of an 11-wk-gestation baby is unknown, doesn’t exist.
 
tjm190 said:
I’m not a doctor, so specific treatment options are beyond me- but it seems that removing and then attempting to save the baby would be entirely consistent with the Catholic position on the matter, even if there is a very very low chance of success.
Click to expand...
You embrace delusion?
Seriously. What is your problem with reality?
 
catharina said:
You embrace delusion?
Seriously. What is your problem with reality?
Click to expand...
Yes, yes everyone who disagrees with you is rejecting reality because your perspective is THE perspective.

In any event, if you could point out a problem with that course of action that’d be swell- since the fact that child is unlikely to survive, while highly unfortunate, does not mean that this does not constitute treating both patients.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top