I have a feeling the bishop is extremely angry about this entire thing. No, more than angry. I think he’s absolutely consumed with anger right now and I don’t blame him. That child was murdered and a nun was involved. What happened was horrendous.
Thanks. I missed that one.
I’m glad to post this story here, and I’m happy to see the Church standing up and sending a loud & clear message to institutions who call themselves “Catholic”, but don’t adhere to the teachings of Christ and His Church. The Diocese of Phoenix recently took away the “Catholic” status of a hospital after it had performed an abortion. Further more, one person who was Catholic that assisted in this matter, knowing that what they did goes against church teachings, was told that they automatically ex-communicated themselves from the church. Read more below.
Your logic is flawed. First of all you are neglecting the fact that all the doctors agreed that the baby was going to die, no matter what. It could have been when the mother died or it could have been when the incredibly hard decision to save SOMEONES life was made. The baby was the cause of the further exacerbation of the mother’s health problems. You can frame this anyway you like but ultimately the choice to save someone was made. It doesn’t mean the mother is worth more than the baby, it just means the something is better than nothing. Is it a hard choice? absolutely but it was the right choice and if the price for making the right choice is having your affiliation with the Roman Catholic diocese removed then that’s a choice they were clearly willing to make. You haven’t heard a single comment from anyone involved saying they wish they hadn’t done it. NOT ONE. I’m afraid RC teachings on life and abortion were woefully inadequate for this case.
No, your undrerstanding of the dignity of life is.
You understand this wasn’t an abortion according to theological experts which are Catholic right? Basically you are cow-towing to one mans opinion on this matter, a man who can be wrong, in this case is wrong, and that doesn’t seem to bother you?
I’ve noticed that the people who object so strongly do so on the basis of consequentialism. They want to do what results in the most good (a noble intention). But where they go wrong is that they define right and wrong completely in terms of the consequences. No longer are the actions judged based on their intrinisic nature, but only based on the outcomes of the actions.
I dont think the argument is based on consequentialism at all. The facts are that the baby was already in the process of dying. an organ shared by mother and baby was the cause of the problem. Removing it would cause the mother to live and the child to die. Do you really think Jesus would rather you moral your way out of helping someone when its right than do the most good you possibly can? This is not a case about the right to life, its not. You can choose to see it in that light if you want, like the bishop but its not. The details are cut and dry. The nihilistic idea that letting both of them die being the just, moral thing to do, is wrong.
I take issue with this comment. As a mother with a condition that can make pregnancy life-threatening, I have had to come to terms with the fact that it is my body, and not any future child, that has the condition. The presence of the baby exacerbates the condition. The pathology is not, however, within, or being caused directly by, the child. That is why the pathology itself can be treated (her preeclampsia could be treated, even if unsuccessfully, without directly damaging the child) but no direct harm to the child is permissable.
Again, the organ was not shared by the mother and the baby. The organ is only the mother’s. That it was supporting the baby and was stressed by the support of that baby does not make IT a healthy organ in and of it’s own right.
Wow, that is something to think about. There are people around who honestly believe that they should be able to kill children up to the age of two or three or four. There really is little difference between a child who is being born and the same child who is born - just that passage down the birth canal. Yet some people honestly can’t see the problem with PBAs. So if we take it one step further, your scenario becomes possible.are you planning on having more children? if not direct harm to the child is permitted at all why would you or anyone else with lfie threatening problems have children? This isn’t my line of reasoning but it does present a problem with your argument.
Since I dont’ see staying alive at all costs my ultimate goal in life, it isn’t a problem in theory. Of course the though of death scares me, but we all die. I would hope that faced with a similar situation I could with God’s grace stand up to that fear and continue to do the right thing, regardless of my emotions.
I’m assuming you mean why would I choose to be open to life if it means my life is threatened? Every mother’s life is threatened in one way or another by any pregnancy. It has always been that way, it used to be one of the most life threatening things for women, period (and still is, really). You lay down your life for your child the minute you become pregnant. The chances may be higher that one may have more of a problem than another, yes, but the chances you’re going to die in a plane crash are also there, and a vacation is much less fulfilling than a child.
Uh, just because we haven’t heard a single comment that anyone involved regrets the decision doesn’t mean that they don’t regret the decision. They also could very likely regret the decision but we haven’t heard about it. Also, the bishop was involved as it was a Catholic hospital and it’s clear that he regrets the decision of the hospital staff. Your logic is flawed.
If you believe this child should have been killed, then you are not pro-life.