Defending Life

[dylanschrader]

What good result?! We are talking about two alternatives: abortion which would kill an innocent human life or an 11 year old who will be called a whore by her cruel classmates and will relive the rape every time the baby kicks. Either way, she could lose it and we could lose her.

What I said was that we can’t do evil even to bring about a good result, that is, we may not use evil as a means to a good end.

An example of a good end would be preserving one’s health.
An example of an evil means would be having an abortion.

So, for example, may one have an abortion to preserve one’s health? No.

That’s what I said.

According to Vatican II, the Catholic church does not even judge Protestants. But a Catholic can judge what’s in an 11 year old stranger’s heart? Umm, yeeah, if you say so. Good luck with that. I don’t recall them going over that when I went through RCIA. Must be a new Encyclical or something.

I’m not sure what you’re responding to with this.

 

[Socio_Momma]

l4l.org/ You might want to check this site out, I am not a libertarian but it gives very good reasoned and non-religious reasons why NO human being should be put to death in the case of abortion. It is a very good site for information regardless of one’s political affiliation.

As someone who was once 11 and abused/assaulted I can say no power or removal of pain I experienced could ever come from killing another person.

The violence of abortion also does not create peace or justice, instead it creates destruction and denies justice to its most vulnerable victim the human being in the womb unable to defend itself. It also enacts a new form of violence and forces deep spiritual pain upon the mother, who will have to carry the memory of the death of her child with her for the rest of her life.

Being called names is horrible & having to suffer with the conflicting agony that may result of an unwanted pregnancy via rape/incest is horrible. It is something that should never happen. However, neither compare with being put to death. Spiritual and emotional counseling is available & should be available to help any woman who has been sexually abused/assaulted/raped. This has been shown in all cases to reduce in any concern of PTSD. In fact, studies indicate that victims of violence are more likely to suffer from PTSD after an abortion, even the Guttmacher Institute (pro-abortion rights) in the past few years has come to acknowledge that victims of sexual abuse or violence are more likely to suffer negative psychological outcomes after an abortion. So abortion for the rape victim/survivor could be a cause for PTSD.

There are many options for support out there today than even 15 years ago for teen mothers and for mothers who are dealing with trauma. A pp listed there are really good programs for those who are having to face a pregnancy as a young person, there are also equally good programs for adults who are out of the educational setting. Support should always be given to those who continue with life.

Should it happen as has been suggested could occur that the mother’s life is in direct danger it is morally permissible if the mother needs a procedure to save her life (should a major life threatening medical complication arise) at any point in the pregnancy to give it even if the indirect effect would cause the death of the pre-born child. This is very different than directly ending a life through the means of an abortion & is rare. Given the current advancements in reproductive health care there is never a situation where the direct death (via abortion) of the preborn human is necessary to save the mother’s life. There are times where a medical procedure for a mother could indirectly harm the pre-born child but again this is very rare (ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/INDIRECT.TXTewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/INDIRECT.TXT --covers indirect abortion which is very different than direct abortion). The direct ending of an innocent and vulnerable human life is never justified. When you look at it directly ending a human life based on the “what-ifs” is not good medical ethics.

It is a sad & horrific state of our world that any child is sexually abused and/or raped. However, abortion doesn’t solve any problems it only creates new ones. It doesn’t make a girl unpregnant or erase her experience as a victim. Instead it makes her the mother of a child whose life was destroyed, it revictimizes her and has her partake in the death of another.

It just really bothers me that as a society we seem to get rooted in debating abortion for victims of sexual violence instead of really trying to clearly address why these crimes occur. Not saying anyone here is doing that just that our overall society seems to have gotten focused on abortion as a solution (which it’s not) and not focused enough on what causes the real problems of sexual violence. If we don’t deal with why rape/incest occurs in the first place nothing will ever be solved. It also bothers me that pro-abortion rights persons always try to justify the usage of abortion based on rare & tragic cases. I mean how could a person’s heart not ache for an 11 year old place in that position? And that is why the image of “her” is used as a justification for a means that is never OK.

OP by getting you to possibly concide abortion is OK in a rare & tragic case (the rape of an innocent pre-teen) it becomes abortion is OK in the vast majority of cases where the circumstances are very different because you already agreed it was OK to end an innocent human life in the womb, so why not others?

Anyway I hope that the OP is getting some good ways to open discussion and get other posters in that forum to understand more why one would not support direct abortion in any case.

edit clarity

 

[Socio_Momma]

Wanted to add for the OP that mother’s health as is often discussed is a general term that is not the same as mother’s life when pro-abortion rights persons discuss it. Mother’s life often gets lumped in with health when really health is a really broad based term in relation to abortion that includes multiple well-being factors, physical, psychological, and emotional health. It is was broadly defined in Doe v. Bolton and is not the same as the immediate issue of the mother’s life where the mother literally needs a life saving procedure at that moment. The latter being what it gets linked to but it is not.

Even still it is never morally permissible to directly end the preborn human’s life in those cases where the mother’s life is immediately being compromised or may be in immediate jeopardy of death. We cannot try to obtain good/just ends through evil/unjust means. The EWTN link gives a very good explanation of how indirect abortion is not the same as direct.

*edit missing words *

 

[redheadsmommy]

I am just playing devil’s advocate here because I would like to hear opinions when this same situation is put in more specific details. My eleven year old weighs 65 pounds and wears a size eight in childrens clothing. If she were to become pregnant it would probably kill her to carry a baby to term. As a parent, isn’t it my obligation to protect my child. I am not an advocate for abortion in any way but I am trying to see how one could tell me, the mother of an eleven year old who could possibly die if she continues with the pregnancy, how I can possibly choose between my child and a grandchild. I am looking for responses that one could use to help parents make choices in this kind of difficult situation.
Thank you.
Deborah

 

[Holly3278]

Abortion is never justified, not even when the mother’s life is at risk. Tell them not to get an abortion and pray for them! Mary’s intercession is especially helpful for this.

 

[mapleoak]

I am just playing devil’s advocate here because I would like to hear opinions when this same situation is put in more specific details. My eleven year old weighs 65 pounds and wears a size eight in childrens clothing. If she were to become pregnant it would probably kill her to carry a baby to term. As a parent, isn’t it my obligation to protect my child. I am not an advocate for abortion in any way but I am trying to see how one could tell me, the mother of an eleven year old who could possibly die if she continues with the pregnancy, how I can possibly choose between my child and a grandchild. I am looking for responses that one could use to help parents make choices in this kind of difficult situation.
Thank you.
Deborah

As a parent, it IS your obligation to protect your child. It is NOT your obligation to kill an innocent person in order to do that. Nobody should tell you to choose between you child or your grandchild. This is not your choice to make. This is God’s choice. How can ones daughter be encouraged to kill HER son/daughter so that she would remove the ‘possibility’ of dying. We will all possibly die, only God knows when, and should be left to His will and trust in His wisdom.
Consider the cross and special opportunity God is giving her. He may call her out of this world and reward her greatly for choosing to take up that cross. Suppose she does choose to kill her child, and is called of this world anyway. Will you be able to live with the fact that you encouraged your daughter to commit murder just before she died.

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

 

[Socio_Momma]

I am just playing devil’s advocate here because I would like to hear opinions when this same situation is put in more specific details. My eleven year old weighs 65 pounds and wears a size eight in childrens clothing. If she were to become pregnant it would probably kill her to carry a baby to term. As a parent, isn’t it my obligation to protect my child. I am not an advocate for abortion in any way but I am trying to see how one could tell me, the mother of an eleven year old who could possibly die if she continues with the pregnancy, how I can possibly choose between my child and a grandchild. I am looking for responses that one could use to help parents make choices in this kind of difficult situation.
Thank you.
Deborah

It is your obligation to provide your daughter with the best medical and spiritual care possible. It is also your obligation to allow for your daughter to give her child the best medical & spiritual care possible. Yet, this cannot be done at the expense of human life. Both lives can be maintained and given healthy outcomes.

There an assumption being made that a small stature female cannot carry a baby to near or to full term because it would “kill her” and this is not true. There are many medical cases of small stature females giving birth and both mom & baby are healthy. An early vaginal delivery may be necessary or a possible c-section (should a pelvic problem present itself), it would allow for both lives to be healthy & maintained.

There are also many cases of females with various forms of genetic disorders that endow them with a smaller than average stature that give birth to healthy babies all around the world. Think of the TLC show with the Roloff family (Little People, Big World), Amy Roloff is 4 ft tall and has birthed 4 children (2 singletons & a set of twins). There was also a recent case that the media featured of a 37lb, 3 foot tall woman with a major medical disorder called Type 3 osteogenesis imperfecta, a disorder that makes bones soft and brittle. who gave birth to a healthy babymsnbc.msn.com/id/11261633/

It is possible to give birth, maintain the health of both mom & baby, and have a positive outcome even with a smaller stature female as mom.

There are also many cases from around the world where a small stature pre-teen girls have given birth and both mom & baby have healthy outcomes. Again it may increase the probability of a c-section if there is a pelvic obstruction or require an induction but both lives can be saved. There is no need to do a preventitive measure and abort the preborn child, there is never a medical reason to do this. Instead we treat the medical complication as it arises and should attempt to protect both patients lives (mom & baby). It is not ideal by any means for a child to give birth in the hypotheticals presented in this thread but it is medically possible.

However, should it ever become the case that the female needed a life saving operation or procedure (i.e. she develops a cancerous uterus or has an ectopic pg) that could indirectly harm the preborn this may be morally permissible. But these cases are rare and still do not justify the direct ending of the preborn human’s life. The EWTN link in an earlier post explains it better.

 

[gvogt4]

Did you even read the rest of my post?

I did. Not everyone matures at the same rate nor is everyone equally informed, nor are social and moral environments the same for each person (especially children). Many other variable factors exist as well. Where one 11 year old child might benefit from being included in the decision, another might be further traumatized. (Personally, I believe that most 11 year olds are not capable of comprehending all or even most of the implications of such a decision either way.) Either way, I’d like to be on record as saying that the unnecessary taking of life can never be justified. I would see this as unnecessary although very tragic.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

If you don’t want to get into a debate on morality then say the following:

a) Abortion is a permanent solution (with its own problems) to a temporary problem;

b) Correlations have been demonstrated between abortion and the following:

breast cancer;
depression;
suicide;
infertility;
divorce;
subsequent “unwanted” pregnancies and abortions.

If you want to clearly describe the factors in evaluating the morality of abortion then take a pencil and paper and do the following analysis:

Principle of Double Effect:

For the act in question to be licit, all Five Tests for Double Effect must be met.

1. The object of the act must not be intrinsically contradictory to one’s fundamental commitment to God and neighbor (including oneself), that is, it must be a good action judged by its moral object (in other words, the action must not be intrinsically evil);
2. The direct intention of the agent must be to achieve the beneficial effects and to avoid the foreseen harmful effects as far as possible, that is, one must only indirectly intend the harm;
3. The foreseen beneficial effects must not be achieved by means of the foreseen harmful effects, when no other means of achieving those effects are available;
4. The foreseen beneficial effects must be equal to or greater than the foreseen harmful effects (the proportionate judgment);
5. The beneficial effects must follow from the action at least as immediately as do the harmful effects.

Object of the Act

There are two categories of intention: proximate intention and indirect (remote or circumstantial) intention. It is the proximate intention which counts.

 

[estesbob]

I am just playing devil’s advocate here because I would like to hear opinions when this same situation is put in more specific details. My eleven year old weighs 65 pounds and wears a size eight in childrens clothing. If she were to become pregnant it would probably kill her to carry a baby to term. As a parent, isn’t it my obligation to protect my child. I am not an advocate for abortion in any way but I am trying to see how one could tell me, the mother of an eleven year old who could possibly die if she continues with the pregnancy, how I can possibly choose between my child and a grandchild. I am looking for responses that one could use to help parents make choices in this kind of difficult situation.
Thank you.
Deborah

11 year olds are pefectly capable of bearinbg a child regardless of their weight or size. The worst case sceneario would be she would have to get a C section.

However I once again want to point out that we are dissuccing this issue on the far fringes-discussing improbable circumstances that rarely if ever occur. You dont detemine profound moral issues on rare or unlikely circumtances.

 

[The_Confused_1]

Thanks to everyone who has helped so far. I truly appreciate it. I have another question. Some have argued that since a “clump of cells” can’t think, it is not a human so therefore abortion is not murder. to this I replied that the ability to think doesn’'t define a human, Than the person asked, “Then what does?” I am at a loss as to how to anwser. I would appreciate any help and any prayers.

God Bless.

 

[TheApologist]

Thanks to everyone who has helped so far. I truly appreciate it. I have another question. Some have argued that since a “clump of cells” can’t think, it is not a human so therefore abortion is not murder. to this I replied that the ability to think doesn’'t define a human, Than the person asked, “Then what does?” I am at a loss as to how to anwser. I would appreciate any help and any prayers.

God Bless.

You should say after they say it can’t think…“oh, so since it can’t think, it doesn’t have memory?” “can you remember being 6 months old?”

Also, as Catholics we believe, in the very least, that having your soul constitutes life. The question is…what do THEY define a human.

 

[Catholig]

Thanks to everyone who has helped so far. I truly appreciate it. I have another question. Some have argued that since a “clump of cells” can’t think, it is not a human so therefore abortion is not murder. to this I replied that the ability to think doesn’'t define a human, Than the person asked, “Then what does?” I am at a loss as to how to anwser. I would appreciate any help and any prayers.

God Bless.

If you are catholic the soul defines a human being, if you are an atheist consciousness/thinking/human intellect defines where or not one is a human being. How I’d argue that would be simply to ask questions and to proceed with answers. Would someone in a comma be human (being)? Would someone who is dead be human (being)? Then listen to their answers. Also you can bring up the fact that we don’t gain conciousness/thought/self awareness until about a week after birth (something an atheist told me). In that case ask him whether infanticide is acceptable within the first week after birth.

This isn’t really an argument mind you, just suggestions of details or questions which can be used in an argument.

Catholig

 

[Larry1700]

Zenit.org has an excellent speech by Robert George of Princeton on this issue. Unfortunately, I don’t know how to link to it, since I’m at work right now. Following is the header information, and first paragraph. It is fairly long, and I am only including the introductory paragraph for the sake of reference. It deals with several issues we talk about so often on these forums, such as the Church’s position on when life begins, the war in Iraq, the death penalty, how to deal with so-called “Catholic” politicians, etc.

**Robert George on Politics and Conscience
“Freedom Is a Two Way Street”" **

VATICAN CITY, APRIL 21, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Here is the text of an address by Robert George on political obligations and moral conscience.

---

**XIII General Assembly
Program of the Preparatory Meeting of September 29-30, 2006
Casa Bonus Pastor
Vatican City

Political Obligations, Moral Conscience, and Human Life

Robert P. George
McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence
Princeton University **
The Catholic Church proclaims the principle that every human being – without regard to race, sex, or ethnicity, and equally without regard to age, size, stage of development, or condition of dependency – is entitled to the full protection of the laws.

The Church teaches that human beings at every stage of development – including those at the embryonic and fetal stages – and those in every condition – including those who are mentally retarded or physically disabled, and those who are suffering from severe dementias or other memory and mind-impairing afflictions – possess fundamental human rights. Above all, each of us possesses the right to life.

I hope you will all take time to read the entire article.

 

[Montalban]

If you are catholic the soul defines a human being,
Catholig

When did the soul enter the being to make it human?

 

[Catholig]

When did the soul enter the being to make it human?

Well I’m talking about Catholicism so obviously I will say at conception, because the Church has said so. I highly doubt that there will be scientific evidence one way or the other.

Catholig

 

[Montalban]

Well I’m talking about Catholicism so obviously I will say at conception, because the Church has said so. I highly doubt that there will be scientific evidence one way or the other.

Catholig

I’m not after scientific evidence, Church teaching, or even just your opinion.

What happens then to the soul in the case of twins which don’t form till after conception?

Does the soul split and so twins have half a soul? Or, does God infuse an extra soul because he knows twins will occur?

 

[Catholig]

I’m not after scientific evidence, Church teaching, or even just your opinion.

What happens then to the soul in the case of twins which don’t form till after conception?

Does the soul split and so twins have half a soul? Or, does God infuse an extra soul because he knows twins will occur?

Well if you aren’t after any of those three things I am unsure what you are looking for, but I will say that the soul doesn’t split. God endows the twin (the cell that splits off of the first cell) with its own soul. The first cell (twin)'s soul is unaffected. One was simply in existence longer.

Catholig

 

[Larry1700]

I’m not after scientific evidence, Church teaching, or even just your opinion.

What happens then to the soul in the case of twins which don’t form till after conception?

Does the soul split and so twins have half a soul? Or, does God infuse an extra soul because he knows twins will occur?

I’ll top that question. My supervisor was previously an EEG tech in a research lab that studied the girl(s) with two heads. You may have seen her/them on TV. My supervisor said above the waist they have separate internal organs. Do(es) she/they have only one soul, or two?

My personal opinion is that there are two souls.

 

[Montalban]

Well if you aren’t after any of those three things I am unsure what you are looking for, but I will say that the soul doesn’t split. God endows the twin (the cell that splits off of the first cell) with its own soul. The first cell (twin)'s soul is unaffected. One was simply in existence longer.

Catholig

Sorry, a typo. I meant to write
’m not after scientific evidence, Church teaching, -]or even /-]just your opinion.

So therefore a twin gets a soul after conception, not at conception