Does the Church place the unborn at a higher value of protection than the born? (EDITED TITLE)

[bibagirl]

It seems you’ve made another goofy assumption.
I use red font to honor the Sacred Heart.
Do you use red font to express anger? Maybe so.

Funny how you only “honour the Sacred Heart” in my post!!

 

[Middleman]

I don’t think Church teaching mandates a mother to die if her life is threatened by her unborn baby. I’m sure that if the baby dies because of the need to preserve the mother’s life, then that would fall under the double effect teaching.

If your primary objective is to save the mother’s life, then the death of the baby is an unfortunate side effect.

The Church loses all credibility if it argues that a mother must needlessly die because of a legalistic point as is made by the poster catharina.

 

[ALLGIRLS]

This may seem like splitting hairs, but I think in ryecroft’s case (like in the case of tubal pregnancies), it depends on how the baby’s life ended. Was the baby delivered(either vaginally or by c-section), and then died b/c he or she was too young to survive outside the womb, or was an abortion procedure (partial birth, hysterotomy, saline, dismemberment in the womb, etc.) employed? The first (I think) would be ok, as the point is the end the pregnancy, not kill the baby. The second, obviously, would be direct abortion, intending to kill the baby (even if the reason is noble-i.e., to save the mother’s life), and is therefore always wrong.

Hope that clarifies things some.

In Christ,

Ellen

 

[Elizabeth502]

I don’t think Church teaching mandates a mother to die if her life is threatened by her unborn baby. I’m sure that if the baby dies because of the need to preserve the mother’s life, then that would fall under the double effect teaching.

If your primary objective is to save the mother’s life, then the death of the baby is an unfortunate side effect.

The Church loses all credibility if it argues that a mother must needlessly die because of a legalistic point as is made by the poster catharina.

You are correct. There are those who insist (without medical training) that there is no such situation, ever, which would require the ending of one life to save another, but those in the medical field have hundreds of examples of emergencies similar to ryecroft’s but different in the medical details. The situations I’m thinking of were all unpredictable (IOW, not brought about by previously known conditions in the mother which would in turn indicate a scheduled C-section, but were sudden & desperate turns of events). I used to think the number of such cases were infinitesimal, but they are actually more frequent than anyone thinks who is arguing that position on CAF.

 

[kage_ar]

Why, at one point of history, the church taught, and indeed implimented the burning of “witches”. .

Can you document this claim with official Church documents?

My view is that, yes the church has teachings but lets look at things with common sense too! And if Ryecroft went to two priests and they BOTH concurred with her doctors, well that´s good enough for me.
.

The priests in question were wrong if they told anyone that abortion was not a sin. The Catechism and Scripture are crystal clear.

If all the priests on earth except for one said that this sin is okey dokey, that would not make it any less of a sin.

The only differnece is the degree of culpability, the person who was led/encouraged to sin by a doctor or a priest or a dozen doctors and priests may be less culpable of that sin than someone with an informed conscience.

Take time to learn the teachings of the Church, the teachings of man should never be “good enough” for any of us.

 

[catharina]

Funny how you only “honour the Sacred Heart” in my post!!

Funny how you’ve posted fewer than 100 times
and I’ve posted more than 4000 times.

Stick around and maybe learn something -
or just continue on with your paranoid vent.
You need help with your ego? or what?
Your assumption I’ve only posted in red to you is ludicrous.

 

[catharina]

I don’t think Church teaching mandates a mother to die if her life is threatened by her unborn baby. I’m sure that if the baby dies because of the need to preserve the mother’s life, then that would fall under the double effect teaching.

If your primary objective is to save the mother’s life, then the death of the baby is an unfortunate side effect.

The Church loses all credibility if it argues that a mother must needlessly die because of a legalistic point as is made by the poster catharina.

It is not catharina’s teaching - although I hold to it 100%.
It is CHURCH TEACHING that abortion is ALWAYS a deadly sin.
If you claim otherwise, you are wrong.
If you spread such error, you are in deep trouble indeed.

 

[catharina]

This may seem like splitting hairs, but I think in ryecroft’s case (like in the case of tubal pregnancies), it depends on how the baby’s life ended. Was the baby delivered(either vaginally or by c-section), and then died b/c he or she was too young to survive outside the womb, or was an abortion procedure (partial birth, hysterotomy, saline, dismemberment in the womb, etc.) employed? The first (I think) would be ok, as the point is the end the pregnancy, not kill the baby. The second, obviously, would be direct abortion, intending to kill the baby (even if the reason is noble-i.e., to save the mother’s life), and is therefore always wrong.

Hope that clarifies things some.

In Christ,

Ellen

Remarkable how things can become so twisted.

I am saying and I repeat:
Church teaching is that abortion is ALWAYS a deadly evil.
There are no exceptions to this rule.

ryecroft is speaking of abortion.
No priest can “approve” such an action.

 

[catharina]

The priests in question were wrong if they told anyone that abortion was not a sin. The Catechism and Scripture are crystal clear.

If all the priests on earth except for one said that this sin is okey dokey, that would not make it any less of a sin.

The only differnece is the degree of culpability, the person who was led/encouraged to sin by a doctor or a priest or a dozen doctors and priests may be less culpable of that sin than someone with an informed conscience.

Take time to learn the teachings of the Church, the teachings of man should never be “good enough” for any of us.

Great to see someone else who KNOWS and supports the teaching of the Church.
How can anyone who claims to be Catholic argue otherwise?

 

[catharina]

You are correct. There are those who insist (without medical training) that there is no such situation, ever, which would require the ending of one life to save another, but those in the medical field have hundreds of examples of emergencies similar to ryecroft’s but different in the medical details. The situations I’m thinking of were all unpredictable (IOW, not brought about by previously known conditions in the mother which would in turn indicate a scheduled C-section, but were sudden & desperate turns of events). I used to think the number of such cases were infinitesimal, but they are actually more frequent than anyone thinks who is arguing that position on CAF.

There are those who INSIST on obedience to the Church teachings regarding abortion.

There are others insist on bending to this exception or that exception regarding abortion.
This latter insistence can only take place on a slippery slope.

Bending to ‘hundreds’ of grave exceptions among billions of women and millions of pregnancies can easily lead to a world that accepts euthanasia of the disabled and infirm (already in the USA) and mandated (enforced) abortion (already in China and India). Any abortionists - and those who applaud them - are in grave and deadly error.

 

[ryecroft]

Gee Catharina, there is only one person right now that I can think of besides yourself who desires obedience without question - I think his name was Hitler - people like you who say there is no grey area are a large part of the reason why the Catholic Church has lost so many members - but again, I’m sure God is just thrilled to know he can take a day off and let Catharina do all the judging!

 

[catharina]

Gee Catharina, there is only one person right now that I can think of besides yourself who desires obedience without question - I think his name was Hitler - people like you who say there is no grey area are a large part of the reason why the Catholic Church has lost so many members - but again, I’m sure God is just thrilled to know he can take a day off and let Catharina do all the judging!

Your sad and virulent disrespect is not unusual.

The entire magesterium is in agreement that abortion is always a deadly sin.
These good men have nothing in common with Hitler - although some suffered under Hitler.

Attempts to claim black is white have nothing to do with shades of grey.
Such attempts have to do with the clinging to grave error

• and maybe with personal pride or with profund ignorance.

 

[PJM]

It seems to my limited knowledge that Catholic teaching places the unborn at a higher value of protection and value than the born.

First example is the Catholic teaching that under no circumstances can direct abortion be ever permitted. Of course abortion can only be done to the unborn. However, one can kill another person (born) if in pursuit of self defence or even perceived self defence. Why is that?

Also, some Catholics who take an active role in getting an unborn baby aborted, can be excommunicated (punishment). However, if those same Catholics were to murder a born person, there would be no excommunication. How is this so?

***“All life is sacred”!

What you propose is a Moral and a practical impossibility. The Catholic Church does more for both the unborn and the needy than any other group on planet earth as is Her mandate!***

Jesus Himself tells us:

John 8: ***8 The poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me." ***

Because this is a means to heaven, and sadly a normal [abnormal] manifesitation of humanities free will (name removed by moderator)roperly excercised.

Love and prayers,

 

[sidious]

Ryecroft -

You have shared your story before, and as I recall, your child was not going to cause your death. The cause of your physical trauma was bleeding and something do do with your kidneys. The doctor told you that aborting was the only way they could treat what was wrong with you.
Kage Er

Either I said something wrong or you don’t remember correctly - because yes, had I continued with the pregnancy, I would not have lived. And yes, I’ve shared it before - I would have stayed pregnant if my life had not been in danger and yes it had to do with bleeding - keeping the pregnancy would have caused me to hemmorage more that’s why that was the only decision we could make and keep me alive. I’ve been quite specific about it and gone into great detail -if you want to say that the doctor said it was the only way to treat me, that’s partially true but you need to add in the part that this was the only way he could treat me AND keep me alive at the time. So there was only one choice to be made where I lived - I know that some on here believe that this is never ever the case, but I’m here to tell you that it is the case and there was more than one doctor concurring on what was best to be done in the short time we had. As I said, I would have kept the pregnancy if I could have but this was the only choice that could be made - it would be pointless to have the fetus and myself die.

This thread has not helped at all. The above post confirms to me that the Church places a higher value of protectioni than the born.

Consider the above circumstances:

You are pregnant and told that if the pregnancy continues, you will die. You seek a 2nd opinion and the same answer. I suppose you could seek a third but I doubt that it would make a difference.

Now while the unborn baby is innocent, that is totally irrelevant to the real and physical danger that is facing the Mother.

If our physical lives are in real danger from another person whether it be with a gun, knife or the above circumstance then tell me why it is okay to use deadly force with the first 2 scenarios (gun and knife) and not with the above circumstance? The guilt or innocence of the others is irrelevant to the physical dangers. Furthermore let me ask this: If a known serial killer came to your house and on your house you had an apple tree and the killer picked an apple and was leaving your house, would it be lawful for you to kill him/her?

 

[catharina]

This thread has not helped at all. The above post confirms to me that the Church places a higher value of protectioni than the born.

Consider the above circumstances:

You are pregnant and told that if the pregnancy continues, you will die. You seek a 2nd opinion and the same answer. I suppose you could seek a third but I doubt that it would make a difference.

Now while the unborn baby is innocent, that is totally irrelevant to the real and physical danger that is facing the Mother.

If our physical lives are in real danger from another person whether it be with a gun, knife or the above circumstance then tell me why it is okay to use deadly force with the first 2 scenarios (gun and knife) and not with the above circumstance? The guilt or innocence of the others is irrelevant to the physical dangers. Furthermore let me ask this: If a known serial killer came to your house and on your house you had an apple tree and the killer picked an apple and was leaving your house, would it be lawful for you to kill him/her?

I hope you’ll allow me to quote you to you;
In another post, you’ve said:

*(Jun 28, '08, 10:14 am
sidious
New Member Join Date: June 2, 2007)
Posts: 20
Religion: Catholic

Re: Catholicism - A Hate Crime in Canada?

---

You got to love the idiocy of some of the posters here actually professing to be Catholics while condemning its most basic teachings.

Its like supporting Al-Qaeda in philosophy but are opposed to using violence.

They would probably argue with God over what is right and wrong.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------*

It seems that you are condemning amost basic teaching of the Church:
namely, the fact that there is no exception to the laws forbidding abortion.

By your proposed standard, anybody should be free to kill anybody - at any time.
That scenario is a loooooong way from any Church teaching.

Also, Church teaching is insistent regarding the ban on abortion.
Yes, killing the totally defenseless is indeed a special sort of sin
since the unborn cannot defend their own lives; hence, the greater need for protection.

 

[ryecroft]

This thread has not helped at all. The above post confirms to me that the Church places a higher value of protectioni than the born.

Consider the above circumstances:

You are pregnant and told that if the pregnancy continues, you will die. You seek a 2nd opinion and the same answer. I suppose you could seek a third but I doubt that it would make a difference.

Now while the unborn baby is innocent, that is totally irrelevant to the real and physical danger that is facing the Mother.

If our physical lives are in real danger from another person whether it be with a gun, knife or the above circumstance then tell me why it is okay to use deadly force with the first 2 scenarios (gun and knife) and not with the above circumstance? The guilt or innocence of the others is irrelevant to the physical dangers. Furthermore let me ask this: If a known serial killer came to your house and on your house you had an apple tree and the killer picked an apple and was leaving your house, would it be lawful for you to kill him/her?

This is a very good question - it seems to me and many others to be a double standard. Still no one has answered the question why is it better to have two deaths (a mother and her pregnancy) than to have one person live?

God Bless
Rye

 

[catharina]

This is a very good question - it seems to me and many others to be a double standard. Still no one has answered the question why is it better to have two deaths (a mother and her pregnancy) than to have one person live?

God Bless
Rye

I answered it.
God is the Author of life.
God determines when a life will/should/might end.

The unborn require greater protection since they are fully defenseless.
Therefore the Church imposes (recognizes) a greater punishment for killing the unborn.

 

[ryecroft]

I answered it.
God is the Author of life.
God determines when a life will/should/might end.

The unborn require greater protection since they are fully defenseless.
Therefore the Church imposes (recognizes) a greater punishment for killing the unborn.

No you didn’t answer the question - the question is why is it better and what good comes from two dying instead of one being saved? You talk about punishment not what good comes of two deaths when one person could be saved.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Your sad and virulent disrespect is not unusual.

The entire magesterium is in agreement that abortion is always a deadly sin.
These good men have nothing in common with Hitler - although some suffered under Hitler.

Attempts to claim black is white have nothing to do with shades of grey.
Such attempts have to do with the clinging to grave error

• and maybe with personal pride or with profund ignorance.

The profound ignorance appears to be yours, with regard to the requirements of sin. No one is questioning the grave matter of abortion. But grave matter is only one element of grave sin, and not to understand this is to continue to spread grave error.

God determines when a life will/should/might end.

Right. Not you.

But he has put life in our hands and does not want us to prematurely end the life of a mother at the same time that we’re dooming the life of a growing fetus to certain death & a guaranteed mother-less existence. But luckily, you have zero authority to judge or condemn ryecroft – not just due to your lack of ecclesiastical authority, but due to your lack of credibility in your failure to understand basic Catholic moral theology.

“Virulent disrespect?” It appears that only one poster on this thread demonstrates this. It certainly isn’t ryecroft, who respected trained theologians enough to consult them on the matter.

 

[catharina]

No you didn’t answer the question - the question is why is it better and what good comes from two dying instead of one being saved? You talk about punishment not what good comes of two deaths when one person could be saved.

I’ll answer it again.
Only God can rightfully begin/end a life.

Only God has that authority.
God is the Author of life.
That is Church Teaching.
It is a matter of faith and morals.
It is not a matter of free choice for anyone.

If you have an argument or revulsion regarding this teaching, take it up with God.
The teaching is absolutely consistent within Church history.
We are not allowed to kill - especially the most innocent among us.

I mention punishment as a way to POINT OUT that indeed the Church most certainly does recognize the killing of the unborn as a particularly horrific sin - therefore it applies excommunication. Again, your argument seems to be with God’s law, not with me.