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

[diggerdomer]

I think it’s been made fairly clear on here that some believe that the life of a fetus is more valuable than the life of the mother. Apparently, since Church teaching says that abortion is never a moral answer, it’s better for a mother and a fetus to loose their lives rather than have the mother live (even if the fetus isn’t viable) - yet, at the same time if the fetus is viable than the mother is supposed to gladly die in order that it might live. It’s becoming pretty clear to me that the life of the mother is worth far lesSs than that of the fetus according to the Church.

Some may believe that. So what.

According to Catholic teaching, the life of the mother is not worth less than that of the fetus.

 

[bibagirl]

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.

I´m in a different time zone so I missed much of this debate yesterday.

Catharina, I am going to let go the fact that you call me paranoid. I can see that you are very upset by this debate and perhaps feel overwhelmed by the size of the response against your standpoint.

I have checked all this thread and Yes, I am the only one to whom you´ve addressed your reply in red font. So it is not “ludicrous” as you suggest, you must be mistaken or you lied. I vote with “mistaken”.

I´m on these threads precisely to learn more, in a respectful manner. I somewhat resent your assertion that your opinion carries more weight because you´ve posted more times. On another thread a senior member of these forums with more than 10,000 posts has been expressing very questionable beliefs (in fact illegal, and undoubtedly against church teaching). So while yes, you´ve been around these forums more than I have, that does not mean to say your opinion automatically counts for more than mine.

If you recall I originally posted you because I felt you were treating Ryecroft in a less than charitable manner in your posts, I felt you were being nasty to her. I see that harsh words are a feature of your posts. I know this must because you feel passionately about the issue but it does not help. In fact my main gripe was not what you were saying but the way in which you were saying it.

Another poster (Victorious) articulated a similar viewpoint to yours and because of his/her presentation, calm and logical, yes I had to take seriously what was being said in the post.

My last few posts to you were intended to be light-hearted and intended to diffuse the intensity, (the smiley faces should have told you this), but it seems somehow you have taken them up the wrong way. I never posted you with any intentional disrespect, I have tried to keep the tone that of a respectful debate, and I hope you too from here on in, will do the same.

Respectfully

bibagirl

 

[bibagirl]

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? .

Without wanting to hijack this thread - kage_ar, is there really any doubt about the existance of the Inquisition? Especially when Pope John Paul II even refers to it:

According to Pope John Paul II, “The Inquisition belongs to a tormented phase in the history of the Church, which . . . Christians [should] examine in a spirit of sincerity and open-mindedness.” (1)

Pope John Paul II warns us:

Yet the consideration of mitigating factors does not exonerate the Church from the obligation to express profound regret for the weaknesses of so many of her sons and daughters who sullied her face, preventing her from fully mirroring the image of her crucified Lord, the supreme witness of patient love and of humble meekness. From these painful moments of the past a lesson can be drawn for the future, leading all Christians to adhere fully to the sublime principle stated by the Council: “The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it wins over the mind with both gentleness and power.” (2)

(1) Pope John Paul II, “Address to the International Symposium on the Inquisition,” October 31, 1998.
(2) Pope John Paul II, Tertio Millennio Adveniente, no. 35, quoting Vatican II, Declaration on Religious Freedom Dignitatis Humanae, no. 1.

catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0029.html

 

[limerick]

If you don’t consider your own salvation to be invaluable then you can continue to argue against the teaching of the Church. You are certainly NOT arguing with me. Would your husband have found a better wife? Your children, a better mother? Your parents a greater service as devoted grandparents? Would YOU have been able to bless all of them abundantly from heaven - forever?

Slamming me about my age in relation to your fantasies can only prove your immaturity. I endured injuries from the birth of my son 35 years ago that left me dependent on medical care and reconstructive surgeries for 18 yrs. It changed the quality of my life forever. It ended my marriage. Would I trade the life of my precious son for an easier life. NO!

Spare me, please. Go and try your arguments with Almighty God.
You might begin with “O my God, I’m heartily sorry … .”

**Your absolute aversion to compassion is staggering, particularly in view of your own life experiences with childbirth complications. Your questioning ryecroft about her husband possibly finding a “better wife” and her children a “better mother” are cruel and only highlight the ugly “heart” that lives within you. No one knows whether another person has the ability to “bless” the survivors from a heavenly home forever. It has been my understanding all along that blessings come from God, not human souls. Since we also have no documentation regarding a soul’s stay in Purgatory, it could be that ryecroft’s sentence there would exceed her husband and children’s time on earth, and so no blessings could be bestowed upon them.

This thing is a fairy tale. If you’re going to argue from a Catholic viewpoint, then please consider the totality of Catholic doctrine and quit slamming another poster with hypotheticals. In fact, just quit slamming.

Limerick**

 

[catharina]

So are you saying that intentional killing of the defenseless “born” WILL fall under a “just war” theory?

Or are you saying that innocent unborn lives are more valuable than innocent born lives?

Sorry - I’ve no intention of responding any more to your hijack to “just war.”
Repeating: all life is sacred.

 

[catharina]

I´m in a different time zone so I missed much of this debate yesterday.

There is no debate. All life is sacred.
Abortion is ALWAYS forbidden by the Church.

Catharina, I am going to let go the fact that you call me paranoid. I can see that you are very upset by this debate and perhaps feel overwhelmed by the size of the response against your standpoint.

Yes, it greatly upsets me when I see posts that deny Church teaching on CA forums.
Glad that you’ve been able to notice that fact.

I have checked all this thread and Yes, I am the only one to whom you´ve addressed your reply in red font. So it is not “ludicrous” as you suggest, you must be mistaken or you lied. I vote with “mistaken”.

I´m on these threads precisely to learn more, in a respectful manner. I somewhat resent your assertion that your opinion carries more weight because you´ve posted more times. On another thread a senior member of these forums with more than 10,000 posts has been expressing very questionable beliefs (in fact illegal, and undoubtedly against church teaching). So while yes, you´ve been around these forums more than I have, that does not mean to say your opinion automatically counts for more than mine.

**Very complete rant, so far. You entirely missed the point though. My point re my use of red font is that I’ve used it many many times - in my many many posts. Your guess that I’ve used it in only this thread and only to target you with anger is mistaken. (To me, your take on this seems paranoid and ludicrous.)

My statement of Church teaching is exactly that. If you prefer to see the statement as an attack on others, that’s your choice. There is no way on God’s green earth that I can pretend to change the teaching of the Church to pacify others.**

If you recall I originally posted you because I felt you were treating Ryecroft in a less than charitable manner in your posts, I felt you were being nasty to her. I see that harsh words are a feature of your posts. I know this must because you feel passionately about the issue but it does not help. In fact my main gripe was not what you were saying but the way in which you were saying it.

**My “main gripe” is the denial and distortion of Church Teaching. **

Another poster (Victorious) articulated a similar viewpoint to yours and because of his/her presentation, calm and logical, yes I had to take seriously what was being said in the post.

My last few posts to you were intended to be light-hearted and intended to diffuse the intensity, (the smiley faces should have told you this), but it seems somehow you have taken them up the wrong way. I never posted you with any intentional disrespect, I have tried to keep the tone that of a respectful debate, and I hope you too from here on in, will do the same.

**Since you find yourself to be faultless, good for you.

Abortion is always a grievous wrong. That’s the ONLY teaching of the Church about it.
Case closed, The End, no equivocation needed.
Yes - I prefer the use of words to smiley faces.**

Respectfully

bibagirl

 

[catharina]

Your absolute aversion to compassion is staggering, particularly in view of your own life experiences with childbirth complications. Your questioning ryecroft about her husband possibly finding a “better wife” and her children a “better mother” are cruel and only highlight the ugly “heart” that lives within you. No one knows whether another person has the ability to “bless” the survivors from a heavenly home forever. It has been my understanding all along that blessings come from God, not human souls. Since we also have no documentation regarding a soul’s stay in Purgatory, it could be that ryecroft’s sentence there would exceed her husband and children’s time on earth, and so no blessings could be bestowed upon them.
I prefer to see ryecroft’s (potential) sacrtifical death as fully worthy of heaven. Funny that you see her on an express train to purgatory. Funny/peculiar, not funny/HaHa.

This thing is a fairy tale. If you’re going to argue from a Catholic viewpoint, then please consider the totality of Catholic doctrine and quit slamming another poster with hypotheticals. In fact, just quit slamming.

Limerick

**Thanks for your judgment.

Of course ryecroft’s husband MIGHT have found a better wife, etc…
Who can deny that fact? She asked me for reasons** regarding her possible death. I gave some.

 

[catharina]

If any here have felt targeted and taken offense at my insistence on the fact that the Church considers abortion to be a grievous evil always, in every circumstance, then my apologies for hurting your feelings. Of course, I cannot retract a word I’ve said regarding the Church Teaching.

This argumentation regarding the “neutrality” of abortion is quite new to the Church - and to the nation. It’s been fewer than forty years since this nation lost its grip regarding the immorality of abortion. It’s horrifying to see such ideas reflected by those who claim to be Catholic.

 

[TeresaAnn]

Hi Catharina,

Thanks for the references and links. One question. Would a women in Ryecroft’s situation ever have to be concerned of her death being ultimately considered suicide if she refused the abortion while being told that the baby would not survive and neither would she? I mean by God and the church. It has a good chance of being seen that way by the people around her.

I’m not sure if this conflict of church teachings has ever been considered.

Teresa

 

[Middleman]

If any here have felt targeted and taken offense at my insistence on the fact that the Church considers abortion to be a grievous evil always, in every circumstance, then my apologies for hurting your feelings. Of course, I cannot retract a word I’ve said regarding the Church Teaching.

This argumentation regarding the “neutrality” of abortion is quite new to the Church - and to the nation. It’s been fewer than forty years since this nation lost its grip regarding the immorality of abortion. It’s horrifying to see such ideas reflected by those who claim to be Catholic.

I don’t think it’s your stance, but your name calling and sanctimonious attitude that are coming across poorly here. You sound mean and unsympathetic in many of your posts, cavalierly dismissing the real concerns of others with cutting words.

 

[catharina]

Hi Catharina,

Thanks for the references and links. One question. Would a women in Ryecroft’s situation ever have to be concerned of her death being ultimately considered suicide if she refused the abortion while being told that the baby would not survive and neither would she? I mean by God and the church. It has a good chance of being seen that way by the people around her.

I’m not sure if this conflict of church teachings has ever been considered.

Teresa

Absolutely not.

There is no way to imagine or posit that her efforts to preserve the life of her child could equal an act of willful suicide. Our lives and the moments of our deaths are God’s call.

 

[catharina]

I don’t think it’s your stance, but your name calling and sanctimonious attitude that are coming across poorly here. You sound mean and unsympathetic in many of your posts, cavalierly dismissing the real concerns of others with cutting words.

Thanks for offering your opinion.

 

[bibagirl]

Would a women in Ryecroft’s situation ever have to be concerned of her death being ultimately considered suicide if she refused the abortion while being told that the baby would not survive and neither would she? I mean by God and the church. It has a good chance of being seen that way by the people around her.

I’m not sure if this conflict of church teachings has ever been considered.

Teresa

TeresaAnn you have articulated something I was thinking too. It is a very good question. Do any other posters have any thoughts on this? Besides Cathrina I mean, as she has already offered her opinion.

 

[bibagirl]

I don’t think it’s your stance, but your name calling and sanctimonious attitude that are coming across poorly here. You sound mean and unsympathetic in many of your posts, cavalierly dismissing the real concerns of others with cutting words.

:yup:

 

[Indyann]

I don’t think it’s your stance, but your name calling and sanctimonious attitude that are coming across poorly here. You sound mean and unsympathetic in many of your posts, cavalierly dismissing the real concerns of others with cutting words.

Sugar-coating the truth does no one any good. Sometimes the truth is just the truth.

 

[kage_ar]

Without wanting to hijack this thread - kage_ar, is there really any doubt about the existance of the Inquisition? Especially when Pope John Paul II even refers to it:

According to Pope John Paul II, “The Inquisition belongs to a tormented phase in the history of the Church, which . . . Christians [should] examine in a spirit of sincerity and open-mindedness.” (1)

Pope John Paul II warns us:

Yet the consideration of mitigating factors does not exonerate the Church from the obligation to express profound regret for the weaknesses of so many of her sons and daughters who sullied her face, preventing her from fully mirroring the image of her crucified Lord, the supreme witness of patient love and of humble meekness. From these painful moments of the past a lesson can be drawn for the future, leading all Christians to adhere fully to the sublime principle stated by the Council: “The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it wins over the mind with both gentleness and power.” (2)

(1) Pope John Paul II, “Address to the International Symposium on the Inquisition,” October 31, 1998.
(2) Pope John Paul II, Tertio Millennio Adveniente, no. 35, quoting Vatican II, Declaration on Religious Freedom Dignitatis Humanae, no. 1.

catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0029.html

As you are the one who claimed the Church burned witches and used it to support abortion, to answer my request for support of THAT CLAIM is not a hijack. You are the one who plopped a big red herring on the table.

A simple “no, I cannot show where the Church ordered people to be burned as witches” or “yes, here is where the Church ordered withches to be burned” would be a plenty fine answer.

The Church has NEVER officially taught that one life is more valuable than another, it seems many here feel that the lives of adults are move valuable than the lives of babies. As a mother, I value the life of my child above my life every day of the week.

 

[kage_ar]

Hi Catharina,

Thanks for the references and links. One question. Would a women in Ryecroft’s situation ever have to be concerned of her death being ultimately considered suicide if she refused the abortion while being told that the baby would not survive and neither would she? I mean by God and the church. It has a good chance of being seen that way by the people around her.

I’m not sure if this conflict of church teachings has ever been considered.

Teresa

I am a mother, and I have lost a pre born child. I would lay down my life for the life of my child right now.

If I saw a madman with a gun aiming at a strangers child, I would throw myself in front of that bullet to save a child I do not even know.

Frankly, I cannot imagine what goes on in the mind of someone who would not try to save a child.

 

[bibagirl]

As you are the one who claimed the Church burned witches and used it to support abortion, to answer my request for support of THAT CLAIM is not a hijack. You are the one who plopped a big red herring on the table.

A simple “no, I cannot show where the Church ordered people to be burned as witches” or “yes, here is where the Church ordered withches to be burned” would be a plenty fine answer.
.

kage_ar I´m weary. It seems there´s no pleasing you. I answer your request for information as thoroughly as I can without being long-winded, and you still criticise me. If I didn´t provide sources, I´m sure you would not be content either. :banghead:

My arguement was not for abortion. I am not pro-abortion and cannot see how you got that idea. My arguement was, sometimes church teaching needs to be taken with a pinch of salt as certain teachings end up being interpreted in different ways as time goes by. I gave the Inquisition as an example as it was chuch teaching that was later regretted.

I agree that abortion is wrong. I do not suggest that the Church´s teaching is erroneous, just that with time the church´s teachings scope may also take into account exceptional cases such as Ryecroft´s situation, which as I understand it, to date the Vatican has not said anything about this type of controversial pregnancies.

 

[kage_ar]

kage_ar I´m weary. It seems there´s no pleasing you. I answer your request for information as thoroughly as I can without being long-winded, and you still criticise me. If I didn´t provide sources, I´m sure you would not be content either. :banghead:

My arguement was not for abortion. I am not pro-abortion and cannot see how you got that idea. My arguement was, sometimes church teaching needs to be taken with a pinch of salt as certain teachings end up being interpreted in different ways as time goes by. I gave the Inquisition as an example as it was chuch teaching that was later regretted.

I agree that abortion is wrong. I do not suggest that the Church´s teaching is erroneous, just that with time the church´s teachings scope may also take into account exceptional cases such as Ryecroft´s situation, which as I understand it, to date the Vatican has not said anything about this type of controversial pregnancies.

The Church has never taught error. Never ever ever ever.

Church teachings in matters of Faith and Morals have never changed, they are eternal and outside of time.

As far as “controversial pregnancies”, the Church in her wisdom says one can never choose one life over another. A pregnant mother may be treated for a life threatening condition, that treatment cannont include the direct killing of her child. It is in the Catechism, it is in many Church documents - you can read all of these on line at www.vatican.va

When a doctor says a mother will die without treatment, the Christian mother must insist that the child not be killed. If the child must be removed from the body of the mother, the child is to be delivered - surgically or vaginally - and then baptized and treated with the proper medical care and respect. Should the child live one second or one hundred years after that delivery, the child is not to be intentionally killed.

Why is this so hard to understand?

(psst, your link said nothing about witch burning…)

 

[TeresaAnn]

I am a mother, and I have lost a pre born child. I would lay down my life for the life of my child right now.

Yes, most mothers would

If I saw a madman with a gun aiming at a strangers child, I would throw myself in front of that bullet to save a child I do not even know.

Um hum, yes… you are not alone on this one either

Frankly, I cannot imagine what goes on in the mind of someone who would not try to save a child.

Me neither. What does this have to do with my post that you quoted?