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

  • Thread starter Thread starter sidious
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Middleman said:
Thank you Ready for that excellent information and support for Ryecroft.

I think it’s just terrible the way posters are condemning her on this thread, it’s very nasty and unChristian. It detracts from the pro-life cause greatly by being unreasonable in a very rare situation.

It would be more helpful for the poster Catharina, who apparently feels very strongly about the issue, to better use her time and energy in saving the lives of babies who are being aborted everyday to healthy mothers from healthy wombs. Poor Ryecroft lost her baby whom she loved and now she has fingers pointing at her on what should be a Christian board. That’s disgraceful.
Click to expand...
I believe these post-ers meant well. They just were probably unaware of the Church’s teaching on indirect abortions and the priciple of double effect and how the Church teaches that under the right circumstances such a termination of pregnancy is permitted
with no culpability on the part of the mother.
 
I do not want to lead any of you post-ers astray and I do not want to incur mortal sin for being careless on this very important topic of abortion, so I will state that I know of one case when indierct abortion is permitted and that is the case of a woman with uterine cancer who is pregnant. In this case the uterus may be removed to prevent the cancer from spreading to the rest of her body and unfortunately the child’s life is lost. (Fr. John Corapi discussed such a case on EWTN not too long ago.) There very well could be other cases, but we’ll have to investigate to find out what those cases would be. I hope and pray ryecroft’s case is included with the pathology case. It is a complicated case from what she has explained to me and I am far from an expert on the issue of indirect abortions to have anything definitive to say. I pray that she and we all can get better familiar with the topic so we can be helpful and not hurtful to each other.
 
catharina said:
ryecroft claimed THIS:
She has said she ended the pregnancy.

That sounds like deliberate action to me.

Why you think othewise is beyond me.
Have you read other posts by ryecroft that supports your logic?
I haven’t read any like that.

ryecroft said she had an abortion and in other threads, she says she’s pro-choice.
Why do you insist on a view that ryecroft hasn’t claimed fo herself?
It seems so fantastic.

Can you quote ryecroft regarding your claims of her postion?
If you can, please do so.
So far, your opinions are less than helpful.
My opinions regarding this are based on ryecroft’s words, not on my suppositions.
Click to expand...
O.K. - I’ve gotten some PM’s asking me to come back on this thread - I appreciate all of the support - everything was getting so nasty that I had just used the ignore feature- I knew if I kept watching and replying that I would find myself saying some very unkind and hurtful things- to those that havecome to my defence, aided me, and not condemned me I offer my love and thanks - when I came back on to read the ignored posts, I found I had more love and support than I ever expected !

In response to the question/quote please look at post 62 on this thread - here it is:

“You quote teaching but you still don’t say why it’s better to have two deaths than to have one person live - especially when there was no chance of the fetus at 15 weeks 5-7 days living outside of me. The doctor did say that within 10 minutes the fetus would have been dead anyway - but then I would have been too. I wish it would have been possible for the fetus to live when they had to go in and stop the bleeding - it seems that it would have been more acceptable to you to have had me wait out the time until the fetus died but then I would have been dead too - but one thing was made clear - regardless the fetus wouldn’t make it - I almost didn’t - and there was absolutely no good that would come from the death of both myself and the fetus. You say there was no free choice - you’re right - had the doctors not done what they did than it would have been suiscide for me. I don’t have an argument with God as I said, I’ve already talked to two priests about it and been told in both cases that I didn’t do anything wrong. But apparently you believe you know better than two priests. You better pray that God isn’t as black and white with judgement as you are - because not only do I expect that you would be in a heap more trouble than you expect but so would everyone else. I’m not worried about what God will say on judgement day regarding this - I did the best I could- at the beginning I was told it was likely to cause renal failure if I continued - the preeclampsia and hemmoraging almost cost me my life and my reproductive organs.”

I think It’s made fairly clear by the words “I wish it would have been possible for the fetus to live when they had to go in and stop the bleeding…” that I wasn’t describing making an appointment at planned parenthood walking in (and then an hour later or how ever long it takes) walking back out sans fetus-

I’m actually glad now that this post has gone on as long as it has now because I’m really believe that some were not aware that double effect applied to abortion - many believed that it didn’t apply to the use of contreceptives either. This is understandable that unless they had come in contact with this teaching are now aware of it. At least now that even though (and I paraphrase) the Church says that artificial contreception is never permissable in a marriage that there are exceptions as well as when the Church says that (paraphrase again) abortion is never a moral option there is an exception. In all honesty, I did not know the name of the reason why I was told by the Priests that I did nothing wrong . (As a side, if anyone is thinking that, "wait, now they know that sometimes artifical birth control is an abortifacient-specifically with the pill when not taken completely regualrly at the same time each day - the Priest on here by the name of Fr. Serpa has given a reply to this :

This is a very important matter that is widely misunderstood:

The Church considers a miscarriage to be a physical evil. Since abortion DELIBERATELY causes a miscarriage, it is therefore also a MORAL evil. The Church sees an UNintended miscarriage as only a physical evil since it is not deliberately caused by the couple.

The use of the pill for medical reasons may cause an UNintended miscarriage. Women often have unintended miscarriages—sometimes without even knowing it. It is only miscarriages that are INTENDED that the Church considers immoral. The Church never allows the pill to be used as an abortifacient. But it does allow the use of the pill for medical reasons with the possiblity of producing an unintended miscarriage—without obliging the couple to abstain from sexual relations during that time.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

I did used to consider myself as being pro life - but since I have been on here, it has been pounded into me that any Catholic who believes that even one termination of pregnancy regardless of the reasons or circumstances is not pro life but pro choice or anti life. So I will say that it would be better for the woman to be able to choose (in my opinion) if the other option would be that the woman would die. (Thank you to those that have told me that they don’t believe this qualifies me as such.

God Bless-
Rye
 
ryecroft said:
O.K. - I’ve gotten some PM’s asking me to come back on this thread - I appreciate all of the support - everything was getting so nastythat I had just used the ignore feature -
please look at post 62 on this thread - here it is:

“You quote teaching but you still don’t say why it’s better to have two deaths than to have one person live - especially when there was no chance of the fetus at 15 weeks 5-7 days living outside of me. The doctor did say that within 10 minutes the fetus would have been dead anyway - but then I would have been too. I wish it would have been possible for the fetus to live when they had to go in and stop the bleeding - it seems that it would have been more acceptable to you to have had me wait out the time until the fetus died but then I would have been dead too - but one thing was made clear - regardless the fetus wouldn’t make it - I almost didn’t - and there was absolutely no good that would come from the death of both myself and the fetus. You say there was no free choice - you’re right - had the doctors not done what they did than it would have been suiscide for me. I don’t have an argument with God as I said, I’ve already talked to two priests about it and been told in both cases that I didn’t do anything wrong. But apparently you believe you know better than two priests. You better pray that God isn’t as black and white with judgement as you are - because not only do I expect that you would be in a heap more trouble than you expect but so would everyone else. I’m not worried about what God will say on judgement day regarding this - I did the best I could- at the beginning I was told it was likely to cause renal failure if I continued - the preeclampsia and hemmoraging almost cost me my life and my reproductive organs.”

I think It’s made fairly clear by the words “I wish it would have been possible for the fetus to live when they had to go in and stop the bleeding…” that I wasn’t describing making an appointment at planned parenthood walking in (and then an hour later or how ever long it takes) walking back out sans fetus-

I’m actually glad now that this post has gone on as long as it has now because I’m really believe that some were not aware that double effect applied to abortion - many believed that it didn’t apply to the use of contreceptives either. This is understandable that unless they had come in contact with this teaching are now aware of it. At least now that even though (and I paraphrase) the Church says that artificial contreception is never permissable in a marriage that there are exceptions as well as when the Church says that (paraphrase again) abortion is never a moral option there is an exception. In all honesty, I did not know the name of the reason why I was told by the Priests that I did nothing wrong . (As a side, if anyone is thinking that, "wait, now they know that sometimes artifical birth control is an abortifacient-specifically with the pill when not taken completely regualrly at the same time each day - the Priest on here by the name of Fr. Serpa has given a reply to this :

This is a very important matter that is widely misunderstood:

The Church considers a miscarriage to be a physical evil. Since abortion DELIBERATELY causes a miscarriage, it is therefore also a MORAL evil. The Church sees an UNintended miscarriage as only a physical evil since it is not deliberately caused by the couple.

The use of the pill for medical reasons may cause an UNintended miscarriage. Women often have unintended miscarriages—sometimes without even knowing it. It is only miscarriages that are INTENDED that the Church considers immoral. The Church never allows the pill to be used as an abortifacient. But it does allow the use of the pill for medical reasons with the possiblity of producing an unintended miscarriage—without obliging the couple to abstain from sexual relations during that time.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

I did used to consider myself as being pro life - but since I have been on here, it has been pounded into me that any Catholic who believes that even one termination of pregnancy regardless of the reasons or circumstances is not pro life but pro choice or anti life. So I will say that it would be better for the woman to be able to choose (in my opinion) if the other option would be that the woman would die. (Thank you to those that have told me that they don’t believe this qualifies me as such.

God Bless-
Rye
Click to expand...
I believe everything those good priests told you. It resonates with everything I know.
 
If I understand things properly a direct abortion is when the doctor “touches” the fetus to directly kill the child and an indirect abortion is when the child’s life is taken not by the doctor directly “touching” the child to kill him or her, but as a result of some other action not involving a direct “touch” to the fetus for the purpose of taking his or her life. I hope that helps…and I hope I got things straight.
 
Middleman said:
Thank you Ready for that excellent information and support for Ryecroft.

I think it’s just terrible the way posters are condemning her on this thread, it’s very nasty and unChristian. It detracts from the pro-life cause greatly by being unreasonable in a very rare situation.

It would be more helpful for the poster Catharina, who apparently feels very strongly about the issue, to better use her time and energy in saving the lives of babies who are being aborted everyday to healthy mothers from healthy wombs. Poor Ryecroft lost her baby whom she loved and now she has fingers pointing at her on what should be a Christian board. That’s disgraceful.
Click to expand...
Get it straight. Abortion is being condemned, not ryecroft.
The only poster being condemned is “Catharina.”

I have worked in the pro-life field for more than forty years.
(California made abortion legal before the nation did.)

I have degrees from the Jesuits in Theology and Psycholgy.

I directed a residential pro-life program for women. I attended 100 labor-deliveries.
I witnessed the deaths of four babies - and of no mothers.

Then I worked in a skilled-nursing unit serving battered infants and toddlers.
I witnessed multiple deaths over a 3-yr period.

Otherwise I have always served children in residential care - totally pro-life in all.
Finally retiring from social work in exhaustion and with rheumatoid arthritis, I’m a nanny.

As a nanny I usually serve special-needs babies and toddlers.
Sets of preemie twins, babies in chemo for retinoblastoma, you get the message?
My “favorite” baby is now almost five yrs old.
Her mother was in ICU for 9 days after birth.
Baby was extremely premature; at birth, 1 lb 1 oz.
Baby’s twin died at 5 wks of age.
Baby, now a little girl, has NO deficits.
Mother is fully recovered.

When able, I pray the rosary in front of the local abortion Clinic."
It “serves” healthy mothers and babies.

What would lead anyone like you, a stranger, to imagine you know me?

Have you noticed how quickly the world judges those who are outspoken about pro-life?
ready is working to “educate” me re indirect abortion. She needn’t bother. I’m aware.
She claims ryecroft’s abortion was that. ryecroft never said so!

You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.
The sow is abortion, not ryecroft.

Participating in this thread has been educational for me.
I understand better now how so many “Catholics” feel free to support certain politicians.

God bless all of you.
God help all too.
 
Catharina… You come across in a very harsh and condemning manner on this thread and will not let up. You are also incorrect in your interpretation of Catholic teaching in cases such as the one we have been discussing.

You sound angry and extremely self righteous, not wanting to let up on a poor mother who almost lost her life and lost the life of her baby.

For all your good works, they don’t shine through in your words on this thread. Instead you come across as lacking compassion for Ryecroft.

Why don’t you see if you can possibly wipe the dust from your sandals and walk away from this fruitless conversation which is only making you look bad and upsetting a woman who lost her precious baby? You’re getting no where here.
 
Middleman said:
Catharina… You come across in a very harsh and condemning manner on this thread and will not let up. You are also incorrect in your interpretation of Catholic teaching in cases such as the one we have been discussing.

You sound angry and extremely self righteous, not wanting to let up on a poor mother who almost lost her life and lost the life of her baby.

For all your good works, they don’t shine through in your words on this thread. Instead you come across as lacking compassion for Ryecroft.

Why don’t you see if you can possibly wipe the dust from your sandals and walk away from this fruitless conversation which is only making you look bad and upsetting a woman who lost her precious baby? You’re getting no where here.
Click to expand...
Your criticism of my posts is endless and unfounded.
You continue to make your points as others did -
but those others finally stopped and messaged me with apologies.
(Interesting that: attack in public, apologize in private.)
Yet you continue to attack me because you like the process of being ugly.

You can pretend to defend ryecroft but she needs no defense.
You haven’t a clue about the absolute need to say abortion is evil.

Never have I said or implied ryecroft is evil.
You insistently imply that I am though.
All can claim that ryecroft had an indirect abortion.
Yet ryecroft has never claimed that.

I only mentioned a bit of my personal/professional history beacuse YOU presumed to say I should be doing work to end abortion. Are you doing so? Your animosity and presumption toward me must hide a mountain of problems. Hope you work to resolve those. Meanwhile, abortion remains a grave evil. Guess you’re working to outlaw it with every breath you take? Or not?

Not to be too personal but IMO, you come across as self-righteous and condemnatory.
It’s time to quote you to you. Hope you can see the point:

**
Jan 29, '09, 4:22 pm
Middleman
Junior Member Join Date: January 28, 2009
Posts: 347
Religion: Catholic

Re: What is the CENTRAL Truth of Christianity?
I believe the central truth to be forgiveness. We are forgiven by grace, and we are to strive to be forgiving of others. We are to surrender ourselves into the hands of a forgiving God and follow the path of love, thus turning our backs on the works of Satan and turning our faces toward our Heavenly Father. **
However, if you have an abiding need to kick someone, continue to kick me.
I can easily absorb it and walk far away from you, shaking the dust form my sandals.
 
Actually Catharina, I have not been posting “endlessly” on this thread. This is my 6th post on it. Previously I post 5 times on this thread. 3 of those posts were critical of your relentless and uncharitable condemnation.

I won’t bother to research your post history as you have seen fit to research mine, but I’ll bet you’ve posted more than 6 times on this thread.

Regarding forgiveness, I have nothing to forgive of you as you have not condemned me personally, but have seemingly endlessly tried to make the point that the poster Ryecroft did indeed kill her baby selfishly and sinfully, suggesting that she should have died along with her baby and her husband would have found a better wife.

My hope would be that the moderation staff here would close this fruitless thread that is so hurtful to an already hurting woman here at Catholic Answers.
 
Yes, ryecroft never specified whether her abortion was direct or indirect. I was trusting the child’s life was lost during a procedure to try and save ryecroft’s life, not directly touched and taken in a direct abortion. I still hope this is the case. Ryeroft, what you went through was very, very difficult. You made the best decision you could given what you knew and you feared death and losing your baby along with your death. You chose the lesser of two evils: one person dying over two. Just don’t call yourself pro-choice any more. You were afraid to die and lose your child in the process, and you and the doctor made the best decision given what you both knew at the time. Some theologians would argue you did an acceptable thing - but at the present, if and when a direct abortion is involved the Church wouldn’t be able see things the same way, I don’t believe. It’s a very difficult moral issue. Nobody is judging you, Rycroft. We just have been instructed by Holy Mother Church that direct abortions are never permitted. You were put in extraordinary circumstances, especially if a direct abortion was required to save your life. If your abortion was actually direct, I’m sure the Lord will be completely understanding of your grueling decision at confession. Just tell the priest that you participated in a direct abortion but you believed you were right. But also, in the same breath, be open to what the Church teaches on direct abortions, if your abortion was direct, with resignation and asset to what the Church teaches for the sake of your soul. Perhaps you have already confessed, if your abortion was direct. I am sorry your situation is so difficult on you, and will pray for you.
 
ready said:
Yes, ryecroft never specified whether her abortion was direct or indirect. I was trusting the child’s life was lost during a procedure to try and save ryecroft’s life, not directly touched and taken in a direct abortion. I still hope this is the case. Ryeroft, what you went through was very, very difficult. You made the best decision you could given what you knew and you feared death and losing your baby along with your death. You chose the lesser of two evils: one person dying over two. Just don’t call yourself pro-choice any more. You were afraid to die and lose your child in the process, and you and the doctor made the best decision given what you both knew at the time. Some theologians would argue you did an acceptable thing - but at the present, if and when a direct abortion is involved the Church wouldn’t be able see things the same way, I don’t believe. It’s a very difficult moral issue. Nobody is judging you, Rycroft. We just have been instructed by Holy Mother Church that direct abortions are never permitted. You were put in extraordinary circumstances, especially if a direct abortion was required to save your life. If your abortion was actually direct, I’m sure the Lord will be completely understanding of your grueling decision at confession. Just tell the priest that you participated in a direct abortion but you believed you were right. But also, in the same breath, be open to what the Church teaches on direct abortions, if your abortion was direct, with resignation and asset to what the Church teaches for the sake of your soul. Perhaps you have already confessed, if your abortion was direct. I am sorry your situation is so difficult on you, and will pray for you.
Click to expand...
In general, this is an excellent summation.

Now I will add what you surely know but didn’t quite say: “Some theologians would argue you did an acceptable thing - but at the present, if and when a direct abortion is involved the Church wouldn’t be able see things the same way, I don’t believe.” Clearly, no theologian is entitled to deviate from Church teachings.
 
catharina said:
In general, this is an excellent summation.

Now I will add what you surely know but didn’t quite say: “Some theologians would argue you did an acceptable thing - but at the present, if and when a direct abortion is involved the Church wouldn’t be able see things the same way, I don’t believe.” Clearly, no theologian is entitled to deviate from Church teachings.
Click to expand...
Yes, you are absolutely right, catharina; no theologian is entitled to deviate from Church teachings and I agree wholeheartedly with you!🙂
 
catharina said:
Your criticism of my posts is endless and unfounded.
You continue to make your points as others did -
but those others finally stopped and messaged me with apologies.
(Interesting that: attack in public, apologize in private.)
Yet you continue to attack me because you like the process of being ugly.

You can pretend to defend ryecroft but she needs no defense.
You haven’t a clue about the absolute need to say abortion is evil.

Never have I said or implied ryecroft is evil.
You insistently imply that I am though.
All can claim that ryecroft had an indirect abortion.
Yet ryecroft has never claimed that.

I only mentioned a bit of my personal/professional history beacuse YOU presumed to say I should be doing work to end abortion. Are you doing so? Your animosity and presumption toward me must hide a mountain of problems. Hope you work to resolve those. Meanwhile, abortion remains a grave evil. Guess you’re working to outlaw it with every breath you take? Or not?

Not to be too personal but IMO, you come across as self-righteous and condemnatory.
It’s time to quote you to you. Hope you can see the point:

**
Jan 29, '09, 4:22 pm
Middleman
Junior Member Join Date: January 28, 2009
Posts: 347
Religion: Catholic

Re: What is the CENTRAL Truth of Christianity?
I believe the central truth to be forgiveness. We are forgiven by grace, and we are to strive to be forgiving of others. We are to surrender ourselves into the hands of a forgiving God and follow the path of love, thus turning our backs on the works of Satan and turning our faces toward our Heavenly Father. **
However, if you have an abiding need to kick someone, continue to kick me.
I can easily absorb it and walk far away from you, shaking the dust form my sandals.
Click to expand...
**
I have criticized your tone and your stance as well, but I’ve never sent you a private message apologizing for being offended by your offensiveness. I, for one, completely understand your aversion to abortion and your desire to make it known that abortion is a grave sin. It would be delightful to surrender ourselves into the hands of a forgiving God and follow the path of love, but there’s something obstructing the path … it’s Catharina, laying down a tacit judgment about another woman’s childbirth experience.

So, abortion is is evil. ryecroft experienced a Catch 22 situation at 16 weeks’ gestation and wound up losing her fetus. The details of this event have been catalogued in numerous posts and have received all manner of reactions. Where do you stand, Catharina? Are you willing to go so far as to write on this forum that ryecroft committed the grave act of abortion?

Limerick**
 
limerick said:
**
I have criticized your tone and your stance as well, but I’ve never sent you a private message apologizing for being offended by your offensiveness. I, for one, completely understand your aversion to abortion and your desire to make it known that abortion is a grave sin. It would be delightful to surrender ourselves into the hands of a forgiving God and follow the path of love, but there’s something obstructing the path … it’s Catharina, laying down a tacit judgment about another woman’s childbirth experience.

So, abortion is is evil. ryecroft experienced a Catch 22 situation at 16 weeks’ gestation and wound up losing her fetus. The details of this event have been catalogued in numerous posts and have received all manner of reactions. Where do you stand, Catharina? Are you willing to go so far as to write on this forum that ryecroft committed the grave act of abortion?

Limerick**
Click to expand...
I am obstructing your path to surrender to the hands of a loving God? Interesting leap.

re ryecroft, I have only quoted what ryecroft said about ryecroft’s actions.
Good bye now. God bless you.
 
catharina said:
I am obstructing your path to surrender to the hands of a loving God? Interesting leap.

re ryecroft, I have only quoted what ryecroft said about ryecroft’s actions.
Good bye now. God bless you.
Click to expand...
**To one who is searching for answers, for understanding, for compassion, the bitter judgment of another human being can corrode momentum in the journey toward a loving God. So, yes, you are an obstruction to healing.

Limerick**
 
limerick said:
**To one who is searching for answers, for understanding, for compassion, the bitter judgment of another human being can corrode momentum in the journey toward a loving God. So, yes, you are an obstruction to healing.

Limerick**
Click to expand...
Since you believe that I am an obstruction to your healing (?), I apologize to you.
At the same time, I am certain that I hold no such actual power in your life.

Goodbye, limerick, and God bless you.
 
catharina said:
Since you believe that I am an obstruction to your healing (?), I apologize to you.
At the same time, I am certain that I hold no such actual power in your life.

Goodbye, limerick, and God bless you.
Click to expand...
**You have no power over me, Catharina. I have observed, however, that ryecroft has been hurt by you. Is apologizing so distatesful?

Limerick**
 
limerick said:
You have no power over me, Catharina. I have observed, however, that ryecroft has been hurt by you. Is apologizing so distatesful?

Limerick
Click to expand...
From your position of unlimited oversight, you have observed that?

That is not the impression I have received from ryecroft.
Nice try though in attempting to explain your obsession with my posts.

Again goodbye to you.
 
catharina said:
From your position of unlimited oversight, you have observed that?

That is not the impression I have received from ryecroft.
Nice try though in attempting to explain your obsession with my posts.

Again goodbye to you.
Click to expand...
Well, then, if I have overstepped my observational capacity, I step back and offer my apology.
I am compelled, however, to correct your impression that I am obsessed with your posts. They are merely a curiosity to me, as you continue to sign off with a shove, indicating that you are through with the poster, and then you stay online and wait until that poster has responded so you can have the last word. The last word never comes. Why?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top