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.
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?
Accurate observation there.

Usually people accuse others of what they do tenfold. For instance, accusing others of being obsessed, when in fact you yourself appear that way.

What Catharina shows is the inability to move beyond legalistic purism. She is also unable to understand anything beyond black and white, quite the polar opposite to someone for who all truth is relative.

In truth, our Church is well aware that there are grey areas in many facets of life. People falsely think the Catholic Church is a rigid institution. The fact of the matter is that she has trained her priests to apply moral laws to individual cases, such as the two priests did with Ryecroft. The Holy Spirit is the important missing ingredient in the legalist purist approach to difficult moral dilemmas.
 
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?
Maybe by comparison with the secular world, it seems that the Church places a higher value on protection of the unborn. For 40 yrs, this nation has placed no value on giving that protection…

If you are looking to learn facts and reasons, check the site, Priests for Life,

priestsforlife.org/
 
Maybe by comparison with the secular world, it seems that the Church places a higher value on protection of the unborn. For 40 yrs, this nation has placed no value on giving that protection…

If you are looking to learn facts and reasons, check the site, Priests for Life,

priestsforlife.org/
This post said, "If you are looking to learn facts and reasons, minus the drama of personalities, check the site, Priests for Life … "

**So you had a change of heart about the “drama of personalities”? A little too harsh, maybe?

Limerick**
 
As I said to you, sidious,

If you are looking to learn facts and reasons re protection of the unborn from the perspective of the Catholic Church, check the site, Priests for Life,

priestsforlife.org/
 
That site… 😦

It is difficult to want to be a part of a world where such evil happens. May God have Mercy on us all that abortion even exists. I can’t… well I should say I don’t want to even face this… we all have a duty to take our heads out of the sand and face this. It’s so so hard.

God please forgive us:( We are so unworthy
 
That site… 😦

It is difficult to want to be a part of a world where such evil happens. May God have Mercy on us all that abortion even exists. I can’t… well I should say I don’t want to even face this… we all have a duty to take our heads out of the sand and face this. It’s so so hard.

God please forgive us:( We are so unworthy
TeresaAnn, thank you for your beautiful response.

Another fact is that many many in this nation remember when all abortion was illegal. The very notion of abortion, or any “right to abortion,” was fully repudiated by all religious groups and most public associations.

To recognize that such evil has grown to its massive proportions within the life of only two generations is sickening, and YES, may Almighty God forgive us and remove this plague from our lives.
 
The serial killer uses his free will to come to your house.

Care to tell me that an unborn child has freely chosen to put his or her mother in danger? That the child was capable of making the decision, Hey, I’m going to appear in this woman’s womb and put her life in danger?

Yes, many of us do remember when evil was recognized as evil. People used to excuse themselves, not by claiming something wasn’t evil, but claiming that the evil was mitigated to an extent when THEY did it because of ‘circumstances.’

Now they try to tell us that the evil isn’t only mitigated, it’s positively a good things (depending on those oh-so-convenient circumstances).

Balderdash. Socrates and Aristotle would have recognized the fallacies of these arguments in the third century BC let alone the ‘enlightened’ twenty-first century AD. What’s tragic is that so many of those who have supposedly received not only education that was undreamt of by most people throughout history, who live a life of ease that the richest monarch would envy, are far more ignorant of fundamental truths of existence itself. The most ignorant peasant, heck, the most superstitious primitive men and women, have a stronger, clearer, saner view of good and evil than far too many of those walking around today telling us how much better it is for the unborn to be killed ‘for its own good lest it suffer a poor quality of life’ or lest it ‘inconvenience’ someone.
 
The serial killer uses his free will to come to your house.

Care to tell me that an unborn child has freely chosen to put his or her mother in danger? That the child was capable of making the decision, Hey, I’m going to appear in this woman’s womb and put her life in danger?

Yes, many of us do remember when evil was recognized as evil. People used to excuse themselves, not by claiming something wasn’t evil, but claiming that the evil was mitigated to an extent when THEY did it because of ‘circumstances.’

Now they try to tell us that the evil isn’t only mitigated, it’s positively a good things (depending on those oh-so-convenient circumstances).

Balderdash. Socrates and Aristotle would have recognized the fallacies of these arguments in the third century BC let alone the ‘enlightened’ twenty-first century AD. What’s tragic is that so many of those who have supposedly received not only education that was undreamt of by most people throughout history, who live a life of ease that the richest monarch would envy, are far more ignorant of fundamental truths of existence itself. The most ignorant peasant, heck, the most superstitious primitive men and women, have a stronger, clearer, saner view of good and evil than far too many of those walking around today telling us how much better it is for the unborn to be killed ‘for its own good lest it suffer a poor quality of life’ or lest it ‘inconvenience’ someone.
TE, very interesting observation.
Thank you for joining in on this thread.
 
The doctor is not supposed to put one person’s life over the other. Mother and baby are to receive equal care. Period. Directly aborting a child to save the mother’s life is not allowed by the Catholic Church. If ryecrofts doctor directly physically touched the baby to kill the baby to save ryecrofts life, that doctor wasn’t doing what he was supposed to in the eyes of the Church AND according to his oath made when he first became a doctor, which prohibits him from killing. This is a Catholic forum and I will make sure I am true to Church teaching. A doctor isn’t supposed to directly kill any human. That not only goes against the oath he made - it goes against the natural and moral law. Killing is a sin. If in trying to save ryecroft the doctor did something that killed the child by accident or removed a uterus to keep the woman’s cancer from spreading while a child was embedded in the uterus - I know that is still not killing or wrong in God’s eyes - as moral theologians have explained in detail why that is not considered direct abortion. But in this case the doctor was given directions to abort the child to save the mother. Whether that child was directly aborted or not is out of my league. I don’t know enough on the topic and I am not a moral theologian aware of what constitutes an indirect abortion with conditions of the principle of double effect met. I only know that if the uterus containing a fetus embedded is removed to keep cancer from spreading in the woman’s body, the uterus may be removed with the baby indirectly aborted. I am ignorant. I hope that ryecroft’s baby was not directly killed, so ryecroft was not an agent in a direct abortion without knowing it. Who knows if her child was directly aborted. I have to find out if the pathology case involving the uterus is the only situation that meets the conditions of an indirect abortion with the principle of double effect met.
 
The serial killer uses his free will to come to your house.

Care to tell me that an unborn child has freely chosen to put his or her mother in danger? That the child was capable of making the decision, Hey, I’m going to appear in this woman’s womb and put her life in danger?

Yes, many of us do remember when evil was recognized as evil. People used to excuse themselves, not by claiming something wasn’t evil, but claiming that the evil was mitigated to an extent when THEY did it because of ‘circumstances.’

Now they try to tell us that the evil isn’t only mitigated, it’s positively a good things (depending on those oh-so-convenient circumstances).

Balderdash. Socrates and Aristotle would have recognized the fallacies of these arguments in the third century BC let alone the ‘enlightened’ twenty-first century AD. What’s tragic is that so many of those who have supposedly received not only education that was undreamt of by most people throughout history, who live a life of ease that the richest monarch would envy,-** ???** - are far more ignorant of fundamental truths of existence itself. The most ignorant peasant, heck, the most superstitious primitive men and women, have a stronger, clearer, saner view of good and evil than far too many of those walking around today telling us how much better it is for the unborn to be killed ‘for its own good lest it suffer a poor quality of life’ or lest it ‘inconvenience’ someone.
**These segments I have highlighted in red - where are you getting this stuff?! I’d like to believe you’re not finding these attitudes on this board.

Limerick**
 
Victorious tells us: *“Everything this life has to offer, including years on the planet, is trash compared to eternal life.” *

Not if we’re headed for hell.
You’re only headed for hell if you choose to go there. The means to avoid hell are available to everyone for the asking.
ryecroft tells us the fetus was not viable, had absolutely no chance to survive. How does it glorify God to throw away one’s own life when the life of the other is not hanging in the balance, but is over?
Not being God, all we can do is calculate odds.
And the “friendship of God”? Allow oneself to die for “friendship?” You Catholics are a complex and baffling bunch.
Oh, I don’t know. Maintaining a friendship that redounds to one’s considerable benefit – and the loss of which would have catastrophic consequences – sounds like eminently good sense to me. “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” Matthew 10:28.

Besides: “Greater love than this no man has, that he lay down his life for his friends.” John 15:13.
 
The Catholic Church will allow a life saving “abortion” so long as the goal of the procedure is to cure the mother of an ailment, rather than the abortion itself.
 
The Catholic Church will allow a life saving “abortion” so long as the goal of the procedure is to cure the mother of an ailment, rather than the abortion itself.
Please post the official teaching of the Church that backs up your claim.
 
from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

(My words here: The use of the term “Direct” signals that abortion might occur indirectly.)
 
Additionally, from priests for life, an interview gives more details:

"…

P: And as a medical doctor and you address for us for a few moments, the on going point of assertion whether explicit or implicit that is brought forward in articles and in legislatures or in media, the assertion that sometimes abortion is necessary to preserve the life and health of the mother. Is that ever true?

G: Actually it’s not. There is no such thing as an abortion to save the life of the mother. As a matter of fact for a while… several years… I was very interested in that question in my formative years and I would ask every obstetrician and gynecologist that I met anywhere. And I said have you ever had a case where you had to do something to kill the baby to save the life of the mother. I have not come across one case, you know. People think of in the movie, the story the Cardinal, where the woman was delivering the child and got into complications and they crushed the baby’s head. And that is just not a part of modern medicine. That is not necessary to be done.

Where the confusion arises is the so-called indirect abortion. Or those cases where both mother and child are dying because of a situation, there are really only three situations like this that I can think of and that’s ectopic pregnancy, cancer of the uterus, and perhaps trauma, or an accidental traumatic injury to the uterus. And if you don’t do anything then both mother and child will die. Now if you treat the mother for whatever needs to be treated, the uterus is bleeding, and you remove the uterus and the baby is still in there, and you do nothing to kill the baby, that is if you had a means an artificial incubator, some day we will have it, I’m sure, you could put that baby in there, so in no way do you directly attack the life of the baby. But you can foresee that that baby will lose its life, but it will lose its life anyhow but without directly attacking. Those are the three instances, very rare, very rare, but those are not abortions. If you look at the five ways that abortions are done, which is the only purpose is to kill the child, none of these techniques are the methods used in these operations. So there is no such thing as an abortion necessary.

And you don’t need a law, you don’t need an exception because for ages that treatment of ectopic pregnancy, once the mother starts bleeding or has life-threatening complications, the treatment of cancer of the uterus, that has been always permissible without …having to legalize abortion. So the answer is simply no. There is no such thing as an abortion to save the life of the mother, sometimes early delivery, sometimes it is so early that the baby has a great risk of dying perhaps, but the baby is delivered, the baby is placed into intensive care, is given all the possible support, and may or may make it, but there is no such thing as an abortion to do that.

P: This is of such an important point because, for example, what you just mentioned, there are cases were a pregnancy may need to be ended early in order to assist the mother in some form of complication. Big difference, isn’t there between killing that baby and making every effort to preserve the life of that baby.

G: Exactly.

P: And this distinction just seems to mean to get lost in so many of the arguments of those who are trying to promote abortion. In the controversy over partial birth abortion particularly, this insistence that we need to leave this open for the cases of the health of the mother has arisen, and there has been quite a response to that hasn’t there been even in the medical profession."

…"

(Father Pavone is interviewing Dr. George Isajiw, MD in 1998.)

priestsforlife.org/media/interviewisajiw.htm
 
Thanks, Catharina, for answering my question on what actually constitutes an indirect abortion. That is what I wanted to know and needed to know.🙂
 
Thanks, Catharina, for answering my question on what actually constitutes an indirect abortion. That is what I wanted to know and needed to know.🙂
You’re most welcome.
I have to wonder why people are reluctant to google such info themselves.
It’s always rather clear when a site is in line with Church teaching.

Yet, better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.
The internet can cast the light of many candles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top