For Mormons on here

  • Thread starter Thread starter followingtheway
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Stephen168 said:
Wrong, as you have already been told.
Click to expand...
No, I thought it was acceptable to save the life of the mother, with the understanding it was not intended to take the life of the fetus, thought that may have been the predicted outcome.
From New Advent
However, if medical treatment or surgical operation, necessary to save a mother’s life, is applied to her organism (though the child’s death would, or at least might, follow as a regretted but unavoidable consequence), it should not be maintained that the fetal life is thereby directly attacked.
Click to expand...
 
Tony888 said:
No, I thought it was acceptable to save the life of the mother, with the understanding it was not intended to take the life of the fetus, thought that may have been the predicted outcome.
Click to expand...
Abortion is murder. Murder is wrong every time unless you are a Mormon.
 
Stephen168 said:
Abortion is murder. Murder is wrong every time unless you are a Mormon.
Click to expand...
So your approach is to play the definitions game and not apply the term abortion?
There are instances in which it is legitimate for an expectant mother to undergo certain medical or surgical procedures that will save her life, even if these procedures inevitably involve the death of her unborn child. In these cases it is not a question of intentionally aborting the child. They involve, rather, accepting the loss of the child as an unavoidable consequence of caring for the mother´s health.
catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=177
Click to expand...
 
hosemonkey said:
Inconsistencies is not really the word for mormonism. The whole construct is made up of lies, fantasies, wishes, lousy theology, control mechanisms, masonic flapdoodle and obfuscation. Not mention outright thimblerigging. The three levels of mormon “heaven” is just one of the items of mormon belief that was not really well thought out by Joseph and his henchmen, or maybe one of their “prophets.”

I know about your particular dilema, Exorcist, but man, you need to get as far away from that folderol as you can. I feel your pain and I will continue to pray that you can come to the true Church without too much loss.
Click to expand...
Thanks HM. The longer I stay in the LDS church the more false it rings. All the dancing and obfuscation. It gets tiring. Luckily I have a calling (assignment/job) that keeps me from having to teach their false doctrine, ward chorister (music leader). The music is simple and uninspiring but mildly satisfying. I sit in the hallways for most of the second and third hours and read CAF, NOM or exmormon.org

There are a few church higherups that I still actually genuinely like. Although I wish they could see the truth and turn toward it. However at their age and position it’s doubtful they could ever leave.
 
Tony888 said:
So your approach is to play the definitions game and not apply the term abortion?
Click to expand...
Defining words is only a game in Mormonism. Defining words is how we reach understanding in Catholicism.
Matricide is murder. Abortion is Murder. Infanticide is murder. Fratricide is murder. Calling it something else so Mormons can acceptable it; is playing the Mormon word game.
 
Tony888 said:
No, I thought it was acceptable to save the life of the mother, with the understanding it was not intended to take the life of the fetus, thought that may have been the predicted outcome.
From New Advent
Click to expand...
Tony, I don’t think you are reading this correctly. It does not say that one can perform an abortion. It is saying that you can go ahead with the operation. It there is any way to save the baby, that must be done (and with modern science, it may be more possible than ever before). However, if all reasonable efforts to save the baby fail – which by the way, not operating on the mother means she dies, and, guess what, the baby dies – the Church puts a requirement on that the baby’s soul be considered and it be baptised.

There is a difference between an intentional abortion and an unintentional abortion. A miscarriage is an unintentional abortion (the technical term for a miscarriage is spontaneous abortion). A doctor faced with such a situation would be remiss in his/her duties & oath if they didn’t do everything possible to save both. If they don’t operate, they kill both. If they operate, there is still a chance both will die, but there is also a chance that both will live.

I also suspect, most women, if faced with such a situation, would tell their doctor to do everything possible to save their baby. Most of us would even delay the surgery if we thought our baby would have a better chance of living, even if it meant we might die (as I say to my kid’s it’s a mom thing)
 
sallybutler said:
Tony, I don’t think you are reading this correctly. It does not say that one can perform an abortion. It is saying that you can go ahead with the operation. It there is any way to save the baby, that must be done (and with modern science, it may be more possible than ever before). However, if all reasonable efforts to save the baby fail – which by the way, not operating on the mother means she dies, and, guess what, the baby dies – the Church puts a requirement on that the baby’s soul be considered and it be baptised.
There is a difference between an intentional abortion and an unintentional abortion. A miscarriage is an unintentional abortion (the technical term for a miscarriage is spontaneous abortion). A doctor faced with such a situation would be remiss in his/her duties & oath if they didn’t do everything possible to save both. If they don’t operate, they kill both. If they operate, there is still a chance both will die, but there is also a chance that both will live.
Click to expand...
And thank God that it is “a mom thing.” Sadly though, we have moms today in this “Culture of Death” (that the mormon “church” has bought into) who think of themselves first and place their own well-being or pleasure ahead of their un-born child’s life and elect to kill that child rather than sacrifice themselves. Somehow they accept murder by engaging in that sort of justification. The “unintended consequence” on the other hand, brings no sin upon the mother.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]
 
Sally,
I think the nuance is you don’t call said operation an abortion, such as removal of the fallopian tube for an ectopic pregnancy. I personally see this as an intentional operation that aborts the fetus.
sallybutler said:
Tony, I don’t think you are reading this correctly. It does not say that one can perform an abortion. It is saying that you can go ahead with the operation. It there is any way to save the baby, that must be done (and with modern science, it may be more possible than ever before). However, if all reasonable efforts to save the baby fail – which by the way, not operating on the mother means she dies, and, guess what, the baby dies – the Church puts a requirement on that the baby’s soul be considered and it be baptised.

There is a difference between an intentional abortion and an unintentional abortion. A miscarriage is an unintentional abortion (the technical term for a miscarriage is spontaneous abortion). A doctor faced with such a situation would be remiss in his/her duties & oath if they didn’t do everything possible to save both. If they don’t operate, they kill both. If they operate, there is still a chance both will die, but there is also a chance that both will live.

I also suspect, most women, if faced with such a situation, would tell their doctor to do everything possible to save their baby. Most of us would even delay the surgery if we thought our baby would have a better chance of living, even if it meant we might die (as I say to my kid’s it’s a mom thing)
Click to expand...
 
Catholic moral teaching requires the intent of an action be good, always. Circumstance cannot turn an evil into good, ever.

Abortion is an action against a human life that has one intent and that is to take the life of the unborn.

An operation for an ectopic pregnancy has the intent of saving the mother’s life. The action is not against the unborn, the intent is not to take the life of the unborn.

The circumstances that Mormonism allows for an abortion all have the intent to end the life of the unborn. The actions taken by by this intention are to end the life of the unborn. A scalpel that slices the unborn into pieces, pierces the brain of the unborn, suction used to end the life of a human. These are all actions with a willful defiance against the commandment to not kill another human.

If anyone is not able to understand the difference, it could only be because they are still not viewing the life of the unborn as a separate life from the mother.

Pregnancy is not a medical condition, and is not viewed as a medical condition by anyone I know who has the ability to see the unborn as a person, rather than a medical condition.

An blocked fallopian tube is a medical condition. The fallopian tube is not a person. An action taken on the fallopian tube is not an action on a human life. Surgery on a fallopian tube does not have the intent to take a human life.
 
Tony888 said:
Sally,
I think the nuance is you don’t call said operation an abortion, such as removal of the fallopian tube for an ectopic pregnancy. I personally see this as an intentional operation that aborts the fetus.
Click to expand...
from “Catholics United for the Faith” © 2004 Catholics United for the Faith 2004

cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=57

"The first occurs when an ectopic pregnancy has been diagnosed, but no signs of life exist. The morality of treatment for ectopic pregnancies concerns the absolute value of human life. Conversely, there is no such moral consideration if the embryo has succumbed—there is no taking of human life (assuming a reasonable effort has been made to detect life).

The second circumstance occurs when the fallopian tube ruptures, whether or not the embryo is alive. A ruptured tube presents an immediate threat to both mother and child. If nothing is done, both will die. The doctor is morally obligated to act, even though only one life can be saved. The rupture is the cause of the child’s death, not any procedure the doctor performs. These two circumstances, miscarriage and rupture, present fundamentally different moral questions from instances in which both mother and child are alive and the fallopian tube itself does not pose an immediate threat to the mother’s life."

and

“While there are anecdotal accounts of fetuses living to six months without the tube rupturing, postponing surgery indefinitely is dangerous, given the virtual certainty of rupture long before viability. So, it’s one thing to wait a short period of time for miscarriage to occur spontaneously. It’s quite another to forego intervention altogether in anticipation of a life-threatening tubal rupture. Such a high-risk course of action is rightly discouraged and can even be indicative of a reckless disregard for the life of the mother.”

and
“the issue becomes how long to wait before proceeding with this invasive treatment, given the grave health risk posed by the ectopic pregnancy. This will vary from case to case. Sometimes the immediate risk is low and allowing the miscarriage to occur naturally preserves the mother’s fallopian tube. Conversely, there are also cases in which the fallopian tube itself is so compromised that it must be immediately removed to preserve the life of the mother.”

If you read thru the whole article, I’m sure you will realize that a lot of thought and prayer has gone into the subject. Everything possible should be done to save both if it is determined that the fetus is still alive. However, there is a recognition that it may not be possible. And note, this is an extra-ordinary situation – not the same as ‘in the case of rape or after much prayer, just not ready for another baby and my bishop said it’s ok’
 
Tony888 said:
Sally,
I think the nuance is you don’t call said operation an abortion, such as removal of the fallopian tube for an ectopic pregnancy. I personally see this as an intentional operation that aborts the fetus.
Click to expand...
That’s because a surgical removal of a fallopian tube is not an abortion it is removal of part of a woman’s body that is threatening her health or life. Abortion is simply the termination of a pregnancy. Sometimes ectopic pregnancy can be treated with methotrexate but this is not an acceptable option as it targets the fetus. But methotrexate could be used to treat cancer in a woman who is pregnant in spite of it’s danger to the fetus because the intention is to treat the cancer not to abort the fetus. I don’t see why the distinction between primary and secondary effects and the part that intention plays is so hard for people to understand.
 
zaffiroborant said:
That’s because a surgical removal of a fallopian tube is not an abortion it is removal of part of a woman’s body that is threatening her health or life. Abortion is simply the termination of a pregnancy. Sometimes ectopic pregnancy can be treated with methotrexate but this is not an acceptable option as it targets the fetus. But methotrexate could be used to treat cancer in a woman who is pregnant in spite of it’s danger to the fetus because the intention is to treat the cancer not to abort the fetus. I don’t see why the distinction between primary and secondary effects and the part that intention plays is so hard for people to understand.
Click to expand...
Oh, they understand. They just don’t want to be wrong, so they try to convince themselves that others are doing the same thing in order to to justify their behavior. Sort of a well everyone else is doing 12 year old thing. We’ve all been there on some subject or other. Of course piercing the bellybutton is slightly different issue 😛
 
The great Mormon miracle I’ve read about is the Seagulls directing the wagon train.

I went to Montreal & saw St. Joseph’s Oratory with the hundreds of crutches the faithful discarded when their prayers were answered & each one preserved & hanging from floor to ceiling for all who enter to see. Brother now St. Andre of Montreal is another “Doorkeeper”

I went to London & saw the incorrupt body of St. John Southworth; he had been drawn & quartered in London during 1500’s persecution persecution of Catholics by the English, buried in Douay,France for over 100 years then relocated to Westminister Cathedral where he is in a glass coffin - you walk in the Cathedral there his body is - saw it for MYSELF, he’d been DEAD 500 years :eek: and body is in a STUNNING state of preservation. WHY?

Our Lady of Guadelupe image on the tilma - when Shroud of Turin scientists took pictures of the eyes & enlarged them, they saw a reflection of the bishop, Juan Diego kneeling etc. The roses were not native to Mexico that Juan picked growing in the snow on the hill. The were from Spain, “Castilian” roses. When the Bishop looked at them, he knew what they were from - a real exclamation point! 12 stars = 12 tribes of Judah, Sun/Son emblazoned around her giving Great Light - Christ Jesus is the Light of the World. She is standing on a Crescent Moon of the Islams- Guadelupe means “wolf river” & ties into Moorish Spain I believe. The tilma is getting close to 500 years old now, made of simple cactus fiber & scientists examining it couldn’t believe it did not disintegrate after 20-30 years especially after sun exposure, candle smoke. No sizing, no drawing under image, no brush marks, can’t explain how it got on there. People have walked up to it & heard heart beats of The Child she is carrying. OB-GYN’s who’ve looked at this very pregnant Lady’s image say she’ll deliver in about 3 weeks. Feast day is Dec. 12th with Christmas Dec 25th, she brings The Christ Child to us every year.

Rev 11 "… A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of 12 stars. She was with child…

No wonder the Mexican people revere this MIRACULOUS image. AND an incredible witness to evil of abortion.
 
Mormonism at the beginning related miracles of congregations speaking in tongues, of apparitions appearing to people at temple dedications, and the seagull one, where the first crops planted in the Salt Lake valley were being destroyed by Mormon crickets, and a huge flock of seagulls came down on the crickets, saving the Mormons from starvation.

Other than that, I know of no public miracles in Mormonism. Individuals relate the miracles in their lives, especially every first Sunday of the month, where their worship service is given over to an open mic testimonial/witnessing session.
 
sallybutler said:
from “Catholics United for the Faith” © 2004 Catholics United for the Faith 2004

If you read thru the whole article, I’m sure you will realize that a lot of thought and prayer has gone into the subject. Everything possible should be done to save both if it is determined that the fetus is still alive. However, there is a recognition that it may not be possible. And note, this is an extra-ordinary situation – not the same as ‘in the case of rape or after much prayer, just not ready for another baby and my bishop said it’s ok’
Click to expand...
I agree serous thought and prayer has gone into the subject.
To use your terminology

LDS and RCC agree ellective abortion is a grave sin.

LDS and RCC do not agree under all the special circumstances though
LDS and RCC agree on surgery, such has removal of the fallopian tube, uterus for cancer, etc
LDS and RCC do not agree in cases of rape or incest
LDS and RCC do not agree in cases where the fetus will not live (not certain here)
 
Tony888 said:
I agree serous thought and prayer has gone into the subject.
To use your terminology

LDS and RCC agree ellective abortion is a grave sin.

LDS and RCC do not agree under all the special circumstances though
LDS and RCC agree on surgery, such has removal of the fallopian tube, uterus for cancer, etc
LDS and RCC do not agree in cases of rape or incest
LDS and RCC do not agree in cases where the fetus will not live (not certain here)
Click to expand...
What about in the case of Down’s syndrome or other such genetic issues? Is it ok with the LDS church to abort in these cases? Or if the couple just feel that this is not the right time for them to have a child? Does the LDS church have a definite position or is it up to the couple with the blessing of their bishop?
 
sallybutler said:
What about in the case of Down’s syndrome or other such genetic issues? Is it ok with the LDS church to abort in these cases? Or if the couple just feel that this is not the right time for them to have a child? Does the LDS church have a definite position or is it up to the couple with the blessing of their bishop?
Click to expand...
Those are all good questions. As far as the definite church guidance, it’s hard to say because those guidelines are contained in the Church Handbook of Instructions, which is only available to those in leadership positions. Old ones have found their way on the Internet but they made a revision last year and I have not been able to find the new one online yet.
 
No Sally,
It’s not up to the couple and Down’s syndrome does not equal the below
“The fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.”

The Exorsist, the church guidance is explicit on this subject
newsroom.lds.org/official-statement/abortion
lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=63c139b439c98010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD
sallybutler said:
What about in the case of Down’s syndrome or other such genetic issues? Is it ok with the LDS church to abort in these cases? Or if the couple just feel that this is not the right time for them to have a child? Does the LDS church have a definite position or is it up to the couple with the blessing of their bishop?
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top