L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Eclampsia. It can only be treated by delivery of the child. I’m not talking about pre-eclampsia, but eclampsia.
Some forms of epilepsy. Some cancers. Heart disease. Severe diabetes. Some autoimmune disorders.
- Status
Some forms of epilepsy. Some cancers. Heart disease. Severe diabetes. Some autoimmune disorders.
M
Monkey1976
Guest
Delivery of the child intact is not abortion.
That’s about as specific as saying “some medical issues”. Exactly what forms of epilepsy? Ideopathic? Symptomatic? Generalized? My mother has epilepsy, and manged to birth 5 healthy children (and suffered through zero miscarriages) while managing her medications carefully. Which of us should have been aborted as “treatment”?
What “cancers”? Leukemia? Ovarian? Brain? Lung? Skin?
Again, I’m not talking about treatments that have an expected side-effect of killing the developing child - chemotherapy, certain medications, surgeries to remove the uterus or a fallopian tube holding an ectopic pregnancy - but the direct, intentional killing of the child who would otherwise live.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Not all babies have reached viability when eclampsia develops. True, it’s rare, but it does happen. Eclampsia can even develop as much as two weeks after the delivery of a child. Unless the child is delivered, should it develop during pregnancy, eclampsia will kill both mother and child.
Some women with epilepsy can manage pregnancy quite well; others cannot and some become status epilepticus. Only the delivery of the child will relieve that.
Different cancers can necessitate an abortion. Certain hormones produced during pregnancy exacerbate certain cancers.
Some autoimmune disorders such as autoimmune hemolytic anemia, which may only manifest as fatigue until the woman becomes pregnant.
The situations are rare, but they DO exist.
Catholicism has no right to trample on the beliefs of Orthodox Judaism.
Roe v Wade isn’t going to be reversed anyway.
The discussion is sterile.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Catholics should be allowed to state their views. Orthodox Judaism is wrong on several issues.
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
Lily here is something you and Sy et all will agree on with Donald Trump.He just came out with a statement saying abortion should be banned and any woman procuring one illegally,should be punished by the law.Not all babies have reached viability when eclampsia develops. True, it’s rare, but it does happen. Eclampsia can even develop as much as two weeks after the delivery of a child. Unless the child is delivered, should it develop during pregnancy, eclampsia will kill both mother and child.
Some women with epilepsy can manage pregnancy quite well; others cannot and some become status epilepticus. Only the delivery of the child will relieve that.
Different cancers can necessitate an abortion. Certain hormones produced during pregnancy exacerbate certain cancers.
Some autoimmune disorders such as autoimmune hemolytic anemia, which may only manifest as fatigue until the woman becomes pregnant.
The situations are rare, but they DO exist.
Catholicism has no right to trample on the beliefs of Orthodox Judaism.
Roe v Wade isn’t going to be reversed anyway.
M
Monkey1976
Guest
There’s a vast difference between delivering a child prematurely and doing everything possible to save its life, and delivering a child for the express purpose of killing it.
If and only if medication to manage the seizures is ineffective. And again, there’s a vast difference between delivering a child prematurely and doing everything possible to save its life, and delivering a child for the express purpose of killing it.
Name just one that can only be treated by aborting the child. Not by chemotherapy or surgery which has an abortive side effect, but the direct killing of the developing child.
And which of those disorders are untreatable via medication, and only treatable by directly killing the unborn child?
Really? Then show me a single case.
How is it “trampling” to ask under what circumstances a belief comes into play? For a Catholic woman, lifesaving treatment with the unintended side effect of aborting the child can be acceptable under the principle of double effect.
They said the same things about Dred Scott v. Sandford and Plessy v. Ferguson. And those involved things actually enumerated in the Constitution.Roe v Wade isn’t going to be reversed anyway.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Every society does it, and usually because principles derived from religious belief are thought to be good for the society in ways that manifest themselves in secular ways and/or in the character of the people.
So, for example, forced marriages are considered invalid in the U.S., but in much of the Middle East and other parts of the world, they’re considered quite alright. Why? First of all because of religious heritage, but secondly because voluntariness is considered a societal value in the west, whereas in other parts of the world (and particularly as to women) it isn’t.
Is abortion good or bad for a society? Well, right now the native birth rate in the U.S. is below replacement. In some countries it’s far worse, promising a demographic catastrophe and likely cultural change. Is cultural change always good for a culture? Not necessarily. Let’s say in 50 years, Italy is an Islamic state (likely). Is that a betterment or a downgrade, knowing what we know presently about Islamic states?
And can anyone really maintain that government support of an organization that sells body parts of killed children is anything other than a logical outgrowth of a culture that increasingly accepts abortion as having no societal effects? And when such callousness becomes accepted, and when euthanasia becomes “voluntary” as practically part of the same mindset, how can we be sure that the latter cannot possibly become “mandatory” at least as a cultural thing?
Interestingly, upon reading a treatise by an economist, I learned that the decline in marriages, percentage-wise, exactly parallels increases in the abortion rate. Now, if we believe (as I think everyone does) that marriage is a societal benefit, if there is a cause/effect relationship between the two things, then it seems abortion is a net negative for the wellbeing of a society. Is it possible that abortion adds to a fundamental lack of trust of women by men? After all, if one’s wife is free to kill one’s children at will, then does one really want a wife, especially one who believes that abortion is a woman’s “right to choose”? Best, perhaps, not to commit oneself to such a person. There might be other reasons why declination of marriage (which causes poverty, and we know that for sure) is growing, but we don’t actually know why. Can abortion on demand be one of those reasons? Certainly could be. But we blithely wave such considerations aside as “religious precepts” when the effect on societal wellbeing could be profound.
A good part of something as mundane as the Uniform Commercial Code comes right out of Jewish Talmudic tradition, by way of additional example. Why? Because those Talmudic principles promote trade and reduce the potential for brigandage and violence. Not terribly long ago, judges interpreting the law even admitted the origins of our laws. Now, of course, it’s politically incorrect for them to do so, therefore they don’t. But look at an old casebook at a lawyer’s office (the ones who still have them) and you’ll see reflections on the religious origin of much of our law.
Societies impose “religious” principles all the time, and always have. It is only the vanity of moderns that cause us to believe that our laws, like Athene springing fully armed from the head of Zeus, just came out of some legislators’ heads with no antecedent principles.
And so, we consign things like abortion to “your religious beliefs” and discard them, while fully enforcing laws against forced marriages. Why? Because we have come to think of abortion as convenient to the lives we want to live, while forced marriages are not, and we designate things as “merely religious beliefs” as a justification for casting them aside on the basis of what are really personal preferences.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Muslims in the Middle East are quite okay with the idea of stoning a woman to death for adultery. And they do it. In their religion, it’s quite alright. If some Muslim father in America kills his daughter for having sex outside marriage, are we not free to “impose our religious beliefs” against murder on him, and try him for murder?
And, in the communist countries of recent history (and some presently) ALL religions are designated as “cults”. The old Soviet Union even had a “Ministry of Cults” to govern religious affairs regardless of the religion in question. It’s in the eye of the beholder.
P
Peter_J
Guest
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
“Not health”? Women’s health isn’t important?
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
No no no no no Lily Bernans. As you know Catholic women such as yourself are free to accept the moral teachings of your church and choose not to procure an abortion.
Y
YADA
Guest
Do not be disingenuous …“health” is so loosely defined that it can mean the woman woke up @ 9 months along with a hang nail and that’s enough to warrant an abortion
O
otjm
Guest
Of course women’s health is important: undisputed risks of immediate complications from abortion: blood clots, hemorrhage, incomplete abortions, infection, and injury to the cervix and other organs. Approximately 10% of women having abortions are affected by these medical complications, and approximately 20% of those are life threatening.
Long-term physical and psychological complications: Subsequent preterm birth; placenta privia; serious mental health problems; breast cancer as a result of loss of the protective effect of a first full-term pregnancy; miscarriage; and death.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Orthodox Judaism thinks Catholicism is wrong on several issues. Who are we to say they are wrong, and we are right? Is arrogance now a part of our religion?
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Thank you, Jeanne, but he changed his mind about that already. He’s now saying only the doctors should be held accountable.
I should add that the above was his position at 7:00 on Wednesday evening ET. Where he stands now, I have no idea.
I
I_trust
Guest
The Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit in maters of faith and morals.It is not a matter of arrogance, but rather faith.
CCC 890
:
T
Tomdstone
Guest
I didn’t know that faith in the truth of the Catholic religion was arrogance? But then again I am not a professor of Catholic theology.
I
I_trust
Guest
So by your statement you are saying that where Orthodox Judaism and Catholic teaching disagree, either one could be right or wrong. Orthodox Judaism believes that Christ did not rise from the dead. So, who are we to be so arrogant to claim that they are wrong?
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Jewish people do not believe in the Trinity. I am not going to tell them they are wrong. It is arrogance to me to believe that Catholic humans could never have made a wrong interpretation.
All of the Jewish people I know have been quite understanding and accepting of differences in religion. Should our charity not extend to them and their religion? Of course it should.
Even the greatest Catholic scholars do not know all there is to know. If you’ve studied Church history, look at the way the Church has evolved over the ages. It’s by no means remained static in its beliefs.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
I’m not saying who is right and who is wrong. I’m saying it’s wrong for Catholics to attempt to impose their beliefs on those who do not want to believe that way and who are devoted to another religion.
I’m saying I believe in freedom of religion.
- Status