I have a hard time understanding this

[bitterhope]

If we allow abortion for mentally handicapped individuals, do you also think it is alright to allow it for physical problems?

The reason I’m asking is I have three kids with heart problems. Two I was told before birth. The first one was a surprise. Since one has this problem, the drs knew specifically to look for it.

The first two with this problem are monitored but never have had cardiac symptoms. The are able to do just about anything any other kids can do with the exception of contact sports. They will be monitored for life but most likely will never have any trouble. The youngest of those three has had several surgeries. He’s doing great and is expected to live a normal life now (it took 16 surgeries to get here though) but all three require monitoring by a cardiologist. Abortion was recommended and many people feel it’s cruel to put him through these surgeries he’s had. Other people think I had the right to decide I didn’t want/wasn’t capable of dealing with all the “problems” he’s caused and all the heartache it causes watching him recover and that kind of thing. Drs actually didn’t think he was going to survive birth so abortion was recommended. For whatever reason they thought killing him would be easier on me emotionally than allowing God to decide. I can’t understand that. Especially now looking back on his time here. I can’t imagine having missed him like that.

Is this different to you? If it is, why? What is the difference? Wrong prenatal diagnoses happen all the time. Sometimes the condition doesn’t exist at all. Other times it’s a very mild versus the doom and gloom predicted. Sometimes it’s undiagnosed until after birth but extremely severe or incompatible with life. Do we have the right to euthanize when that happens? That is exactly what you are suggesting, only before birth instead. Killing because of a birth defect is euthanasia. We just call it abortion if we kill before birth.

 

[bitterhope]

This was on the BBC yesterday. It’s about a young man with microcephaly who certainly seems to be enjoying his life. Let’s not try to put a value on life - I’ll bet there are many able-bodied people in this world who don’t get as much pleasure out of being alive as this man does.

bbc.co.uk/news/health-35500306

Thank you for this. What a beautiful family. That kind of joy is contagious!

 

[St_Francis]

…BUT we must understand that if you’re not Catholic, and more so if you’re atheist, the alleviation of suffering IS a very humane thing to do. When he euthanizes an injured animal, actually, as when we do as well, it is a mercy killing to prevent the animal from suffering more. The person without God sees only this aspect. He cannot see any other reason. He’s not doing it out of malice and may not even be with the intention of promoting abortions in general. He just wants to ease suffering. The logic seems simple, they’re suffering; let’s see if we can prevent it. We must see where they are coming from and address them on that level without getting offended so easily and coming across as so indignant.

So if we want people to understand why we don’t condone abortions, and in a similar vein, contraceptives, we have got to be able to explain it in a way that makes sense to them.

…

What I’m looking for are good reasons not to abort without pulling the religion card. We’ve managed to do that when challenging ‘gay marriage’, although not enough are eloquent enough to properly express reasons for rejecting it.

So far, like I said, I cannot see it without pulling the religion card … and there’s just no point going on about why that card isn’t effective. We have to press on on a different tact.

The problem here is that you are letting “them” set the parameters of the discussion. They believe this and that, so you have to argue from that. The problem is that you won’t be able to do that, because their priorities are set by something other than natural law or logic–as far as I can tell, their priorities are set by emotions rather than by reason. They feel a com=passionate pain when they see others suffering, and they want to eliminate the suffering… (There are other possibilities, but let’s just assume the best of them and say this is it.).

The problem is, as NeedImprovement’s quote says, they want to eliminate the suffering by eliminating the sufferer, the patient.

Without heading towards the root of their thinking, without going into the foundations of their thinking and changing their priorities, we will not be able to change their minds.

Often people who think this way do have an understanding that the taking of human life is wrong: they are against the death penalty. Why would they consider applying the DP to someone who has chosen to commit a heinous act wrong? If it is wrong to try to teach people not to kill by killing those who do, how can we possibly teach people not to kill if we kill those who have not even done anything to deserve death?

Suffering is really a call to we who are not (currently) suffering to gather together in solidarity with those who are suffering, to show them love and support, to alleviate their distress in whatever small way we can. When people, society, looks at each person as an atomistic island, we do not think in this way of solidarity, we think in the way of just the individual, and we chose an individualistic way of reducing suffering.

Unfortunately, there are also those who advocate killing those who are suffering because they do not want to be bothered to do something to help alleviate the suffering. There are those who want to ban “those unsightly people” from their range of vision because of the discomfort it causes them. They feel the tug of human connection and reject it, due to pride, or to desire to do other, more fun stuff, who knows?

The failure to do so will make us look like fanatics who seem to be more focused on our dogmas than on being merciful and/or logical. We’ll look like our ideology has overwhelmed our intellect. Actually, that has already happened.

Again, you are letting them set the parameters and standards. Why are *we *fanatics for being against murdering people? Why aren’t *they *considered fanatics for wanting to kill people?

Each person has to chose a set of standards by which they think. Am I going to think that God exists and that He loves each of us? Or am I going to think that God is an imaginary friend used as a crutch by the weak? The difference in thinking which results from each choice is clear to see. *I *think that people who do not believe in God are prideful, illogical, and unscientific.

Sometimes we just have to accept that there comes a point in trying to convert others where the only thing we can do is to pray and let God do the work.

 

[LaSalle]

We do not have the right to take the life of the innocent. You wouldn’t kill a retard after he was born to save him from his suffering in life, so why should we kill him before he is born?

Yes, thank you! That makes so much sense. So simple and concise.

 

[LaSalle]

The problem here is that you are letting “them” set the parameters of the discussion. They believe this and that, so you have to argue from that. The problem is that you won’t be able to do that, because their priorities are set by something other than natural law or logic–as far as I can tell, their priorities are set by emotions rather than by reason. They feel a com=passionate pain when they see others suffering, and they want to eliminate the suffering… (There are other possibilities, but let’s just assume the best of them and say this is it.).

I think you’re missing the point. It’s not about letting them set standards or boundaries, it’s about talking to them in a language they understand, without invoking the religion card.

Again, you are letting them set the parameters and standards. Why are *we *fanatics for being against murdering people? Why aren’t *they *considered fanatics for wanting to kill people?

I said that we’d be deemed fanatics for looking like we’re simply sticking to our dogmas without a logical reason. If the only logical reason is a religious one, and they’re not religious, we will come across as illogical.

Anyway, Confiteor Deo pointed to something so simple, yet so few of us can see and use.

He got to the bottom of this in a single post with 2 sentences.

 

[HelenRose]

Ranting off on an emotional tangent is not how we become proficient in explaining our doctrines.

You cannot get offended when people ask questions. It’s no wonder we’re losing our credibility.

Whose credibility?

 

[HelenRose]

The recent call by the UN urging Latin American countries hit by the mosquito-borne Zika virus to lift restrictions on abortion for pregnant women who have contacted the virus and whose pre-born children may be at risk for birth defects has opened up some really good questions.

I understand that the Church says no to abortion under all circumstances.

I cannot understand why.

Life is precious. That I get.

There are exceptions. The double effect is one which, when applied to treating a critically ill mother, has the potential of killing the unborn “unintentionally”. While it may be “unintentional”, it is undertaken with the certainty that the foetus will die. The Church deems that while this would be unfortunate, there is no moral evil here.

What I cannot understand is why the Church would think that it is morally permissible to allow a child to be born terribly retarded (whether it’s caused by the Zika, or by any other defect). How can it be the moral thing to allow a child to be born terribly deformed, mentally and physically, and have to suffer for her entire life?

Such wonderful logic. The logic that says, “I am a god. So I can decide whose life is valuable and whose life is not.”

 

[QuestLove]

I think advocating for increased abortions is too extreme. In my country abortions are illegal but right now I am not hearing anyone advocating for a relaxing of the laws as I hear in another places. However, contraceptives are easily obtained so I think many people are just avoiding until they figure out whats going on. I have friends and family who were pregnant before the warnings came out so they are just being very careful.

 

[jaimeleglise]

My sister was born profoundly mentally retarded and unable to walk, talk, feed or dress herself. My parent, my siblings and I adored her. Everyone she met loved her infectious laugh and cheery personality.

She was very happy. She did not suffer. Even if she did, her life was worth living. I wouldn’t trade her for the world:

If I were asked to explain this without bringing religion into it, I would say that the Nazis sought to eliminate less than perfect people. Actually, in my 56 years of being alive, I have yet to meet a perfect person.

My life has been one of great suffering. Yet I never, ever wished I hadn’t been born.

 

[HelenRose]

My sister was born profoundly mentally retarded and unable to walk, talk, feed or dress herself. My parent, my siblings and I adored her. Everyone she met loved her infectious laugh and cheery personality.

She was very happy. She did not suffer. Even if she did, her life was worth living. I wouldn’t trade her for the world:

If I were asked to explain this without bringing religion into it, I would say that the Nazis sought to eliminate less than perfect people. Actually, in my 56 years of being alive, I have yet to meet a perfect person.

My life has been one of great suffering. Yet I never, ever wished I hadn’t been born.

My sister autistic. She lives with my husband and me. I agree with you. Her life is precious. No one has the right to decide who should be killed.

 

[AnneElizabeth]

Why do we have the right to make that call?

And to be honest, tonight more than I’ve ever felt before, I feel like this question is seriously offensive to people suffering with handicaps, as it implies we did wrong by them by not terminating/euthanizing them.

Maybe I’m just in a mood.

Thank you for saying that. It needs to be said. I feel like we are increasingly living in a world that will look upon anyone who isn’t ‘perfect’ as not worthy of living. Others will say “but they will suffer” and the truth is, the real suffering is being separated from the group and thought of as a ‘nothing’ or a ‘burden’ and an ‘incomplete’ or ‘not worth someone’s effort to help’. The physical suffering one might have can’t even compare to that kind of suffering -it is the worst kind of suffering. (it is hell, really if you think about it)

Also, when people excuse it by saying "but they will suffer’ imply this foolishness that we are meant to be happy in this life all the time and that we can live without suffering in it. Everyone ‘suffers’ in some way and we are all supposed to chip in and help each other where we can.

I would agree that this zika virus problem is a very ethically difficult problem to solve. Of course no one wants their child to suffer. Every person who decides to conceive takes this risk- no one knows for certain if their pregnancy will result in a healthy baby. If we lived by not taking risks, we would not live at all. All of us have to place our trust in the Lord, every day.

 

[o_mlly]

…

Life is precious. That I get.

There are exceptions. The double effect is one which, when applied to treating a critically ill mother, has the potential of killing the unborn “unintentionally”. While it may be “unintentional”, it is undertaken with the certainty that the foetus will die. The Church deems that while this would be unfortunate, there is no moral evil here.

There is an evil effect: the death of the child.

What I cannot understand is why the Church would think that it is morally permissible to allow a child to be born terribly retarded (whether it’s caused by the Zika, or by any other defect). How can it be the moral thing to allow a child to be born terribly deformed, mentally and physically, and have to suffer for her entire life?

Life is precious.

 

[jaimeleglise]

My sister autistic. She lives with my husband and me. I agree with you. Her life is precious. No one has the right to decide who should be killed.

I agree. I bet she is a blessing to you both. Thank you and God bless you and your family, HelenRose.

 

[HelenRose]

Suffering must never become a capital offense worthy of the death penalty.

A culture that kills its young, euthanizes its wisdom and history of its aged, kills its weak and suffering is a culture that has no past, no future, no compassion and no will to live. It is truly a culture of death.

 

[HelenRose]

Suffering must never become a capital offense worthy of the death penalty.

A culture that kills its young, euthanizes its wisdom and history of its aged, kills its weak and suffering is a culture that has no past no future no compassion and no will to live. It is truly a culture of death.

 

[St_Francis]

There is an evil effect: the death of the child.

It is not evil because no evil act has happened. It is sad; it is unwanted; but no more evil than a spontaneous miscarriage.

Life is precious.

It is, and that is why people should not take it, but we also need to accept that some things are beyond our power to fix.

 

[St_Francis]

I think you’re missing the point. It’s not about letting them set standards or boundaries, it’s about talking to them in a language they understand, without invoking the religion card.

I’m sorry, I was unclear. My point is that you need to unsettle their standards or boundaries, not simply accept them as given. Their stands or boundaries are what led them to the conclusion you are trying to change.

I said that we’d be deemed fanatics for looking like we’re simply sticking to our dogmas without a logical reason. If the only logical reason is a religious one, and they’re not religious, we will come across as illogical.

Anyway, Confiteor Deo pointed to something so simple, yet so few of us can see and use.

He got to the bottom of this in a single post with 2 sentences.

TBH, I have noticed that if it is known I am Catholic, it doesn’t matter how a-religious my argument is, *because I disagree *it is assumed I hold that point of view because of religion and because I hold the opposing point of view, I am fanatical.

The two-sentence come-back has not stopped millions of abortions of healthy babies; why would it change the mind of someone trying to reduce suffering?

 

[St_Francis]

We do not have the right to take the life of the innocent. You wouldn’t kill a retard after he was born to save him from his suffering in life, so why should we kill him before he is born?

FYI, in the US, using the word retard to refer to a person is considered dehumanizing, which sort of defeats the purpose of saying what you are trying to say.

 

[E_7]

Omit post. Wrong thread. Sorry

 

[LaSalle]

FYI, in the US, using the word retard to refer to a person is considered dehumanizing, which sort of defeats the purpose of saying what you are trying to say.

I notice that Americans get offended rather easily. Isn’t it obvious in this context that the writer does not mean any disrespect? We live in a Global world.