I'm pro-life...but that's my choice

[Nate13]

You have not addressed the challenge to the claim that tube removal and methotrexate are fundamentally morally different. It is hard to see how they are that different. In both cases the goal is the removal of the doomed fetus. The goal is not the death of the fetus. In both cases the death of the fetus is a known and unfortunate consequence of the procedure. In both cases the fate of the fetus is just as certain. It is not as if the fetus in the removed tube has any chance of survival. And what do they do with that fetus after the section of tube is removed? It is still technically alive. Do they treat it as a person, or do they just say “Sorry, fetus, through our deliberate action you are now where you can not live, so we are going to discard you as medical waste now.”. How is that any more respectful of human life than administering a drug that has the same effect, but does not permanently disable the tube?

Its the difference between directly killing an innocent human life, and allowing someone to die of indirect consequences of an action foreseeable or not. Its the difference between euthanasia and allowing someone to die naturally a week later. This principle is applied equally in all areas of morality.

2258 "Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being."56

I’d also point out that there is another method to treat this that was banned before the drug was, which is the cut open the tube and scoop the baby out. This method allowed the tube to stay in place and not reduce fertility. What you haven’t heard is that this method as well as the methotrexate method both create a scar in the tube that greatly increases the chances of subsequent ectopic pregnancies. Taking the piece of the tube out is the smart option either way.

 

[Nate13]

I wouldn’t say that the baby is acting, because that term is usually associated with a conscious action. What is actually happening is that mindless cellular machinery tasked with producing a human is busy producing a human. It’s working as expected, except that it happens to be working in the wrong place and time. If it continues, it is going to kill both the human being created and the human hosting it.

Uh no. The baby is working exactly where he/she should be and at exactly the right time. You get on me for blaming the mother when she legitimately may have done things to cause the problems occurring within her body, but then proceed to blame the baby when he/she does everything right as designed by nature?

Imagine that you have a trolley with a passenger travelling along the track, and further down the track there is a person which will die if the trolley is not stopped. The trolley is not at fault here; it is designed to travel along the track, and that’s what it does. The trolley’s passenger is not at fault either; he’s riding the trolley in good faith. Now, the circumstances are that if the trolley keeps on moving it’s going to hit someone on the track and kill both that person and the trolley’s passenger. You are arguing that it is unjustifiable to derail the trolley to save the person on the track, because that would directly kill the passenger. At the same time, you argue that it is moral to redirect the trolley into another track, which leads into a shaft, because such redirection causes the death of the passenger indirectly: the passenger will die as a result of falling into a shaft, not as a result of derailment. I am however not sure if the passenger will appreciate the finer points of this distinction.

The best example is euthanasia. Do you support euthanasia? Its very simply the difference between indirectly causing the death of someone and directly doing so.

This sums it up:

2258 "Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being."56

The reason you don’t get this is because you are looking at it from the utilitarian view point. You just want to do whatever is most useful and gets the best results. Catholics are not utilitarian. We are the opposite. We believe in personalism.

The crazy man with the gun only enters the discourse to demonstrate that the Natural Law says that the right to self-defense is absolute. If someone is trying to shoot you, you have the right to shoot first and kill him. (There’s precisely one exception to this rule, and it concerns law enforcement, which is a pretty recent invention anyway). Your assertion that a fetus posing a threat to mother’s life cannot be treated as an attacker, because it’s actions are not unjust, implies that if you are attacked by a guy with a gun, you should first determine attacker’s mental health and rationale.

No actually it doesn’t. You make the best judgement you can and go from there. You imply intentions based on the circumstances surrounding the act. If your out on main street and someone comes running at you with a gun in their hand and points it at you, that implies all the intent you need to have in order to make the decision to pull out your own gun if you carry and shoot.

In the situation with a child in the womb however, doctors are trained and can determine who is at fault. The child is obviously not consciously making any decisions to harm his/her mother though so that can be ruled out. I do not see any correlation though between the split second decision someone may have to make when a crazy person charges them, and the decisions a doctor and patient have to make with a child in the womb. The doctor is able to ascertain the problem, and will have ample opportunity to consider the options available and make an informed, moral decision.

This is clearly an absurd proposition. It doesn’t matter if the attacker is insane, has a bomb strapped around his neck, or has a good reason to kill you – it’s your basic right to kill him before he hurts you. So if shoot first ask later is justifiable with respect to a grown human, then what is the rationale to treat a fetus differently?

There is no split second decision making in the case of an unborn child. There is plenty of time to determine who is at fault. Doctor’s are taught to diagnose what is wrong and make decisions appropriately. You could save yourself a lot of trouble if you could provide an example that actually showed a case where the baby was acting unnaturally and attacking their mother in the womb. You would also have to show that in the case given, deadly force would not be more force than was necessary. The analogy does not work in this regard.

Obviously, the situation which arose indicates that the condom was not used…
Besides, I believe that she had three other children already… Grasping for straws and blaming the victim.

Distasteful.

Actually, I think its an incredibly reasonable point. In your example, you provided a situation where something went wrong with the mother’s body that may full well have been the result of actions she had taken in her lifetime and had full control over. I think ignoring that fact would be wrong.

 

[maplebug55]

What confuses me more than anything is how we can punish someone who kills a pregnant woman (accidentally or on purpose) and charge them for taking both lives, BUT abortion is ok. Now, I don’t know the exact law or anything, but I do know of several cases where a pregnant woman was killed in a car accident or murdered, and the parties involved were charged for both lives. Contradiction, much? What if that woman who was killed was on her way to have an abortion when her life ended?

I have wondered this too. It is either a human or it is not. (i believe it is!)

 

[ryecroft]

Personally, I think that this comes down to beliefs- those that are pro life believe (in most cases) that life begins at conception (although I have met some pro life who believe it’s not until implantation that this occurs)- but those who are pro choice do not necessarily believe this - each side will say there is “scientific fact” to back up their claims - and each can bring some ‘choice’ facts to the table. Then the pro lifers will go on to say that what they believe is not just a belief but ‘fact’ - and the pro choicers will also say the same. Perhaps not on this forum too much, but in my life outside of this, I know plenty of Catholics who will tell me that they may be pro life (except in cases of rape or where the mothers life is in danger)- but that they don’t feel it’s their place to push their beliefs onto others. I even know some Catholics who say it’s not right for males who can never be in the situation of being pregnant or feel the need to get an abortion, should ever be in the place to force decisions on women. I do not honestly believe there will ever be a place for both groups to get together and agree. It just seems to me this is a battle that will never be won by either side. Abortions will continue to occur whether legal or illegal - it will just become a situation of who has money enough to pay for them or who is willing to go to the person who is giving the abortions.
But I do have one more question - for those that aren’t Catholic, who don’t believe that life begins at conception, I understand some Catholics who feel they would be pushing their beliefs onto others. Why should my belief cancel out another’s belief. Right now, I live in the states - and I was brought up that all religious beliefs were to be respected even if I didn’t agree with them. (I grew up in Japan much of my life but how this would play out there is a completely different - situation)
God Bless

 

[kama3]

Uh no. The baby is working exactly where he/she should be and at exactly the right time. You get on me for blaming the mother when she legitimately may have done things to cause the problems occurring within her body, but then proceed to blame the baby when he/she does everything right as designed by nature?

Why do you keep looking for the blame? Nobody (and nothing) here was to blame for anything. It’s a particular combination of otherwise harmless factors which becomes lethal, not someone’s conscious action.

To keep with the trolley analogy: you refuse to deal with the trolley and instead start looking for the guy who set this trolley in motion, for the guy who allowed the trolley to be used, and for the guy who designed it. As if it mattered to people in the trolley and on the track.

The best example is euthanasia.

You mean the doctrine which says that it’s OK to cut off fluids to a terminal patient so they can die of dehydration suffering for days, but it’s not OK to simply overdose painkillers and kill them in several minutes? Yes, that’s equally hypocritical. Either keep them on life support indefinitely, or kill them as swiftly and painlessly as possible.

The more I think about it, the more I see the whole doctrine as increadibly selfish: since an action could possibly condemn your soul to Hell, it is in your interest to choose inaction. Whatever happens next, will not happen to you, but to someone else anyway.

Actually, I think its an incredibly reasonable point. In your example, you provided a situation where something went wrong with the mother’s body that may full well have been the result of actions she had taken in her lifetime and had full control over. I think ignoring that fact would be wrong.

Mind blowing.

So you are essentially asserting that your God, being all-knowing and thus aware of the woman’s medical history, has purposedly allowed her to get pregnant, so the resulting strain on her cardiovascular system kills her (as a punishment for her past actions, as it is a just God), and, while at it, endowed the fetus with the sole purpose of killing her (and itself in the process) with an immortal soul, for it is a merciful God? Truly, Sr. MacBride deserved an excommunication for interfering with such a masterpiecie of divine planning!

Here’s a clue: if God wanted to punish her for past transgression, a cardiac arrest in sleep would been much simpler and not involve innocent children…

 

[Aquila_Lucis]

Mind blowing.

So you are essentially asserting that your God, being all-knowing and thus aware of the woman’s medical history, has purposedly allowed her to get pregnant, so the resulting strain on her cardiovascular system kills her (as a punishment for her past actions, as it is a just God), and, while at it, endowed the fetus with the sole purpose of killing her (and itself in the process) with an immortal soul, for it is a merciful God? Truly, Sr. MacBride deserved an excommunication for interfering with such a masterpiecie of divine planning!

Here’s a clue: if God wanted to punish her for past transgression, a cardiac arrest in sleep would been much simpler and not involve innocent children…

I’ve had a radical change of heart since having started this thread (now fully in line with the idea that there is a moral duty to advocate for abortions to stop and that the law ought to reflect that particular value) and decided to check in on it. This intrigued me, your post, as it relfects that you know little about the value of the Cross.

It would have been a lot simpler for Jesus to have redeemed humanity by waiving a magic wand, and instead He endured His Passion and death. We cannot fathom the infinity of His Love for us. We couldn’t fathom it on Good Friday, and we still can’t now. So, it’s not big surprise that we can’t see the Love through all the terror and pain that comes with a mother’s life beng in danger due to pregnancy.

 

[mdkirkbride]

If only more Catholics would examine the teachings of the Church on this, live, and vote their faith then abortion wouldn’t be legal in the US.

 

[sw85]

I just read a post entitled “Pro-Choice need not apply?” and started to have some questions of my own. The person who asked the questions referred to stuggling with pro-life politics and how that comes into contact with our faith as Catholics, and I find myself in the same boat.

I have long described my pro-life/pro-choice politics with this phrase: “I’m pro-life, but that’s my choice.” As an American Catholic, I have never been able to reconcile legislating any issue with only my faith as at the root of why. Personally, I can’t stomach the idea of abortion, and as a few my friends from high school and college who have come to me in crisis to tell me that they were pregnant, I have strongly asserted the baby’s right to live when I encouraged them to carry the child to term and–if they did not have to raise the child themselves–to find a family who would be able to.

But, as an American, I also know and understand that my values are not the same values that everyone else has. God gave us the freedom of choice–and the responsibility of the consequences that go with those choices. Not everyone feels that abortion is morally objectionable; for example, my athiest brother; Islam even recognizes circumstances in which abortion is–to them, at least–permissible. So, how can we legislate our faith, codify it into law?

In my heart, I feel that to force everyone to choose life, to remove their rights as humans and as citizens to choose for themselves between right or wrong would be the same as forcing my athiest brother to come to Mass every day: my brother, as well as the countless people who choose abortion, do know the consequences of their actions and of their own free willare choosing wrong.

Am I wrong to think that we shouldn’t force faith and values on people who don’t want it? Doesn’t it degrade their own humanity by not letting them choose freely, just as we all have *chosen freely *to accept Christ?

I don’t get your argument. Ontologically, people are always free to have abortions, even in a regime where such is strictly punished. We’re not talking about the state handing out traumatic brain injury, after all.

You seem to be advocating for us to treat the Constitution as if it were higher-authority than the Magisterium of the Church (or even as if it actually contained a right to “abortion,” when it clearly doesn’t, which is why no one noticed it existed till five minutes ago, as a result of “emanations” from “penumbras”). But why in the world should anyone do that? The Constitution is a fallible documents, a passing political arrangement and an accident of historical circumstances. The Magisterium of the Church is infallible and enduring. Your problem is one of misplaced priorities.

 

[mdkirkbride]

You should read her latest post that has -

I’ve had a radical change of heart since having started this thread (now fully in line with the idea that there is a moral duty to advocate for abortions to stop and that the law ought to reflect that particular value) and decided to check in on it.

 

[PJM]

=aquila lucis;8706841]i just read a post entitled “pro-choice need not apply?” and started to have some questions of my own. The person who asked the questions referred to stuggling with pro-life politics and how that comes into contact with our faith as catholics, and i find myself in the same boat.

I have long described my pro-life/pro-choice politics with this phrase: “i’m pro-life, but that’s my choice.” as an american catholic, i have never been able to reconcile legislating any issue with only my faith as at the root of why. Personally, i can’t stomach the idea of abortion, and as a few my friends from high school and college who have come to me in crisis to tell me that they were pregnant, i have strongly asserted the baby’s right to live when i encouraged them to carry the child to term and–if they did not have to raise the child themselves–to find a family who would be able to.

But, as an american, i also know and understand that my values are not the same values that everyone else has. God gave us the freedom of choice–and the responsibility of the consequences that go with those choices. Not everyone feels that abortion is morally objectionable; for example, my athiest brother; islam even recognizes circumstances in which abortion is–to them, at least–permissible. So, how can we legislate our faith, codify it into law?

In my heart, i feel that to force everyone to choose life, to remove their rights as humans and as citizens to choose for themselves between right or wrong would be the same as forcing my athiest brother to come to mass every day: My brother, as well as the countless people who choose abortion, do know the consequences of their actions and of their own free willare choosing wrong.

Am i wrong to think that we shouldn’t force faith and values on people who don’t want it? Doesn’t it degrade their own humanity by not letting them choose freely, just as we all have *chosen freely *to accept christ?

it’s really simple really …

If jesus would do it and approve of it ; so can we:d

if not; neiter can we. Period:d

 

[Matilda_Bennett]

This thread has been dormant for a considerable period. With rare exceptions, reviving threads after a protracted period of inactivity is discouraged because:

the issues that spurred them are often no longer "hot" or current topics, explaining why thread activity ceased originally.
posters originally involved in the discussion are sometimes no longer active on the forum and, therefore, unavailable to reply to comments added to the thread.

Our experience suggests that, when a topic merits revival, it is best accomplished by initiating a new thread that draws on recent events and can be posted to contemporaneously. This eliminates the baggage of folks being frustrated by asking and not receiving responses to issues raised in early posts (because the new poster didn’t notice that the post he was responding to was made a long time ago).

Posters are very welcome to open a new thread on the subject or any other topic, as well as to actively participate in the myriad active threads in the fora.

Thank you to all those who have participated in this discussion. This thread is now closed.