W
wanner47
Guest
- Intent
- Statistics
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
bobzills
Guest
I don;t believe that the methodology of mathematical statistics would in any way justify playing Russian roulette on any human being, whether it be yourself or some one else.
- Intent
- Statistics
C
chaz0426
Guest
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_abortion#CatholicismWell the Church’s teaching is clear, that the abortion is not justified. No ifs ands or buts.
“The Roman Catholic Church believes that life begins at conception and, as such, opposes abortion under all circumstance. In his writing Summa Theologica Saint Thomas Aquinas ruminated on the Principle of double effect by which he theorized that an action having foreseen harmful effects practically inseparable from the good effect is justifiable if it satisfied certain criteria. Using this line of reasoning the Church holds that a medical procedure needed to save the life of the mother, but that may result in the death of the offspring as a secondary effect, is morally acceptable.”
This is what I meant.
J
Jermosh
Guest
No one is saying that it is ok to take the “Pill”, but taking it is not the same as an abortion. The Church does allow the use of the “Pill” in some cases for both its contracetive and theaputic effects, so this means its not a intrinsic evil. Where as a Direct Abortion is an intrinsic evil.So it is OK to take an abortifacient birth control pill and play Russian roulette with a child in the womb?
Why would it be OK to play Russian roulette with a child in the womb, but not with a child outside of the womb?
J
Jessi_Thomist
Guest
I am pretty sure that you are misrepresenting Humanae Vitae. It is not morally licit to use “the pill” for contraception-- ever. In what cases would you think the Church would allow contraceptive use for contraception?
Even in the case that you are using “the pill” for other therapeutic reasons if you can achieve the same results using a non-contraceptive you are morally required to do so, so long as it is not more harmful (contraceptives are harmful enough to a woman’s body)…
Further, most contraceptives act as abortifacients at least some of the time. Usually with the pill it is by not allowing an already conceived fetus to implant on the uterine wall, but some also are chemical abortifacients directly killing the implanted fetus.
Peace.
Even in the case that you are using “the pill” for other therapeutic reasons if you can achieve the same results using a non-contraceptive you are morally required to do so, so long as it is not more harmful (contraceptives are harmful enough to a woman’s body)…
Further, most contraceptives act as abortifacients at least some of the time. Usually with the pill it is by not allowing an already conceived fetus to implant on the uterine wall, but some also are chemical abortifacients directly killing the implanted fetus.
Peace.
A
aggiecatholic05
Guest
the pill is allowe in some cases for theraputic effects, but there are no cases where it is allowed for contraceptive purposes. there is no situation that allows for artifical birth control. to say otherwise is out and out false.No one is saying that it is ok to take the “Pill”, but taking it is not the same as an abortion. The Church does allow the use of the “Pill” in some cases for both its contracetive and theaputic effects, so this means its not a intrinsic evil. Where as a Direct Abortion is an intrinsic evil.
B
bobzills
Guest
Is it OK to play Russian roulette with the life of a child? It is not “intrinsically” wrong to do so?No one is saying that it is ok to take the “Pill”, but taking it is not the same as an abortion. The Church does allow the use of the “Pill” in some cases for both its contracetive and theaputic effects, so this means its not a intrinsic evil. Where as a Direct Abortion is an intrinsic evil.
J
Jermosh
Guest
usccb.org/prolife/issues/abortion/ecfact.shtmlI am pretty sure that you are misrepresenting Humanae Vitae. It is not morally licit to use “the pill” for contraception-- ever. In what cases would you think the Church would allow contraceptive use for contraception?
"A woman who has been raped should be able to defend herself from a potential conception and receive treatments to suppress ovulation and incapacitate sperm. If conception has occurred, however, a Catholic hospital will not dispense drugs to interfere with implantation of a newly conceived human embryo.2 "
Please remember that Humanae Vitae is speaking of morally licit sex that is present within a marriage. This is not the case with all sexual encounters though.
RU486 is not a contraceptive pill, it is a direct abortion pill.Further, most contraceptives act as abortifacients at least some of the time. Usually with the pill it is by not allowing an already conceived fetus to implant on the uterine wall, but some also are chemical abortifacients directly killing the implanted fetus.
J
Jermosh
Guest
Its no more Russian roulette then riding a bike. Is riding a bike immoral now?Is it OK to play Russian roulette with the life of a child? It is not “intrinsically” wrong to do so?
J
Jermosh
Guest
Not true, the Church does allow contraception in certain cases.the pill is allowe in some cases for theraputic effects, but there are no cases where it is allowed for contraceptive purposes. there is no situation that allows for artifical birth control. to say otherwise is out and out false.
usccb.org/prolife/issues/abortion/ecfact.shtml
R
ryecroft
Guest
kage_ar<<Above I posted the Catechism sections on abortion. You will see that the Church teaching is very clear on direct abortion.
We can never kill one person so another may live.>>
Not trying to get a debate that never ends going, but to me, it seems that this is what you are doing when you choose the fetus possibility of living over the mothers. You are choosing to kill the mother so that the fetus may live. There seems to be this idea that if the mother and child can not be saved that the correct thing to do is to always kill the mother - yes, I say kill - not “let die” - there seems to be this idea that if a woman is pregnant and there is a choice that the fetus (generally regardless of age) should be chosen - I don’t believe that is fair to the mother at all (honestly it’s not a fair situation to either) or her husband, or her other children. Many seem to think that a mother can be kept on life support until the fetus is old enough to live without the mother - this is a very, very rare circumstance. A mother should not be guilted into having to choose the possibility of a fetus being old enough (in my case exactly right at 4 months which is still today not old enough) - it just seems that saying “we can never kill one person so another may live” is a catch 22 with a woman in pregnancy (no offense to you Kage_ar)- because no matter what happens, one or both will often end up dying. Shouldn’t there be something about whoever has the best chance of living have something to do with this? Because rarely can someone say for certain with 100% clarity that someone will or won’t die. I love the idea of miracles happening, but you can not depend on a miracle occuring. I even think of what I’ve read about St. Gianna and what her husband said about how miserable he was that he lost his wife - although I’m sure they’re glad that she’s a Saint now, I bet the family would give that up if they knew they could have kept their mother/wife/sibling with them. I’m not trying to be heretical or anything, but I believe that’s the way I would feel.
God Bless
Rye aka Annie
We can never kill one person so another may live.>>
Not trying to get a debate that never ends going, but to me, it seems that this is what you are doing when you choose the fetus possibility of living over the mothers. You are choosing to kill the mother so that the fetus may live. There seems to be this idea that if the mother and child can not be saved that the correct thing to do is to always kill the mother - yes, I say kill - not “let die” - there seems to be this idea that if a woman is pregnant and there is a choice that the fetus (generally regardless of age) should be chosen - I don’t believe that is fair to the mother at all (honestly it’s not a fair situation to either) or her husband, or her other children. Many seem to think that a mother can be kept on life support until the fetus is old enough to live without the mother - this is a very, very rare circumstance. A mother should not be guilted into having to choose the possibility of a fetus being old enough (in my case exactly right at 4 months which is still today not old enough) - it just seems that saying “we can never kill one person so another may live” is a catch 22 with a woman in pregnancy (no offense to you Kage_ar)- because no matter what happens, one or both will often end up dying. Shouldn’t there be something about whoever has the best chance of living have something to do with this? Because rarely can someone say for certain with 100% clarity that someone will or won’t die. I love the idea of miracles happening, but you can not depend on a miracle occuring. I even think of what I’ve read about St. Gianna and what her husband said about how miserable he was that he lost his wife - although I’m sure they’re glad that she’s a Saint now, I bet the family would give that up if they knew they could have kept their mother/wife/sibling with them. I’m not trying to be heretical or anything, but I believe that’s the way I would feel.
God Bless
Rye aka Annie
K
kage_ar
Guest
The Church never teaches that one person is to be saved over another, neither mother over child or child over mother, neither king over homeless beggar, rich over poor, etc. All of those involved in a situation are morally bound to do all that they can to see that EVERY life is saved.
I am sorry that your doctors did not provide you with this option, that they told you abortion was all you could do. It is a tragedy, pure and simple. In the modern world, there is ALWAYS another way.
Mother has a disease and the doctors say that she will die if she carries a baby to term. In that situation, the moral thing to do is for the woman to have close care by her doctor and her pastor, to do all they can to keep the mother alive until the baby can be delivered. If the time hits critical, mother is in imminant danger of death, the child would be delivered via C-section, and the medical professionals would work to help the child live if viable or to baptize and comfort a the child until she dies if she is too young to live. If you would like to see some heart touching photos and testimonies of parents who have been able to spend precious little time with pre-term born infants, go to www.nowilaymedowntosleep.org.
The compassionate thing to do is to give the child and mother the BEST possible chance to live, delivery at the latest date possible by C-section. Not dismembering the child or burning it to death with acid or injecting poision into the child’s heart and pulling the bloody parts out of the mother’s vagina. What on earth is compassionate about directly killing a child?
As a mother, I would suffer, be tortured, live in abject poverty, and die a thousand painful deaths to save my child. My children, one living and one who has gone on, are the most precious gifts God ever gave me.
I am sorry that your doctors did not provide you with this option, that they told you abortion was all you could do. It is a tragedy, pure and simple. In the modern world, there is ALWAYS another way.
Mother has a disease and the doctors say that she will die if she carries a baby to term. In that situation, the moral thing to do is for the woman to have close care by her doctor and her pastor, to do all they can to keep the mother alive until the baby can be delivered. If the time hits critical, mother is in imminant danger of death, the child would be delivered via C-section, and the medical professionals would work to help the child live if viable or to baptize and comfort a the child until she dies if she is too young to live. If you would like to see some heart touching photos and testimonies of parents who have been able to spend precious little time with pre-term born infants, go to www.nowilaymedowntosleep.org.
The compassionate thing to do is to give the child and mother the BEST possible chance to live, delivery at the latest date possible by C-section. Not dismembering the child or burning it to death with acid or injecting poision into the child’s heart and pulling the bloody parts out of the mother’s vagina. What on earth is compassionate about directly killing a child?
As a mother, I would suffer, be tortured, live in abject poverty, and die a thousand painful deaths to save my child. My children, one living and one who has gone on, are the most precious gifts God ever gave me.
S
stina2bina
Guest
Abortion is NEVER justified!!
A child conceived as a result of rape is worth just as much as a child conceived within a loving marriage. An unborn child conceived of rape does not deserve to die and certeinly isn’t “worth less” than a more fortunate child. It’s not his/her fault her father is a rapist.
For some reason, God wanted that child to be conceived. Who are we to question why?
A child conceived as a result of rape is worth just as much as a child conceived within a loving marriage. An unborn child conceived of rape does not deserve to die and certeinly isn’t “worth less” than a more fortunate child. It’s not his/her fault her father is a rapist.
For some reason, God wanted that child to be conceived. Who are we to question why?
B
BiologyBrain
Guest
The mother is never “killed”. She may die along w/ the child, but she is never preferentially/intentionally killed. That would most likely defeat the whole point of trying to save the baby as well. However, when an abortion is performed - even for the ‘best of reasons’ - the baby is always directly killed. The intention of pro-lifers & doctors should be the best for both mother & child. With technology as it is now, if I were placed in a position where it was my life verses continuing my pregnancy - I would opt for pre-term delivery and give the baby a chance. I would never take that chance of life away. Even though I might know that chances of survival are slim to none, I’d rather at least give my baby that small chance to live.Not trying to get a debate that never ends going, but to me, it seems that this is what you are doing when you choose the fetus possibility of living over the mothers. You are choosing to kill the mother so that the fetus may live. There seems to be this idea that if the mother and child can not be saved that the correct thing to do is to always kill the mother - yes, I say kill - not “let die” - there seems to be this idea that if a woman is pregnant and there is a choice that the fetus (generally regardless of age) should be chosen - I don’t believe that is fair to the mother at all (honestly it’s not a fair situation to either) or her husband, or her other children. Many seem to think that a mother can be kept on life support until the fetus is old enough to live without the mother - this is a very, very rare circumstance.
The closest I’ve been to that situation was my last miscarriage. I was 10-13 weeks along (not really sure b/c the baby stopped growing prior to my first ultrasound) and began bleeding heavily. By the time my doctor could examine me, tissue was already coming from my uterus - signally that the miscarriage had already begun. Even at that point, I didn’t have a D&C (my doctor didn’t think it necessary), but I could have. So I’ve never really been in that situation, but I know my preference would always be for both of us to have a chance at life. Not just one of us. Its that chance where we allow God to work in His wonderous ways for our good.
I realize that your situation was different & you’re comfortable w/ the choice you made. However, that choice is not one I would choose (at least not as far as I can imagine) nor is it one that I would personally be comfortable with in the long run. I feel tremendous guilt over my multiple miscarriages & cannot image how I would feel if I thought I caused the death of my child. I would be angry w/ my husband for making that choice as well - even if his intention was saving my life. I don’t think you’re a bad person, a bad Catholic, or a bad mother for making that choice. I think you made the best decision you could for yourself in your situation with the information you had. I don’t like the decision, but I don’t dislike or disrespect you for making it. I realize that your intent (and your husband’s) was to preserve your life so you could possibly have more children and chances. In my heart, I pray that you are as comfortable w/ the decision as you describe. I also pray that you won’t have to make any more decisions like that for the rest of your life. I pray for the soul of your baby and for any grief you & your husband/family felt at that loss. God bless & take care!
W
wanner47
Guest
The issue is not the statistics relating to “Russian Roulette” - a term not found in Catolic moral teaching - but rather the statistics relating to (1) the number of children conceived while the Pill is used, and (2) the number of children aborted as a result of the Pill. To my knowledge, there haven’t been any studies conducted, but the number is low enough that the Church does permit the use of the Pill for medical reasons, as a last resort if no other therapy is available.I don;t believe that the methodology of mathematical statistics would in any way justify playing Russian roulette on any human being, whether it be yourself or some one else.
L
La-Petite-Fleur
Guest
Yet what ever the scenario, abortion is still the killing of a human, an innocent human at that. If mercy and justice were to truly prevail in any scenario, case, or condition, we would find that life would have been respected, from the very beginning.
B
bobzills
Guest
So there is nothing wrong with playing Russian roulette with the life of another human being?The issue is not the statistics relating to “Russian Roulette” - a term not found in Catolic moral teaching - but rather the statistics relating to (1) the number of children conceived while the Pill is used, and (2) the number of children aborted as a result of the Pill. To my knowledge, there haven’t been any studies conducted, but the number is low enough that the Church does permit the use of the Pill for medical reasons, as a last resort if no other therapy is available.
W
wanner47
Guest
Reading comprehension = EPIC FAIL.So there is nothing wrong with playing Russian roulette with the life of another human being?
Try again, scooter.
N
Nino
Guest
when the supremes changed the meaning of the word…person so that it can allow the killing of a developing baby …the good ole US of A started on a long path downward into the sewer of indifference to evil!.Now we have more and more so called ‘hate’ bills that will make it illegal to even discuss topics like this,much less to condemn it and try to bring back decency and morality! In the hate crimes bill…the elderly,religious people,veterans are not covered in any way…we can be attacked at will by Will and Harvey and Shirley etc etc…while we cant question their odd ball lifestyles…oops…sorry thats worth forty lashes at least…remember folks of the left.who smirk at the above…beware for whom the bell tolls,for it also tolls for thee and thee and THEE…
E
Etchi_Besem
Guest
I believe abortion can never be justified but can be sympathized with and then lamented, for not all are strong in faith and not many Catholic communities show that kind of compassion as can dislodge abortion. In my Cameroonian context, the moral stigma and rude treatment stamped on young girls especially from Catholic families and by church institutions is so great that abortion seems more welcome. I wonder whether the law hasn’t become more important than the young woman and her baby’s flourishing especially when the guy walks away free as if she drank the pregnancy in a glass of water. Take a young woman barely struggling to survive what is the cost of having and raising a child in the US? it is easy to be judgemental and say she should have abstained or planned or whatever, than to be compassionate about the fact that we are all irrational sometimes. If abortion is to be avoided the ‘no abortion law’ has to be socially and structurally protected. If you were the nine year old Brazil girl pregnant with twins of rape by her step father how easy is it to have faith? Besides why do miscarriages occur? does God abort babies? Have we made an idol of this temporary life? Abortion can never be justified but I doubt that every baby must be born at all costs, lamentable and unjustifiable but part of our imperfect world.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.