Is it ever okay to have an abortion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter specifics
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Do the words decapitation and dismemberment bother?

Need I ask if the Lord, the giver of Life, has a say in this?
 
Ask yourself, and your god. Oh yes, the horrors of it all make an impact with me, and particularly when there are conscious victims. There is more than one victim here, besides the mother, besides the eventual child, even besides the father (whether he gives the proverbial damn or not), and including the doctors and nurses (and please do not think they aren’t terribly aware of this).

I have proposed a few possible at-least-partial solutions to the Abortion Problem here before - I shan’t bring them up unless asked to do so, since such things are apparently too conservative by most modern lights. 😉
 
Nepenthe said:
Ask yourself, and your god. Oh yes, the horrors of it all make an impact with me, and particularly when there are conscious victims. There is more than one victim here, besides the mother, besides the eventual child, even besides the father (whether he gives the proverbial damn or not), and including the doctors and nurses (and please do not think they aren’t terribly aware of this).

I have proposed a few possible at-least-partial solutions to the Abortion Problem here before - I shan’t bring them up unless asked to do so, since such things are apparently too conservative by most modern lights. 😉
Click to expand...
You know I love you Nepenthe, that being said, I thought this poster was catholic.

I never did check profile.:o 😦

My bad ignorance gets me again.

I cant say I would retract, I can say I should have checked profile first.

However, I gave the Catholic viewpoint.

I can’t tell you I did not have an emotional reaction to your posts, I did.

but, I cant tell you that emotional reactions, are trustworthy-
Then again, emotional reactions helped me-
(you know what I mean I think)

(I say this more about me now, not casting any judgement- myself-
I had a very hard emotional struggle)

All I can say, is God has a plan for us all IMHO, and I cant prove it.

I cant prove that abortion is murder and a break of the commandment in scripture.

Because I cant prove scripture is true.

I cant prove the Church is true.

I have had times of deep despair.

I cant tell you I did not.

But, I can tell you that if one does hold the bible and the Church valid, they have no options here.

I know, that sounds cold blooded, but its how it is.

Dont ask me to prove it.

I cant.
 
And I have never been Catholic, or Christian, nor any form or kind of theist. And yet, I am hunan, and capable of charity and kindness and aspiration.

I hope that your ignorance is as productive as ine has been, and without the terrible trials. I do not understand about deities, but I* do tryb to be a good friend, especially when I can be of particular service - nothing to do with gods or not-gods, I simply abhor the conditions of cruelty and misery
When some people gripe about public mores (the safest gripe possible) do they ever consider just how terribly harsh the world is, and I do mean here and now in the US of A?

Mm…I have more to bring here, but the relevant part is whether abortion can be ‘Okay’ whatever that might be. After observing conservative Catholics about ‘Okayness’ re: this forum for over a year, I am bemused and entertained, I’ll give you that.

It can be, perhaps, since if such were not possible, you wouldn’t have me to contend with. Like them bananas?
 
Nepenthe said:
And I have never been Catholic, or Christian, nor any form or kind of theist. And yet, I am hunan, and capable of charity and kindness and aspiration.

When some people gripe about public mores (the safest gripe possible) do they ever consider just how terribly harsh the world is, and I do mean here and now in the US of A?

Mm…I have more to bring here, but the relevant part is whether abortion can be ‘Okay’ whatever that might be. After observing conservative Catholics about ‘Okayness’ Ire: this forum for over a year, I am bemused and entertained, I’ll give you that.

It can be, perhaps, since if such were not possible, you wouldn’t have me to contend with. Like them bananas?
Click to expand...
The world was rather harsh on Jesus no?
 
Oh yes surely. Yeshua Bin Yusuf was many things - political stalking-horse (whether he liked it or not), rabbi and physician, moralist and lawgiver (and law-eliminator) and all-around champ with bags of charisma.

Please never think that people of different religions think of Jesus in low regard - and non-theists are even more likely to consider him highly as an exemplar, since to many of us the field doesn’t look very weighted. and he didn’t give much time to tribal or cultural nitpicking. I don’t approve of Jesus in terms of any religion, whether Abrahamic, monotheist or whatever. I approve of him personally and his wisdom as a fellow human - though he could have been nicer to that poor figtree! We all have those off-days, those struggles, and I have heard many here say that serving soldiers are entitled to spiritual leniency for all manner of sins…those same conditions as expressed on this board and by the Vatican appear to me to be applicable to fertile or potentially-fertile women.
 
Nepenthe said:
Oh yes surely. Yeshua Bin Yusuf was many things - political stalking-horse (whether he liked it or not), rabbi and physician, moralist and lawgiver (and law-eliminator) and all-around champ with bags of charisma.

Please never think that people of different religions think of Jesus in low regard - and non-theists are even more likely to consider him highly as an exemplar, since to many of us the field doesn’t look very weighted. and he didn’t give much time to tribal or cultural nitpicking. I don’t approve of Jesus in terms of any religion, whether Abrahamic, monotheist or whatever. I approve of him personally and his wisdom as a fellow human - though he could have been nicer to that poor figtree! We all have those off-days, those struggles, and I have heard many here say that serving soldiers are entitled to spiritual leniency for all manner of sins…those same conditions as expressed on this board and by the Vatican appear to me to be applicable to fertile or potentially-fertile women.
Click to expand...
Not saying you did not value Jesus as exemplar.

Not at all.

I personally know you have shown the love of Jesus to others, including me-

I only asked if for those who do see him as God, if He would approve of someone taking a life He gave.

I am not arguing with you, only telling you that as a Christian, I have no choice but to see this as murder.

I do appreciate your viewpoint, and I can’t change it. Nor do I think I could if I wanted to. I don’t want that kind of world. I as a christian, like the world we are in from my perspective, we can all choose.

I just cant endorse it, and can only tell people the Church and the Christian bible does not endorse it.

I dont condemn you, or judge you.

You were very kind to me, and yours-

when I was most lost.

I hope we can disagree and remain friends.

I know I want to be friends for life. With you and yours.
 
Hellisreal said:
  1. Medical necessity…
First, while the Church opposes all direct abortions, it does not condemn procedures which result, indirectly, in the loss of the unborn child as a “secondary effect.” For example, if a mother is suffering an ectopic pregnancy (a baby is developing in her fallopian tube, not the womb), a doctor may… It is not a direct abortion.

There also occur, very rarely, situations in which, in order to save the mother’s life, the child needs to be delivered early. But this can be done safely with a normal, induced delivery, or a caesarean section.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, but I do not think this is a very accurate depiction of either Church teaching or the current application of the directives by Catholic caregivers in the US.

A good place to start would be the Catholic Encyclopedia’s entry on the matter:

newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm

First, notice that our absolute prohibition on abortion dates only from 1884 and 1889. Prior to that the Church had not officially weighed in on the matter of abortions to save the life of a mother (Something early Christians and their Jewish contemporaries accepted).

When the Church did weigh in several moralists theorized that ectopic pregnancies would be exempt, since the fetus’ prognosis is less than 6 months of life and the possibility of death of the mother was, at the time, extremely high (25-50%). So again, notice in the entry that the Church was asked about premature extraction without injury. The answer was an unequivicol “no”. And the Encyclopedia characterized the entire decision as:
Ethics, then, and the Church agree in teaching that no action is lawful which directly destroys fetal life. It is also clear that extracting the living fetus before it is viable, is destroying its life as directly as it would be killing a grown man directly to plunge him into a medium in which he cannot live, and hold him there till he expires.
Click to expand...
Subsequent to this a single moralist theorized that one of the three common treatements for an ectopic pregnancy (tubal removal) was not a direct abortion because of the principle of double effect. Even at the time, it was described as a “thin distinction”, but it has been widely taught and accepted.

However, the Church has never officially accepted it, and the distinction has become hopelessly thin as medical advances have occured. For example, the mortality rate has plummetted with the introduction of antibiotics and plasma to treat tubal ruptures and i.c. bleeding.

Also, we now detect ectopic pregnancies very early, so the treatment is often applied before there is even a discernable alternate symptom to treat. That is, we typically ‘treat’ the tube before it is even showing detectable trauma. Since the outcome is essentially identical, the special status of the most costly and intrussive procedure (which also has the worst outcome for the surviving patient, since it involves partial sterility) has become increasingly hard to justify under secular medical standards.

So, increasingly, non surgical treatments, like the abortificant MTX, are being used in Catholic hospitals. Some groups, like CHA, justify this by extended the original ‘thin distinction’ to extremes. Others, presumably understanding that the double effect argument has never been strong, have abandoned the double effect argument altogether and are adopting different tacts. For example, there was an article published last year by the American Catholic Council on Bioethics which argued that MTX could be used because certain ectopic pregnancies were not pregnancies, but interrupted miscarriages, with the fetus “dead or dying”. Why our prohibition on euthanasia does not apply was not discussed.

It is a difficult situation (I watched my daughter go through it and was not wholly supportive of her decision to let nature take its course at the time), and it is a difficult Church teaching. But I have no doubt that virtually all of the 100,000 or so ‘abortions of medical necessity’ (to use the secular term) done in Catholic hospitals in the US each year are, in fact, direct.
 
There was a story here a while back, that popped into my mind now, called 99 balloons? (I think) Does anyone remember that one?
 
Tim_Kirchoff said:
Is it alright to murder an person registered as an organ donor so that those people who could use those organs will survive?
Click to expand...
There is a big difference in chosing to save one life by ending another, and not acting and having both die. You can’t save the baby unless you save the mother!!

This is off topic, but I feel compelled to dispel a myth here.
As a critical care nurse who worked with brain dead patients whose organs were harvested, I can tell you that people registered organ donors are NOT murdered for their organs. (not legally, anyway.) Even if the patient was a registered organ donor, the harvesting will not happen unless the next of kin or health care proxy agrees.

The patient is declared brain dead by physical exam, brain flow studies, and apnea tests. If you remove the ventilator and the patient does not initiate any breaths for 2 minutes, the patient, if warm and off narcotics and paralytics, the patient will not survive without the ventilator. The church has never required this type of technology to be used just because it exists.
 
VAC said:
There is a big difference in chosing to save one life by ending another, and not acting and having both die. You can’t save the baby unless you save the mother!!
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, I’m not sure I see a distinction in the situations already cited. In ectopic pregnancy the prognosis for the fetus is eventual death, but the prognosis for the mother is not so clear.

If the pregnancy results in tubal rupture, internal bleeding can result. Shock is often the first symptom in previously undetected cases. There is a possibility of death (ectopic pregnancies account for about 9% of all pregnancy related deaths in the US), but most deaths are the result of late detection and no access to emergency medical care.

Again, going back to the the Catholic encyclopedia, the four criteria that should be considered in trying to apply double effect are listed as:
  • That we do not wish the evil effects, but make all reasonable efforts to avoid them;
  • That the immediate effect be good in itself;
  • That the evil is not made a means to obtain the good effect; for this would be to do evil that good might come of it – a procedure never allowed;
  • That the good effect be as important at least as the evil effect.
Click to expand...
The problem with trying to distinguish between salpingostomy, salpingectomy, and a chemical abortificant is that the diagnosis and outcome are the same. In fact, it is the most intrussive (worse outcome) that has historically been defended.

But since there is no superior outcome, it is very hard to argue the second point above. Further, since the situation is dangerous, but not necessarily mortal (or even mortal a majority of the time if prompt medical treatment is received) for the mother, it is hard to argue that the forth point is met either.

Please don’t missunderstand. I have tremendous sympathy for both patients involved. But I also am considering Church teaching.

I find some other applications of double effect and abortion, like treating some forms of cancer, much more compelling. The principle difference is that the health threat is not the pregnancy itself and probability of maternal death is quite high.

However, arguments involving Just War theory or concepts of self defense are heretical. The Church has clearly stated:
The plea cannot be made that the child is an unjust aggressor. It is simply where nature and its own parents have put it. Therefore, Natural Law forbids any attempt at destroying fetal life.
Click to expand...
Regarding harvesting and organ donation. It seems to me to be one final tremendous Christian act that each of us could potentially perform for our fellow human beings. I find it sad that there are myths you need to dispell.
 
I’m rather surprised at the number of people on this thread said “no” to the original post. (I not suggesting that you’re wrong - I really don’t know.)

But to put things into perspective… I understand that you are allowed to kill and intruder/attacker to save your own life. I’m not suggesting that the poor ole baby in the womb is an illegal intruder/attacker, but I thought the mother should be given some sort of defence.
SoCalRC said:
… However, arguments involving Just War theory or concepts of self defense are heretical. The Church has clearly stated:
The plea cannot be made that the child is an unjust aggressor. It is simply where nature and its own parents have put it. Therefore, Natural Law forbids any attempt at destroying fetal life.

…
\QUOTE]

Boy, what a hard pill to swallow.
Click to expand...
 
Charlie_Zeaiter said:
I’m rather surprised at the number of people on this thread said “no” to the original post. (I not suggesting that you’re wrong - I really don’t know.)

But to put things into perspective… I understand that you are allowed to kill and intruder/attacker to save your own life. I’m not suggesting that the poor ole baby in the womb is an illegal intruder/attacker, but I thought the mother should be given some sort of defence.
SoCalRC;2852526:
…However, arguments involving Just War theory or concepts of self defense are heretical. The Church has clearly stated:

QUOTE]
Boy, what a hard pill to swallow.
Click to expand...
The mother should be given a defense against what exactly?
Click to expand...
 
VAC said:
There is a big difference in chosing to save one life by ending another, and not acting and having both die. You can’t save the baby unless you save the mother!!

This is off topic, but I feel compelled to dispel a myth here.
As a critical care nurse who worked with brain dead patients whose organs were harvested, I can tell you that people registered organ donors are NOT murdered for their organs. (not legally, anyway.) Even if the patient was a registered organ donor, the harvesting will not happen unless the next of kin or health care proxy agrees.

The patient is declared brain dead by physical exam, brain flow studies, and apnea tests. If you remove the ventilator and the patient does not initiate any breaths for 2 minutes, the patient, if warm and off narcotics and paralytics, the patient will not survive without the ventilator. The church has never required this type of technology to be used just because it exists.
Click to expand...
Charlie_Zeaiter said:
I’m rather surprised at the number of people on this thread said “no” to the original post. (I not suggesting that you’re wrong - I really don’t know.)

But to put things into perspective… I understand that you are allowed to kill and intruder/attacker to save your own life. I’m not suggesting that the poor ole baby in the womb is an illegal intruder/attacker, but I thought the mother should be given some sort of defence.
Click to expand...
Firstly, just to dispel any myths, I was posing that as a rhetorical question…

Secondly the mother did have a defense. She chose to have sex (whenever I say it, I feel so awkward…😊 ) and must be able to deal with the consequences.

Your next line is, “What about rape and incest?” Well, I’m not going talking about that until we discuss the instances where the woman already made a choice.:ehh: :dts:
 
Tim_Kirchoff said:
… Secondly the mother did have a defense. She chose to have sex (whenever I say it, I feel so awkward…😊 ) and must be able to deal with the consequences.
Click to expand...
That is the most outrageous thing I’ve heard. You should feel awkward.
Tim_Kirchoff said:
Your next line is, “What about rape and incest?” Well, I’m not going talking about that until we discuss the instances where the woman already made a choice.:ehh: :dts:
Click to expand...
That was never going to be my next line.

I shoudn’t have gotten involved in this thread. Unlike that poor ole mother with a deadly pregnancy - I’m leaving.
 
Charlie_Zeaiter said:
Death.
Click to expand...
Well if you read the information from the Church, you’ll see that if a pregnancy results in a death to the mother and child, ie ectopic pregnancy, that life-saving treatment can be done provided it isn’t done in order to procure the DIRECT death of the baby.
 
Charlie_Zeaiter said:
That is the most outrageous thing I’ve heard. You should feel awkward.

That was never going to be my next line.

I shoudn’t have gotten involved in this thread. Unlike that poor ole mother with a deadly pregnancy - I’m leaving.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what makes you so uncomfortable about talking about the obvious consequence of sex - a baby?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top