JW Mother Dies After Refusing Blood Transfusion

  • Thread starter Thread starter zerinus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
George_Waters said:
BS! You assume risk with everything including pregnancy! That statement is ignorant. When my wife was pregnant our doctor talked to us about the risks. And before you tell me how horrible a husband I am, it was my wife who told me that in the highly unlikely chance it came down to her or the baby we were to save the baby. It is important to her that her baby have the opportunity to live life. It’s just easier for you to see women as something to produce a commodity for you isn’t it?
Click to expand...
That is just false logic and plain ignorant. When I was born into this world, I assumed the “risk” of catching pneumonia and dying. That does not mean that if I do catch pneumonia, I must allow myself to die, and not accept medical treatment and live.

zerinus
 
zerinus said:
That is just false logic and plain ignorant. When I was born into this world, I assumed the “risk” of catching pneumonia and dying. That does not mean that if I do catch pneumonia, I must allow myself to die, and not accept medical treatment and live.

zerinus
Click to expand...
No one is refusing treatment, well except the JW’s and their no blood transfusions.
A catholic can seek treatment for an ectopic pregnancy…
What are you not grasping here?
 
zerinus said:
That is just false logic and plain ignorant. When I was born into this world, I assumed the “risk” of catching pneumonia and dying. That does not mean that if I do catch pneumonia, I must allow myself to die, and not accept medical treatment and live.

zerinus
Click to expand...
Pregnant catholic women can seek medical intervention as well if they are sick. Everything short of murder can be done for them. I did not see statistical information in your links. I did see inappropriate and inadequate medical care .
 
Are we battling straw here? Correct me if I am wrong, but I heard Father Groeshel once state that a physician can intervene to save the mother’s life. Now if abortion is never neccessary them during the birth a situation sould arise that requires immediate action to save the life of the mother. The doctor can act on that. If the child dies as a result, then the law of double effect means that it is morally permissible, as long as the intent was to save the mother’s life, not kill the child. He used both the example of an ectopic pregnancy and that of siamese twins where both could not be saved as parallels.
 
zerinus said:
That is just false logic and plain ignorant. When I was born into this world, I assumed the “risk” of catching pneumonia and dying. That does not mean that if I do catch pneumonia, I must allow myself to die, and not accept medical treatment and live.

zerinus
Click to expand...
You don’t like risk nor handle it well do you? Anyway… No it does not mean you have to allow yourself to die, but you are ignoring the fact that a pregnancy involves the mother and her child. That is two lives, not just your own.
 
George_Waters said:
You don’t like risk nor handle it well do you? Anyway… No it does not mean you have to allow yourself to die, but you are ignoring the fact that a pregnancy involves the mother and her child. That is two lives, not just your own.
Click to expand...
Catholic doctrine even in the most extreme case when neither the mother nor the child would survive permits abortion.

zerunus
 
pnewton said:
Are we battling straw here? Correct me if I am wrong, but I heard Father Groeshel once state that a physician can intervene to save the mother’s life. Now if abortion is never neccessary them during the birth a situation sould arise that requires immediate action to save the life of the mother. The doctor can act on that. If the child dies as a result, then the law of double effect means that it is morally permissible, as long as the intent was to save the mother’s life, not kill the child. He used both the example of an ectopic pregnancy and that of siamese twins where both could not be saved as parallels.
Click to expand...
This has been pointed out to zerinus numerous times. Obviously he is only listening to himself.
 
zerinus said:
Catholic doctrine even in the most extreme case when neither the mother nor the child would survive permits abortion.

zerunus
Click to expand...
So what are you going off about then? If you just want to rant I will leave you to it.
 
Catholic doctrine condemns the DIRECT KILLING OF THE FETUS, not the removal of a preborn baby from the womb.

Also, I know of NO hard and fast church ruling which states that you must remove the fallopian tube with the embryo in it , in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. As I understand it, you may carefully remove the developing embryo and try to save it.
What you cannot do, for example, is drop it in a cup of acid
and deliberately kill it. It is a human life, albeit embryonic,
and so is sacred.

Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
 
Jaypeeto4 said:
Catholic doctrine condemns the DIRECT KILLING OF THE FETUS, not the removal of a preborn baby from the womb.

Also, I know of NO hard and fast church ruling which states that you must remove the fallopian tube with the embryo in it , in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. As I understand it, you may carefully remove the developing embryo and try to save it.
What you cannot do, for example, is drop it in a cup of acid
and deliberately kill it. It is a human life, albeit embryonic,
and so is sacred.

Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
Click to expand...
Then you should speak out against those professing Catholics who have been misrepresenting Catholic teaching on this board and in the thread. I am no expert on Catholic doctrine. I must go by what the majority of the Catholics say.

zerinus
 
If a surgeon holding a scalpel says to me, “What’s it gonna be, lady? You or the kid?”, I assure you the answer would be the same as if someone was holding a gun to my child’s head and asking the same thing! :mad:
 
zerinus said:
Then you should speak out against those professing Catholics who have been misrepresenting Catholic teaching on this board and in the thread. I am no expert on Catholic doctrine. I must go by what the majority of the Catholics say.

zerinus
Click to expand...
Would you provide specific examples of Catholics on this board or in this thread who have been misrepresenting Catholic teaching on abortion? (ie. saying pregnant women must be left unreated to die incases of ectopic pregnancy) Since you find a majority of Catholics saying this, I expect examples should be plentiful.

You’re absolutely right, we must speak out against such misrepresentations. We may find they are put forth by Catholics who are grossly uninformed, but then again, we could be dealing with apostate Catholics or anti-Catholics here.
 
zerinus said:
Why is the live of the fetus always more important than the life of the Mother?

zerinus

No Catholic is saying that the fetus is more important than the mother. We CANNOT make that distinction and therefore we CANNOT kill one person to save the other person. The doctor, in this case, would do all that he could to save both patients, but he CANNOT kill one person to save the life of the other.
Click to expand...
 
zerinus said:
That is just false logic and plain ignorant. When I was born into this world, I assumed the “risk” of catching pneumonia and dying. That does not mean that if I do catch pneumonia, I must allow myself to die, and not accept medical treatment and live.

zerinus
Click to expand...
You can accept medical treatment to live, but you can’t shoot someone else in order to live.
 
bluerose said:
If a surgeon holding a scalpel says to me, “What’s it gonna be, lady? You or the kid?”, I assure you the answer would be the same as if someone was holding a gun to my child’s head and asking the same thing! :mad:
Click to expand...
That’s an excellent point. Supposing a woman gives birth to a child, and one half hour after giving birth, someone points a gun at her and tells her, “I’ll shoot both of you, unless you tell me to shoot the baby.” I guess Zenerius is telling us that we should let him shoot the baby. After all, the mother can always get pregnant again.

“The mother can always get pregnant again” makes it sound as though fertility determines the value of a human life. I guess people who are infertile or post-menopausal women should also consider themselves expendable.
 
bluerose said:
If a surgeon holding a scalpel says to me, “What’s it gonna be, lady? You or the kid?”, I assure you the answer would be the same as if someone was holding a gun to my child’s head and asking the same thing! :mad:
Click to expand...
There are two answers to that. Firstly, I don’t accept that terminating a fetus (for justifiable reasons) is equivalent to a full blown murder of a mature baby or an adult. I have already discussed that in the following two posts. In the second post I have given a scriptural reference that justifies that claim:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2911026&postcount=70
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2917674&postcount=78

Secondly, in the unlikely scenario that you have mentioned, of someone holding a gun to the head of a mother or her baby, and saying, “Which one is it going to be”? I think that that decision should be left up to the mother. Some mothers I am sure are sufficiently self-sacrificing that they would rather die than harm come to their baby. Another mother may not be. She may think that her own life is of greater value than that of her baby. But in either case, that decision should be left up to her. She should not be blamed for making either choice. The blame should go to the murderer of the one or the other. What is unjustifiable, however, is for a church to came along, and for totally bogus reasons say that if someone holds a gun to your head or your baby’s, you must always sacrifice yourself rather than the baby, otherwise you are committing murder and you will go to hell.

zerinus
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top