Keep hitting the same hurdles on the Catholic Church

[Rau]

That’s basically the same thing. The only difference is based on the Church’s perceived views of moral and immoral acts. Take away that and there is no difference.

Point #4 makes a huge difference. It is the point that says there are some human acts you cannot do regardless of good intentions and regardless of the balance of consequences. In Consequentialism you CAN murder innocents if that is judged to have a favorable balance of consequences.

The existence of point 4 underpins the rejection of consequentialism and the statement “the ends dont justify the means”.
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm

Consequentialism denies the existence of intrinsically evil acts. The Church teaches the reverse.

 

[Rau]

Paragraphs 71 to 83 discuss the underpinnings of moral acts, the nature of intrinsically evil acts and the rejection of consequentialism.

w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor.html

 

[Rosebud77]

And what happens if a women ends up with 2 ectopic pregnancies, one after the other? There goes her chance at having children! As sad as it is having to remove a fetus directly, it saves the woman’s Fallopian tube and does not have her fertility decreased or eliminated entirely. There is also the possibility of transferring, or trying to transfer the fetus to the uterus and either it will stick or it won’t and if it does, great but if it doesn’t… well as horrible as it is going to sound, they were an ectopic pregnancy and were basically destined to die anyway. At least if you transfer them to the uterus you are trying to give them a chance.

Also, to clear up confusion on my previous point. In Catholic hospitals, there is a rule that an abortion, to remove a child after a mother miscarries, must be carried out after the fetal heartbeat is no longer there. This is a problem because infection can set into the mother if the fetus is not removed quick enough. Women have died or gone septic because the hospital prolonged giving the women the care she deserved because the hospital put there beliefs before the wishes of there patient.

It’s an issue of ethics and in medical care, you have to separate your views and beliefs and do what’s best by the patient and there wants for there life and body. It is ethically wrong to force your beliefs on another person. This actually happened in Ireland where a Hindu women had a miscarriage, wanted the baby removed, kept telling staff she was Hindu and didn’t believe in the Catholic views and went septic because the hospital refused to remove the already dying baby, which was under 20 weeks gestation, until the fetal heartbeat was gone, by which point the women died of septic shock. Doctors and medical staff have been fired for performing abortions on women and catholic hospitals stripped of there Catholic name for putting the life of the mother over the baby, who was going to die anyway.

You are referring to the Savita case here in Ireland? With respect you have some facts incorrect, It was established at the inquiry that there was medical negligence in that medical staff failed and neglected to test for sepsis in time. test for sepsis in time. She would have been treated and lived else She died because of that culpable negligence and not as you have stated

 

[bitterhope]

I had twins die of sepsis before they were born due to medical negligence. Antibiotics can be used to treat pregnant women even if the end result is unintentional fetal death. Fetal death will occur because of sepsis and is more likely to occur if mom is untreated. There is no reason to abort a child or “remove him and let him die in a bucket” as part of treatment. Medicate mom and pray for baby. I can’t imagine how much worse losing my babies would have been if they were taken out of me and put someplace alone to die. Suffering from painful infection and cold. Who would do that to anyone intentionally, especially their own baby? That is cruel and heartless.

 

[Rosebud77]

I had twins die of sepsis before they were born due to medical negligence. Antibiotics can be used to treat pregnant women even if the end result is unintentional fetal death. Fetal death will occur because of sepsis and is more likely to occur if mom is untreated. There is no reason to abort a child or “remove him and let him die in a bucket” as part of treatment. Medicate mom and pray for baby. I can’t imagine how much worse losing my babies would have been if they were taken out of me and put someplace alone to die. Suffering from painful infection and cold. Who would do that to anyone intentionally, especially their own baby? That is cruel and heartless.

Kind loving soul and so sorry that that happened. and you are right… the suffering of the babies…inhuman to do that.

What happened here in the Savita case roused all the anti-Catholic feeling in Ireland. It was hard as the couple were not Catholic,were foreign and yet sought to be treated as they would have been at home.

The huge uproar when they announced the death

The medical negligence was inexcusable and heavily censured. As with you, the mother could and should have been saved. And to this day folk forget that and blame the Church.

It also came around the same time as the symphisiotomy scandal.

 

[bitterhope]

Kind loving soul and so sorry that that happened. and you are right… the suffering of the babies…inhuman to do that.

What happened here in the Savita case roused all the anti-Catholic feeling in Ireland. It was hard as the couple were not Catholic,were foreign and yet sought to be treated as they would have been at home.

The huge uproar when they announced the death

The medical negligence was inexcusable and heavily censured. As with you, the mother could and should have been saved. And to this day folk forget that and blame the Church.

It also came around the same time as the symphisiotomy scandal.

I remember the case. It was terrible. It never should have happened and truthfully shouldn’t have been international news. But abortion alone would not have saved either mother or baby. Treat the illness and infection. Pray for both mom and baby.

 

[AiyanaS]

AiyanaS;14149612:

You are referring to the Savita case here in Ireland? With respect you have some facts incorrect, It was established at the inquiry that there was medical negligence in that medical staff failed and neglected to test for sepsis in time. test for sepsis in time. She would have been treated and lived else She died because of that culpable negligence and not as you have stated

That doesn’t excuse the fact that she died. Besides:

“Despite evidence of septicaemia and her worsening condition, doctors refused to consider terminating the pregnancy for another 48 hours until after the foetal heartbeat stopped and there was a spontaneous miscarriage, a delay that led to a life-threatening deterioration in Mrs Halappanavar’s health”
telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ireland/10119109/Irish-abortion-law-key-factor-in-death-of-Savita-Halappanavar-official-report-finds.html

When she asked for help, the staff told her that the reason the pregnancy couldn’t be terminated was because, “Ireland was a Catholic country”.

 

[bitterhope]

You know, I just realized that the biggest comfort I’ve always felt was knowing my babies died loved, warm, and right by my heart. They never knew hunger or the pains of the world. I know the infection was painful, but nothing compared to the horror of dying alone and abandoned. The early miscarriages I’ve had as well. They bypassed the pain on earth for the joy of heaven. I can’t accept that some people would actually believe that allowing babies to die alone in a jar or bucket or whatever while being so cold and untouched is a better option and considered “ethical” compared to attempting to treat mom and allowing God to decide about baby.

 

[bitterhope]

Rosebud77;14158672:

That doesn’t excuse the fact that she died. Besides:

“Despite evidence of septicaemia and her worsening condition, doctors refused to consider terminating the pregnancy for another 48 hours until after the foetal heartbeat stopped and there was a spontaneous miscarriage, a delay that led to a life-threatening deterioration in Mrs Halappanavar’s health”
telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ireland/10119109/Irish-abortion-law-key-factor-in-death-of-Savita-Halappanavar-official-report-finds.html

When she asked for help, the staff told her that the reason the pregnancy couldn’t be terminated was because, “Ireland was a Catholic country”.

Abortion would not have saved her. Treating the infection would have been the right thing to do. Yes, medical neglect. But not in the way you are advocating. My babies died due to something similar. Yes, I survived, but abortion wouldn’t have helped any of us.

 

[thewanderer]

That’s basically the same thing. The only difference is based on the Church’s perceived views of moral and immoral acts. Take away that and there is no difference.

Lol, so basically completely and radically redefine consequentialism and then it’s basically the same thing as the church teaches. Consequentialism is the belief that the means do not matter, all that matters is the ends attained. That is clearly not at all what the church believes. Redefining words to mean something completely different is usually not a good idea as it simply leads to confusion. There is some similarity between the churches view in that the church believes the end/consequences are one of the factors to be considered when deciding whether or not an action is moral, but the defining feature of consequentialism is the belief that the consequences are the only things that matter, ie, the means are completely irrelevant to the morality of the action. So, I mean, I guess you can call the church consequentialist if you completely redefine consequentialism, but I you do you kind of need to let other people know you are using a completely made-up definition of consequentialism that nobody else uses.

 

[thewanderer]

Rosebud77;14158672:

That doesn’t excuse the fact that she died. Besides:

“Despite evidence of septicaemia and her worsening condition, doctors refused to consider terminating the pregnancy for another 48 hours until after the foetal heartbeat stopped and there was a spontaneous miscarriage, a delay that led to a life-threatening deterioration in Mrs Halappanavar’s health”
telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ireland/10119109/Irish-abortion-law-key-factor-in-death-of-Savita-Halappanavar-official-report-finds.html

When she asked for help, the staff told her that the reason the pregnancy couldn’t be terminated was because, “Ireland was a Catholic country”.

No one said her death was excusable. It was absolutely tragic and inexcusable, but you seem to want to blame her death on either Irish law, or the Catholic Church, or both, and that is completely ridiculous as both Irish law and Catholic teaching say that there is nothing wrong with inducing/surgically removing a non-viable but loving baby for the sake of saving the mother. If inducing would have saved Savita and would have been the best way to deal with her situation then the drs in charge of her care should have induced her, both according to Irish law at the time and church teaching. Any failure on their part was due to their own negligence, not due to either the Catholic Church or Irish law. Again, they were investigated and found negligent in this case. Blame the drs who were negligent, not the Catholic Church and Irish law which both affirm that in a case where the mothers life is at risk you can remove the baby even if the baby is not viable yet, to save her life.

 

[AiyanaS]

The vast majority of abortions are conducted for various kinds of convenience. I am glad that you agree murdering those babies is immoral.

And I’m glad you would condone someone knowingly condemning a child to a life of being subjected to this (which you are suggesting by telling me it’s wrong to abort in the face of terrible diseases/ deformities):

m.youtube.com/watch?v=JI3D637UXn8

m.youtube.com/watch?v=Gy9A68on49I

There is prenatal testing for this condition and DNA testing as well.

To abort a child with this condition would be out of compassion and mercy to the child, who would go to heaven and never know the Hell there condition would bring upon there very existence. To abort in the face of this condition is not out of parental “convenience”.

 

[bitterhope]

And I’m glad you would condone someone knowingly condemning a child to a life of being subjected to this (which you are suggesting by telling me it’s wrong to abort in the face of terrible diseases/ deformities):

m.youtube.com/watch?v=JI3D637UXn8

m.youtube.com/watch?v=Gy9A68on49I

There is prenatal testing for this condition and DNA testing as well.

To abort a child with this condition would be out of compassion and mercy to the child, who would go to heaven and never know the Hell there condition would bring upon there very existence. To abort in the face of this condition is not out of parental “convenience”.

No. Abortion would be at best false compassion. And it is always wrong

 

[AiyanaS]

No. Abortion would be at best false compassion. And it is always wrong

You obviously didn’t watch the videos…

Honestly people don’t comment until you’ve watched both videos from front to back! And ingrained into your brain the fact that that child suffers agonizing pain all day and goes through what you are watching everyday, and has from the moment of diagnoses and will continue too for the rest of his most likely short and painfully unfortunate life!

 

[bitterhope]

You obviously didn’t watch the videos…

Honestly people don’t comment until you’ve watched both videos from front to back! And ingrained into your brain the fact that that child suffers agonizing pain all day and goes through what you are watching everyday, and has from the moment of diagnoses and will continue too for the rest of his most likely short and painfully unfortunate life!

It doesn’t matter what the reason is. Abortion is wrong. It is murder. Murder is not compassionate. Ever. No excuse at all can make abortion moral.

I have children with congenital conditions. One was diagnosed before birth. Abortion was offered. I declined. Do not regret it one bit and neither does my son. I’m am positive he is thankful to be living at home with our family. Abortion isn’t ever the loving choice. It is evil

 

[AiyanaS]

It doesn’t matter what the reason is. Abortion is wrong. It is murder. Murder is not compassionate. Ever. No excuse at all can make abortion moral.

I have children with congenital conditions. One was diagnosed before birth. Abortion was offered. I declined. Do not regret it one bit and neither does my son. I’m am positive he is thankful to be living at home with our family. Abortion isn’t ever the loving choice. It is evil

And I have a friend with Neurofibromatosis who’s been through tons of surgeries and medical procedures and they don’t regret being alive and there parents didn’t regret having her. However, my friend absolutely refuses to procreate and risk passing on her disease to another unfortunate individual. They said to do so would be selfish and irresponsible on there part because they would be rolling the dice on someone else’s life. My friend also considers those with rare genetic diseases or who have a child or multiple children with that same condition, who continue to procreate despite knowing the condition is inheritable and have a high chance of passing that condition on incredibly selfish.

My friend also said she’d abort if she ever got pregnant and the amniocentesis was positive, but she had a tubal ligation so the chance is small. I was sad to hear her say that however, it is not me whole lives in her body and suffered the way she has. My friend’s been through a lot of pain in her life due to there condition, physically and psychologically but never once did she consider it OK to pass it on to a child. She was also the last child her parents had, her 2 brothers don’t have the condition, but there mother does. My friend said her mother felt horrible when she realized that her child had inherited her disease and it pained her greatly to watch her child suffer as she did and does.

As for the case of Epidermolysis Bullosa, the disease In the videos, these children live as burn victims from birth and grow up covered in chronic wounds that almost never heal. To prevent the existence of someone who would suffer that horribly in life is compassionate and merciful. To say otherwise and knowing procreate and bring a child into the world like this, or to condone doing so, shows a lack of heart.

Watch the videos! Don’t comment blindly and ignore what EB looks like!

 

[AiyanaS]

People need to be aware that the consequences of there actions can have devastating effects on a innocent person who didn’t even have a say on whether or not they wanted to be born in the first place. They just were and it’s better to take the child’s future health into consideration not just ones own desires to be a parent. Sure flukes happen but to knowingly roll the dice, that’s another story entirely.

 

[Rau]

People need to be aware that the consequences of there actions…

I believe you are referring to the consequences of a decision NOT to murder… When faced with a suffering neighbour, our obligation is to act with compassion and do good. Murder fails at least one of these tests.

 

[Rau]

…To prevent the existence of someone who would suffer that horribly in life is compassionate and merciful.

One could reasonably argue that case. But to argue that the person already existing should be “terminated” is a separate matter.

 

[Rau]

And I’m glad you would condone someone knowingly condemning a child to a life of being subjected to this (which you are suggesting by telling me it’s wrong to abort in the face of terrible diseases/ deformities):

Actually, I believe what I told you (at the end of post #122) was that the vast majority of abortions are performed out of convenience, and I was glad you agreed that was immoral.