Know Anyone Victimized By Abortion Industry?

[Robertsxxx]

Yeah…well, it wasn’t too difficult of a determination. Certain death = not faring well. Possible death due to complication = possibly not faring well in the future.

Sure it is. It is a separate organism with a DNA that is different than the mother who is bringing it to term.

I don’t value one life over the other, and it is not okay to “kill” the child in exchange for somebody else’s life. Where did I say that?

PS: a bit of topic, but what is the current Catholic stand on babies & afterlife?

Sorry I misread the word “illicit”.
What do you propose be done in situation where the fruit endangers the carriers life?

 

[RobertLGarrett]

PS: a bit of topic, but what is the current Catholic stand on babies & afterlife?

scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm#1261

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

Robertsxxx:

What do you propose be done in situation where the fruit endangers the carriers life?

I would recommend that the mother avoid eating that particular fruit…try ice cream with pickles.

Seriously, this is not an easy thing to do, but most parents would give their life for their child if they had to. In fact, if there was only enough room on a lifeboat for a parent or his/her child, I think most people would be pretty shocked if the parent jumped in. The principle should be the same for an unborn child. The good news is that the “endangerment” is not usually absolute and our medical technology is getting better and better.

 

[Robertsxxx]

scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm#1261

Thanks. So wait, there is no clear position? They just hope* “that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism”?

I would recommend that the mother avoid eating that particular fruit…try ice cream with pickles.

Haha nice one

Seriously, this is not an easy thing to do, but most parents would give their life for their child if they had to.

Maybe you’re right & most would. However, I do not think that the others who would not act in a way to sacrifice themselves for their child should be forced to do it; just because I, or you, think it’s the right thing to do.

 

[RobertLGarrett]

Thanks. So wait, there is no clear position? They just hope* “that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism”?

That is correct. We don’t know for certain, because it has not been revealed to us. This is also true of those who don’t receive Baptism, those of other faiths, etc.

Here is the rest of the section right before the one I quoted previously:
Catechism of the Catholic Church:

VI. THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

 

[Robertsxxx]

That is correct. We don’t know for certain, because it has not been revealed to us. This is also true of those who don’t receive Baptism, those of other faiths, etc.

Here is the rest of the section right before the one I quoted previously:

So if a person believes but has not been Baptised (if unavailable for instance), no eternal life either?

 

[cathybramble]

scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm#1261

I would recommend that the mother avoid eating that particular fruit…try ice cream with pickles.

Seriously, this is not an easy thing to do, but most parents would give their life for their child if they had to. In fact, if there was only enough room on a lifeboat for a parent or his/her child, I think most people would be pretty shocked if the parent jumped in. The principle should be the same for an unborn child. The good news is that the “endangerment” is not usually absolute and our medical technology is getting better and better.

i love the euphemisms that the pro-choicers come up with. it’s not an unborn baby, it’s a fruit. it’s not a mother, it’s a carrier. just makes the whole argument so much more palatable, don’t you think?

 

[RobertLGarrett]

So if a person believes but has not been Baptised (if unavailable for instance), no eternal life either?

Um…did you read the whole quote? The instance you describe is covered in 1258. EDIT ADD: Oops…scratch that…1259.

As you said earlier, this is off-topic. Let’s get back to victimization.

 

[Robertsxxx]

i love the euphemisms that the pro-choicers come up with. it’s not an unborn baby, it’s a fruit. it’s not a mother, it’s a carrier. just makes the whole argument so much more palatable, don’t you think?

I don’t like the word fetus + it doesn’t really fit if I’m impying for embryonic & later prenatal development.

 

[Robertsxxx]

Um…did you read the whole quote? The instance you describe is covered in 1258. EDIT ADD: Oops…scratch that…1259.

As you said earlier, this is off-topic. Let’s get back to victimization.

Yeah, I got it, just then I see no point in being Baptised.

Anyway, back to victimization: I think women should be fed enough information for all available options, both for carrying out the child & the consequence as well as support for that & the risks, the same for the option of aborting during certain stages of development & etc.

Other than that, I do not know anyone else close to me that had an abortion, besides the story I shared, in & that case I do not think the girl “was victimized”.

 

[RobertLGarrett]

Anyway, back to victimization: I think women should be fed enough information for all available options, both for carrying out the child & the consequence as well as support for that & the risks, the same for the option of aborting during certain stages of development & etc.

Are there any other circumstances where someone should be allowed to “weigh options” before deciding to kill another human being?

 

[That_one_guy]

I did have a friend who had an abortion. However, she went through it on her own free will & was perfectly fine & well treated; furthermore, nobody pushed her into this decision, because the people around her knew she was expecting & would support her either way.
But I realize this is not the case for all people & it’s nice there is an organization there to help those who did not chose this path.

Care to explain this a bit more?

Interesting that you use the xxx as part of your username.Implies a sort of perversion in your personality.I checked out the threads you’ve been on.You’re just out trying to pick a fight from the safety of mommy and daddy’s computer.

 

[Robertsxxx]

Are there any other circumstances where someone should be allowed to “weigh options” before deciding to kill another human being?

So your suggestion is?

 

[RobertLGarrett]

So your suggestion is?

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm#2270
Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Abortion

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.** From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.**72

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: **abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.**76

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights."81

2274 **Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."82**

2275 "One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."83

"It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."84

"Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity"85 which are unique and unrepeatable.

 

[Robertsxxx]

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm#2270

Most of the prenatal diagnosis tests are at least in some sense dangerous or pose some % risk of damaging the child. Should they be outlawed?

Since this is a thread on victimization, are you trying to imply that women having a right to chose what happens to their bodies is victimization?
Otherwise, you question was irrelavant; at least to this thread.

Third, you argued to point out that abortion is wrong. Yet, what solutions do you suggest to support the women after it is made illegal?

 

[RobertLGarrett]

Most of the prenatal diagnosis tests are at least in some sense dangerous or pose some % risk of damaging the child. Should they be outlawed?

Depends on the test.

Robertsxxx:

Since this is a thread on victimization, are you trying to imply that women having a right to chose what happens to their bodies is victimization?
Otherwise, you question was irrelavant; at least to this thread.

Okay…fair enough…so was the whole interchange, which you started, that led up to the question. You recognized this in your second post…I’m sorry to have helped continue your off-topic discussion.

Robertsxxx:

Third, you argued to point out that abortion is wrong. Yet, what solutions do you suggest to support the women after it is made illegal?

As you just made it clear that the discussion is off-topic, surely you don’t expect me to answer.

 

[Robertsxxx]

Depends on the test.

Okay…fair enough…so was the whole interchange, which you started, that led up to the question. You recognized this in your second post…I’m sorry to have helped continue your off-topic discussion.

As you just made it clear that the discussion is off-topic, surely you don’t expect me to answer.

lol a fair reponse & yea my fault.

So to get at least partly back on topic, do you know of anyone who went through an abortion or was planning to do one & changed their mind?

 

[RobertLGarrett]

lol a fair reponse & yea my fault.

So to get at least partly back on topic, do you know of anyone who went through an abortion or was planning to do one & changed their mind?

I only know one person who had an abortion. She told us she was pregnant, and my wife and I said “congratulations!” She then told us she was having an abortion. She wasn’t sad or sorry about it…it was like having a mole removed.

I found her selfishness and the lack of value she placed on human life disturbing. She wasn’t victimized by the Abortion industry directly. I do feel bad that she may very well come to understand what she did and have the pain of loss when she realizes she had her own child killed.

 

[Robertsxxx]

I only know one person who had an abortion. She told us she was pregnant, and my wife and I said “congratulations!” She then told us she was having an abortion. She wasn’t sad or sorry about it…it was like having a mole removed.

I found her selfishness and the lack of value she placed on human life disturbing. She wasn’t victimized by the Abortion industry directly. I do feel bad that she may very well come to understand what she did and have the pain of loss when she realizes she had her own child killed.

So this happened recently, & she hasn’t done it yet? How far into the pregnancy is she?

 

[RobertLGarrett]

So this happened recently, & she hasn’t done it yet? How far into the pregnancy is she?

No. This was over ten years ago, and I lost touch with her.

 

[tobbias88]

You state:

*It is still not a separate organism that can survive by itself. *

That is a rather circular argument: babies, kids, disabled people, old people, injured people - none of these can survivie by themselves.

So should we kill all of them as well? Sounds rather like Hilter and then you can start including gypsies, gays, Jews and any other group you don’t like.

Perhaps someone one day will think you fit into one of those categories & society will decide you should be disposed of?? This is why the sanctity of life from conception until natural death is and always will be a pillar of human society, whether Christian or not.

Whether the head is in the womb, half-way out or fully out should not be a criterion for killing a human being.