J
Jeffrey
Guest
Good she should be excommunicated… now we just have to get all the politicians who think they’re Catholic that suppport abortion.
- Status
C
catharina
Guest
Pelosi has been publicly chastised numerous times.
sfarchdiocese.org/about-us/news/?i=1296
In fact, the question of whether she has already autmatically excommunicated herself is not very relevant. Her words and stance have been condemned repeatedly.
OTOH, the sister allowed an actual pre-approved abortion in a Catholic hospital. The sister’s involvement was immediate to the procural of the abortion. The bishop’s response was immediate as well (once he learned of the action).
E
estesbob
Guest
No.
A
Andrew1983
Guest
I’ve been following the conversation on and off for a day with regards to the morality of abortion when the mother’s life is in danger and have a difficult time in coming to the absolute be-all, end-all truth in this.
For example, I currently hold the view that abortion is inherently evil and perhaps of one of the great if not the greatest wrong committed by an individual.
With that said, should it come to a game of numbers, what is the greater sin? If I save the life of the mother through the child’s expense, I may have done the necessary thing, but will have still taken a life regardless.
However, if I sit and do nothing, despite have the opportunity to save one, and they both die, have I committed murder through neglect or inaction? If not, then why? Would it not be the same thing as leaving an infant to die in the wilderness by the elements? (I ask this, because there is an example from Plato’s Republic in which babies with defects are to be taken outside the city limits and left abandoned to their fate).
For example, I currently hold the view that abortion is inherently evil and perhaps of one of the great if not the greatest wrong committed by an individual.
With that said, should it come to a game of numbers, what is the greater sin? If I save the life of the mother through the child’s expense, I may have done the necessary thing, but will have still taken a life regardless.
However, if I sit and do nothing, despite have the opportunity to save one, and they both die, have I committed murder through neglect or inaction? If not, then why? Would it not be the same thing as leaving an infant to die in the wilderness by the elements? (I ask this, because there is an example from Plato’s Republic in which babies with defects are to be taken outside the city limits and left abandoned to their fate).
C
catharina
Guest
No numbers involved: Is a greater evil to kill someone who is completely innocent and HELPLESS or to allow the death of that one and the mother who should be determined to protect her child? This is not rocket science and killing anyone is never allowed.
T
turtle18
Guest
I think the real issue here is that the ***precedence ***is being set to perform abortions at Catholic hospitals; this is so against the religion of the Catholic Church that I believe they do not want even one being performed because it starts the slippery slope. Even if this lady had a valid reason, who is to say that once the precedence is established that the the next time it really won’t be a valid reason? I am glad the Bishop stuck up for pro-life values.
And what prevented this woman from going to a different, non-Catholic hospital in her area and having the abortion?
And what prevented this woman from going to a different, non-Catholic hospital in her area and having the abortion?
C
catharina
Guest
A
Andrew1983
Guest
I suppose numbers may be a mere human rationalization and forgive me if I failed to articulate that I considered the forfeiture of the infant’s life to be wrong, however I am also bringing into account a concept of “murder through neglect” which includes the destruction of both parent and child. To allow for this outcome to happen would seem at the very least as bad as the former. With both sides considered, I would argue that you are placed in a lose-lose scenario in terms of doing the right thing. There are only two wrong ways to go about this, hence forth you arrive at the choice of doing what is necessary. Do, or Do not?
If you preserve the mother’s life at the expense of the child’s, yes, she is physically alive, but what of psychological and spiritual affects? Because that child was sacrificed by your choice and not his or her own, the mother’s life was purchased via innocent blood.
But on the flip side if one does nothing at all despite being afforded the opportunity to rectify the situation, he’ll have negated both the life of the parent and child through inaction and will have that hanging over his head for eternity.
I suppose the question is easier to answer for the mother, since ultimately, her life is voluntarily forfeit when she chooses this sacrifice. The question in turn though becomes, what of the father? If placed in a situation to determine the outcome for both, he is signing at the very least one person to death, with the other option being both persons. It’s one thing if the father sacrifices himself, as the mother would, but due to the difference in our respective functions with regards to reproduction, the father can’t sacrifice himself in exchange for the child’s life, he can only dispense death to one or two persons and then must bear the guilt of having acted or not having acted at all.
C
catharina
Guest
We are not allowed to kill babies to “save” anyone.
The father has no power to “dispense” death to anyone.
A
Aramis
Guest
Pelosi, for what little it is worth, did not directly give permission for an actual abortion. (Just funding for a whole F*ing lot of them.)I need a little clarification here. What is the difference between what this nun did and what Nancy Pelosi and other pro-choice politicians do and say under their authority?
The sister* specifically authorized an abortion be done at a facility she was in charge of, (which said facility has been forbidden to perform them,) and that abortion was actually completed. Her complicity was involved directly in the death of that infant by direct action with direct effect.
*sister, not nun, because properly, a nun is cloistered; sister is the generic term for female religious who are not superiors…
C
canadianguy1143
Guest
Catharina, I appreciate your continued defense of the Church’s teaching here on direct abortion. I think what the problem some people are having is that the moral teaching appears to be “doing nothing” and that isn’t true.
Would you not agree that if there was a way to save the Mother’s life without abortion (like ectopic pregnancy) then that could be done in accordance with Catholic moral theology and principles?
C
catharina
Guest
Of course, removal of an ectopic tube is life-saving in the first place and it causes an indirect abortion. Yet folks here are arguing that the direct abortion, ok-d by a sister and performed in a Catholic hopital is defensable. It’s not. It will never be a “good” to choose to destroy a baby to save a mother. As you know (and I appreciate your continued comments also), the Catholic Church outlaws/bans/rejects any planned deliberate abortion and that’s the reason the sister was excommunicated. The fact that the sister accepted this status speaks for itself.
A
Andrew1983
Guest
Bingo. The next step would be to explain why doing nothing is the appropriate action despite the loss of two over one. Does anyone know of any literature that goes into great detail to support doing nothing and why that isn’t murder by negligence?
C
catharina
Guest
Simple logic says that God created us.
It is His will that allows a life to end.
To suppose He would prefer one murder and one life-saved is to suppose God is not God.
Literature?
Check your Bible, check your Catechism, chek the Code of Canon Law.
C
canadianguy1143
Guest
How do we know that nothing could have been done? Just because the abortion was done doesn’t mean that there couldn’t have been other options.
Even if nothing could be done to save the Mother does that justify the abortion of the unborn? Let me give an example. Say a sicko (the disease) comes into a classroom and there are many students. The sicko rounds them up and starts to shoot and kill some of them. The sicko gives an option to one person that he will spare that persons life if that person were to knife another person. Would it be moral in that scenario to do it?
S
seekerz
Guest
There very probably could be a similar argument made in life-threatening conditions other than ectopic pregnancy. I just think no one has made them and I can’t imagine why?
The scientific basis for the ‘diseased tube’ theory is much more shaky than for example, in a case where the placenta is infected and that infection poses a risk to life of mother and baby.
S
seekerz
Guest
I asked that earlier too: is sinning by commission worse than sinning by omission, especially when that ‘commission’ does not have to involve dismembering a baby?
- Status