Pregnancy deaths - who's to blame?

[Mary_Gail_36]

I’d also like to remind everyone that not all women who receive abortions find the experience traumatic and guilt-ridden. Many women feel a profound sense of relief afterwards. Some women don’t. Similarly, not all women who give birth find the experience beautiful, uplifting, and empowering. Some find it difficult, traumatic, terrifying, and excruciatingly painful.

Your question didn’t answer mine. Does abortion bring her back to the day before the rape? Or does it just give her a dead baby.

I didn’t think I needed to explain female biology. Normally certain changes precede menarche, widening of the hips enlarging of the internal sex organs. Once ovulaton is happening the body is mature enough to handle a pregnancy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menarche

 

[MaryTeresa2]

Your argument smacks of the same arguments I hear from the Fundamentalists who refuse medical treatment in favor of “praying away” the illness instead of seeking medical advice. I’m just saying, it’s a slippery slope.

A major reason that I am vehemently opposed to the Church’s (apparent?) restrictions on abortion even in times of grave medical peril/rape is that it seems to disproportionately affect women as opposed to men. It’s WRONG to condemn a woman suffering medical complications from a pregnancy resulting from rape to her deathbed because “Thy will be done.” Unfortunately, some Fundamentalists would have abortion outlawed in all cases, including rape and medical danger, and ALL women, not just Christian women would have to either succumb to this fate or suffer a back-alley abortion.

Thank God for separation of Church and State and democracy!

Now you are getting into politics. My answer is the answer of the Catholic Church. I uphold the Truths of the Church. Who says one is condemed to the death bed? I was told I would die but I didn’t, nor did my child. I trusted God and I prayed for His Will.

 

[bhall0689]

OK, well, that explains why you don’t see anything criminal about killing one human being outright in order to prevent the possibility of health problems or the risk of death in a second human being. How do you decide when a person is a person, though?

What do you do when the 10 year old’s pregnancy is not discovered until her unborn child is or even might be viable? Have the risks to her mental or physical health lessened? No. What has changed is how willing you are to see that her child is also innocent, vulnerable and worthy of protection.

Hi, EasterJoy. You are one of my favorite posters here.

I will admit that the moment of absolute personhood is a gray area for everyone, even for many Christians who in turn decide the safest route is to assume conception as that point.

You have to understand that since I rejected to Catholicism, that my only tools to navigate the world are reason and logic. That might sound scary to many posters here, but it has been very authentic and liberating to me.

I think abortion is awful and terrible, and I am not an abortion “fan.” I think the best way to prevent abortions for SECULAR (non-Christian, non-Catholic) individuals is contraception. Frankly, I feel a little uncomfortable posting my PERSONAL timeline about when I think abortion is acceptable/not acceptable in times of crisis (health risks, rape) because it is off-topic and will likely provide off-topic ammunition for people who are already appalled there is someone on this board suggesting an abortion in this particular case might be the most humane, loving, safe decision.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

I’d like to point out that the youngest mother was five when she gave birth, think about it, five years seven months twenty-one days

 

[bhall0689]

I’d like to point out that the youngest mother was five when she gave birth, think about it, five years seven months twenty-one days

That makes my stomach turn.

 

[vsedriver]

I will admit that the moment of absolute personhood is a gray area for everyone, even for many Christians who in turn decide the safest route is to assume conception as that point.

 

[MaryTeresa2]

Roman Catholic Catechism

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

As a Catholic I must uphold the teachings of the Church and trust in Her Wisdom and God’s Will.
When we all rely upon our own feelings, interpretations, desires, perspectives, or whatever… then and there is the slippery slope. Hence the countless ‘personal religions’. This is a Catholic apologetics forum, that is the Catholic answer.

 

[bhall0689]

Interesting, because the Church is steeped in reason and logic.

I would beg to differ. I attended Catholic school all my life - Pre-Kindergarten through my Senior year of college. I am well-versed in Catholic dogma. I would argue the Catholic Faith requires just that - a LOT of faith. Personally, I wish the Catholic Church would just defend the male priesthood, and other controversial practices as a matter of tradition and faith and leave it at that. The explanations for such things fell flat and ultimately ended up driving me away.

 

[EasterJoy]

That makes my stomach turn.

Her parents took her to the doctor because they thought she had a massive abdominal tumor. A medical history revealed that the little girl had begun menstruating at the age of three, presumably due to an extremely rare endocrine disorder, and had stopped menstruating 7 1/2 months before being taken to the doctor. Her father was arrested on charges of incest, but was later released for lack of evidence. The child, although tater determined to have of above average intelligence, could not give answers to questions that might have revealed who the father of the child was.

Interviewed by a psychologist some years later, the girl was psychologically normal and her son (raised as her brother and only told who his mother was when he was 10), was not only normal but physically superior to the average typical of Spanish Indian children in the region. The woman married and had a second son 33 years after giving birth to her first.

 

[MaryTeresa2]

I would beg to differ. I attended Catholic school all my life - Pre-Kindergarten through my Senior year of college. I am well-versed in Catholic dogma. I would argue the Catholic Faith requires just that - a LOT of faith. Personally, I wish the Catholic Church would just defend the male priesthood, and other controversial practices as a matter of tradition and faith and leave it at that. The explanations for such things fell flat and ultimately ended up driving me away.

I’m sorry you feel that way. Practicing the Faith has led me to experience TRUE authenticity and liberation. The sort that comes from Faith and Trust in God’s Infinate Wisdom. I, as a human, am not capable of seeing the ‘big picture’ and therefore very limited. In Him, all things are possible.

Blessings and Peace

 

[manualman]

This issue is so troubling precisely because people think emotionally instead of with reason. We are a TV culture. If we can’t SEE something, it isn’t real. That’s why people can rationalize abortion so easily. They leave behind no piles of shoes, there are no pictures of their terrified faces as the atrocity begins, we cannot hear their screams. Thus, it becomes very easy and convenient to pretend they aren’t real.

This is also how people used to rationalize slavery. They made sure to keep their slaves ignorant, uneducated and as silent as possible so that they could imagine themselves as benevolent caretakers of a hopelessly inferior race that would be doomed to permanent savagery if left to their own devices (certain remnants of that attitude still exist in this country in places - in both political parties!). Again, humans are capable of making horrible choices when they refuse to face the objective facts.

Abortion is, fundamentally, the tearing apart of a tiny human being inside his/her mother. That’s what it IS. The circumstances the mother finds herself in cannot, by definition, change the nature of what abortion is. You cannot rationally affirm the humanity of the unborn and support legal abortion in cases of rape or incest unless you are willing to admit that you advocate killing ‘less important’ humans to benefit ‘more important’ humans. A 10 year old girl is someone you can see, hear her cry, empathize with her confusion, fear, even terror. But abortion doesn’t undo her pregnancy. The child already exists. All it does it kills that child. If we could go back in time and UNDO the conception, we all would (preferably with a bullet into the rapist beforehand, IMO). But you can’t, you can only move forward. If you are as reasonable as you claim, you must see this.

Some have been a bit unclear on abortion in cases of medical emergency. It is true that abortion can never be used as a means to resolving a problem. But this is NOT the same thing as saying that one can never take action that has the forseeable and unavoidable result of killing the child in the process of treating the mother when the ‘do nothing’ option would certainly result in the death of them both. Ectopic pregnancy is one that can never result in a live baby and can potentially kill the mother too. For that reason, it is morally OK to remove the damaged fallopian tube to save the mother’s life, even though an unavoidable side affect of that surgery is the death of the child.

The same may be true in some cases of cancer (I’m not an expert) where the ‘do nothing’ option would lead to the death of them both. These aren’t abortions. These are life saving medical treatments where the desire is to save them both, but the capability isn’t there to achieve saving them both. That’s fundamentally different than killing one on purpose for the benefit of the other. I hope that distinction helps.

 

[bhall0689]

I’m sorry you feel that way. Practicing the Faith has led me to experience TRUE authenticity and liberation. The sort that comes from Faith and Trust in God’s Infinate Wisdom. I, as a human, am not capable of seeing the ‘big picture’ and therefore very limited. In Him, all things are possible.

Blessings and Peace

I agree, and I have embraced that “emptiness” in the big picture as the presence of God. The stir we feel within our souls is God, the completeness we feel in intimate relationships with each other is God. These are the things that make life worth living and complete. It is truly beautiful that we all have these same basic realizations, though we cope and rationalize these feelings in different ways. Although I have for the most part rejected organized Christianity, I am certainly not an atheist and very much believe in God. All I know is that my life is one of continual discovery, and to find my own authentic path requires discovery and reason, and I cannot submit to blind faith.

Regardless, I’ve said my two cents. I appreciate others for treating me with charity, as I’ve tried to do. I’m not here to change anyone’s minds, but simply provide another perspective on the story. Thanks.

 

[EasterJoy]

I would beg to differ. I attended Catholic school all my life - Pre-Kindergarten through my Senior year of college. I am well-versed in Catholic dogma. I would argue the Catholic Faith requires just that - a LOT of faith. Personally, I wish the Catholic Church would just defend the male priesthood, and other controversial practices as a matter of tradition and faith and leave it at that. The explanations for such things fell flat and ultimately ended up driving me away.

If you were driven away because you failed to be persuaded by rational arguments, I somehow doubt that you would have been better-persuaded by “because we said so”.

There are intelligent people who refused to believe the Warren Commission, too. It can’t be helped, but that’s a poor reason to quit disseminating reasonable arguments in defense of the truth. You can look at the arguments and try to improve their clarity or thoroughness, but you don’t give up on a rational defense just because someone out there fails to be swayed by it.

 

[MaryTeresa2]

Manualman,
Your entire post was excellent, thank you.

Ectopic pregnancy is one that can never result in a live baby and can potentially kill the mother too. For that reason, it is morally OK to remove the damaged fallopian tube to save the mother’s life, even though an unavoidable side affect of that surgery is the death of the child.

The same may be true in some cases of cancer (I’m not an expert) where the ‘do nothing’ option would lead to the death of them both. These aren’t abortions. These are life saving medical treatments where the desire is to save them both, but the capability isn’t there to achieve saving them both. That’s fundamentally different than killing one on purpose for the benefit of the other. I hope that distinction helps.

This was exactly my situation, ectopic pregnancy AND cancer. My surgery was performed at a Catholic hospital. I survived, of course the baby did not. Doing nothing would have killed us both and incidentally, no one knew about the ectopic pregnancy as a certainty until the surgery was underway, just that I was dying of something and had only minutes to live. It was what it was, God’s Will. The cancer was treated afterwards. I was able to conceive one more child, thanks be to God. He is now 33 and suffers from Parkinson’s. Would I have not had him, to spare him the suffering? Never! It is what it is, God’s Will. My son feels the same way, thanks be to God. We can’t make decisions based on what we think might be best. God is never going to hand us something ‘bad’. When something ‘bad’ happens, God will make it ‘good’. We may not see that in this lifetime, but it is His guarantee and I trust in His word.

 

[MaryTeresa2]

I agree, and I have embraced that “emptiness” in the big picture as the presence of God. The stir we feel within our souls is God, the completeness we feel in intimate relationships with each other is God. These are the things that make life worth living and complete. It is truly beautiful that we all have these same basic realizations, though we cope and rationalize these feelings in different ways. Although I have for the most part rejected organized Christianity, I am certainly not an atheist and very much believe in God. All I know is that my life is one of continual discovery, and to find my own authentic path requires discovery and reason, and I cannot submit to blind faith.

Regardless, I’ve said my two cents. I appreciate others for treating me with charity, as I’ve tried to do. I’m not here to change anyone’s minds, but simply provide another perspective on the story. Thanks.

I perhaps know more about your position than one would guess by where I stand now. That’s exactly why I’m so interested in what you’ve said. I’ve made my way back to where I am now from a similar mind-set, namely discouragement with the Church and her teachings. Then I discovered that it was me who had gone astray, not the Church! Imagine the beginnings of humility! I never liked the phrase, ‘blind faith’. My faith is nothing like being ‘blind’. It is in dying to oneself that we begin to see with the eyes of faith. Jesus would not lead me down a blind path. Rather, I follow Him where he leads, precisely because He does not see ‘blindly’. His Church is not blind to the needs of her people, no does she make dogma and doctrine on her own. The Holy Spirit is guiding the way. Placing my trust in the Church gives me the advantage of her insight and wisdom and frees me from my own blind error.
Please keep an open mind, you have a good heart, it’s not that I don’t see your argument, be open to trust in Jesus.
May you be abundantly blessed and comforted in all things. Pray for me and I will pray for you too.
In all humility and sincerity,
MaryTeresa, OSSM

 

[SteveGC]

MaryTeresa, I enjoyed reading both of these last 2 posts of yours.

 

[MaryTeresa2]

Oh:blush: I pray when I write, hopefully nothing I say is due to me, but to the Holy Spirit and for the Glory of God.

Blessings to you and thanks for your kind compliment.

 

[EasterJoy]

Manualman,
Your entire post was excellent, thank you.

This was exactly my situation, ectopic pregnancy AND cancer. My surgery was performed at a Catholic hospital. I survived, of course the baby did not. Doing nothing would have killed us both and incidentally, no one knew about the ectopic pregnancy as a certainty until the surgery was underway, just that I was dying of something and had only minutes to live. It was what it was, God’s Will. The cancer was treated afterwards. I was able to conceive one more child, thanks be to God. He is now 33 and suffers from Parkinson’s. Would I have not had him, to spare him the suffering? Never! It is what it is, God’s Will. My son feels the same way, thanks be to God. We can’t make decisions based on what we think might be best. God is never going to hand us something ‘bad’. When something ‘bad’ happens, God will make it ‘good’. We may not see that in this lifetime, but it is His guarantee and I trust in His word.

Yes. Such a surgery is performed to remove the fallopian tube that was going to kill the mother, not to choose one life over another’s. The death of the child is an indirect result of a lifesaving procedure, and that death would have been avoided if it could be avoided.

 

[MaryTeresa2]

And Praise God! I had a good, caring, Catholic doctor who patched me up as best he could from the damage and the cancer and said, ‘get pregnant again asap because the scar tissue will soon prevent it’. I became pregnant within a month of my last cancer treatment! I was never to have any more children after that, but God granted us the miracle of that one more, my husband’s only ‘natural’ child, he lovingly adopted my daughter from my first (non-Catholic) marriage!

That doctor had taken over from his partner, who was not Catholic and told me after that he’d have not bothered, he’d have ‘taken everything out right then and there’.

God knows all things. Prayers are always answered. Sometimes we like the answer, sometimes we have to accept the answer we don’t like. It’s still God’s Will. Praise be to God!

 

[Bezant]

Here’s a question that was essentially the reason I stopped trying to change the minds of my pro-choice step-family.

In the case of a ten year old becoming pregnant by rape, is it the fault of the Church if said rape victim dies trying to give birth? After all there was a case like this in Brazil and all those handling the issue were excommunicated for the abortion that ended up occuring.

Now lets say the family in that case broke to the pressure of the Church and allowed the rape child to come to turn, only for it and thier child to die during delievery. It isn’t farfetched after all I’m sure we can all agree a 10 year old body is not built to deliever a child.

In this case is the blame shifted to the Church for allowing this? As someone Pro-life do you have to tell people who give you these senarios “Yes, they should try to deliever the baby even if the child rape victim dies in the attempt.”

I never thought taking the moral high ground would make you feel like a monster, but obviously my step-family made that all too clear to me. It’s senarios like these that make me want to say to Hell with the Pro-life party, let us kill each other in whatever way we can find, just leave me alone…

The monster who forced himself on a child.

It this situation the ‘abortion debate’ is almost trivial next that matter. Why was a 10-year-old raped?

In dealing with his perverse consequences, that child’s going to suffer psychological and physical trauma whether she has an abortion or delivers. So the question is, what’s the lesser of two evils? And the answer depends on where your priorities are.

For me, my priority is to preserve a life within my ability and reasonable limits. I don’t know when an embryo becomes indistunguishable from a “regular” human being (despite what the Church teaches) and entitled to all the sort abstract things people say makes up a “regular” human being: a soul, “personhood,” living past the 3rd trimester, .0005 seconds after birth–whatever. I don’t know, so I’d rather not take a chance an play God.