Pregnancy is not a Disease

[psalm90]

I had to get this out of my system. I dislike the idea that abortion is “health care.” I concede that it may be elective surgery, which Catholic teaching and other considerations oppose based on natural law, and logical and religious grounds.

Abortionists like to legitimize destruction of the unborn as health care, while it is fatally disregarding to the health of the unborn.

 

[Vico]

I had to get this out of my system. I dislike the idea that abortion is “health care.” I concede that it may be elective surgery, which Catholic teaching and other considerations oppose based on natural law, and logical and religious grounds.

Abortionists like to legitimize destruction of the unborn as health care, while it is fatally disregarding to the health of the unborn.

I think the health care argument come from (January 22, 1973) Roe v. Wade, and the ruling, Doe v. Bolton, which mandate that abortion be legal from conception through the point of birth if any one performing physician says it is needed for “the preservation of the … health of the mother.”

 

[kingston1]

I agree. A doctor’s role is to make sick people healthy.

 

[STT]

I had to get this out of my system. I dislike the idea that abortion is “health care.” I concede that it may be elective surgery, which Catholic teaching and other considerations oppose based on natural law, and logical and religious grounds.

Abortionists like to legitimize destruction of the unborn as health care, while it is fatally disregarding to the health of the unborn.

Abortion is a health care practice.

Think of it this way: We are not allowed to use condom or ejaculate outside vagina. This means that a woman can give birth to a child every other year. This means that each woman can give birth to around 10 or more kids in her entire life. That is a big expansion in population which eventually leads to a catastrophe.

 

[jeannetherese]

Abortion is a health care practice.

Think of it this way: We are not allowed to use condom or ejaculate outside vagina. This means that a woman can give birth to a child every other year. This means that each woman can give birth to around 10 or more kids in her entire life. That is a big expansion in population which eventually leads to a catastrophe.

I’m not sure that you have made a case for abortion as health care. Is there a necessary link between being a woman and birthing every other year? Is there a necessary link between being able to have 10 kids and necessarily having 10 kids? I there a necessary link between multiple births and population expansion which leads to catastrophe?
And, if so, where does abortion become a health care practice and whose health is cared for?

 

[kingston1]

Abortion is a health care practice.

Think of it this way: We are not allowed to use condom or ejaculate outside vagina. This means that a woman can give birth to a child every other year. This means that each woman can give birth to around 10 or more kids in her entire life. That is a big expansion in population which eventually leads to a catastrophe.

So abortion is for population control that will save us from a catastrophe? Healthcare is caring for the sick. Doctors save lives. Doctors don’t control the population. The bit about the biology of making babies has nothing to do with doctors either.

We could just have more war or disease… to prevent a catastrophe.

 

[Vico]

Abortion is a health care practice.

Think of it this way: We are not allowed to use condom or ejaculate outside vagina. This means that a woman can give birth to a child every other year. This means that each woman can give birth to around 10 or more kids in her entire life. That is a big expansion in population which eventually leads to a catastrophe.

Natural family planning is acceptable with a serious reason.

 

[STT]

I’m not sure that you have made a case for abortion as health care.

Think of a family which cannot support an extra child because of financial reason. Suppose and an unwanted pregnancy happens. Are they allowed for abortion or they should accept the child becoming more poor and raise a kid in a not suitable situation?

Is there a necessary link between being a woman and birthing every other year?

Yes, there is. Women use to give birth to too many children even a century ago.

Is there a necessary link between being able to have 10 kids and necessarily having 10 kids?

How you are going to control the birth?

Is there a necessary link between multiple births and population expansion which leads to catastrophe?

Yes there is an obvious link between them.

And, if so, where does abortion become a health care practice and whose health is cared for?

Mother, family, population in general.

 

[STT]

So abortion is for population control that will save us from a catastrophe? Healthcare is caring for the sick. Doctors save lives. Doctors don’t control the population. The bit about the biology of making babies has nothing to do with doctors either.

We could just have more war or disease… to prevent a catastrophe.

Catastrophe as a result of population growth is a serious issue in family, …, and global level.

 

[STT]

Natural family planning is acceptable with a serious reason.

What is the difference between natural and unnatural birth control? At the end you prevent that sperm reaches to egg.

 

[pianistclare]

A person seeking the truth falls for the greatest lie ever put upon women. That abortion helps them.It doesn’t. Talk to women who have had abortions and have suffered for years.
A woman came to my office sobbing uncontrollably about an abortion in her youth. It was heartbreaking.
No. This is not of God. It is not good. It is a lie.

 

[Brendan]

What is the difference between natural and unnatural birth control? At the end you prevent that sperm reaches to egg.

Is there a difference between stealing a TV and buying one, in the end, you have a TV set…

If you are only looking at the end goal, then is there IS no difference. The means, however, differ. One is moral and the other is not.

 

[STT]

Is there a difference between stealing a TV and buying one, in the end, you have a TV set…

That really isn’t a good counter-example…

 

[surritter]

That really isn’t a good counter-example…

Actually, Brendan’s was a very good counter-example. Rather than brushing it aside so quickly, would you care to explain why it doesn’t seem to work for you?

 

[Vico]

What is the difference between natural and unnatural birth control? At the end you prevent that sperm reaches to egg.

The sperm does not reach the egg because it is not present naturally. Nothing interferes with the natural process. It is not possible for an infertile period to be deprived of fertility.

Address to Midwives, Given by His Holiness Pope Pius XII, 29 October 1951

The matrimonial contract, which confers on the married couple the right to satisfy the inclination of nature, constitutes them in a state of life, namely, the matrimonial state. Now, on married couples, who make use of the specific act of their state, nature and the Creator impose the function of providing for the preservation of mankind. This is the characteristic service which gives rise to the peculiar value of their state, the bonum prolis. The individual and society, the people and the State, the Church itself, depend for their existence, in the order established by God, on fruitful marriages. Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life.

Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications,” may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned. If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to the full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles.

fisheaters.com/addresstomidwives.html

 

[adamhovey1988]

I had to get this out of my system. I dislike the idea that abortion is “health care.” I concede that it may be elective surgery, which Catholic teaching and other considerations oppose based on natural law, and logical and religious grounds.

Abortionists like to legitimize destruction of the unborn as health care, while it is fatally disregarding to the health of the unborn.

Having dealt with a miscarriage I don’t understand why someone would willingly kill their child. The baby’s mother feels the same way.

 

[saellis]

Exactly what disease does abortion treat?

 

[jeannetherese]

Think of a family which cannot support an extra child because of financial reason. Suppose and an unwanted pregnancy happens. Are they allowed for abortion or they should accept the child becoming more poor and raise a kid in a not suitable situation?

There’s a waiting list for adoptions, and social services available to help impoverished families. If poverty is an acceptable reason for killing people, that impoverished family, itself, is vulnerable to the logic offered in your post.

Yes, there is. Women use to give birth to too many children even a century ago.

How many is too many and what criteria are you using as determinants?

How you are going to control the birth?

Pregnancies may be limited utilizing various natural family planning tools. Abstinence, tends to be highly effective.

Yes there is an obvious link between them.

This response is to a query regarding necessary linkages between high birth rates and your concern for catastrophic population increases. This is often linked to concerns of Robert Malthus who worried about disparities between resource production and population expansion. His arguments have not been validated by history as yet, as the green revolution and second revolution have increased resource availability to support populations.

 

[STT]

Actually, Brendan’s was a very good counter-example. Rather than brushing it aside so quickly, would you care to explain why it doesn’t seem to work for you?

Is killing a mosquito bad because killing a human is bad?

 

[STT]

There’s a waiting list for adoptions, and social services available to help impoverished families. If poverty is an acceptable reason for killing people, that impoverished family, itself, is vulnerable to the logic offered in your post.

Could all western/rich countries handle to support children who live in poverty in India alone? Forget about adopting.

How many is too many and what criteria are you using as determinants?

My grandmother gave birth to more than 10 kids some of them died in childhood.

Pregnancies may be limited utilizing various natural family planning tools. Abstinence, tends to be highly effective.

Why abstinence when there are other form of control? Why young couples who are in urge to have sex should avoid sex during the period of fertility.

This response is to a query regarding necessary linkages between high birth rates and your concern for catastrophic population increases. This is often linked to concerns of Robert Malthus who worried about disparities between resource production and population expansion. His arguments have not been validated by history as yet, as the green revolution and second revolution have increased resource availability to support populations.

Oh please, we don’t really want more population in India and China. Of course western/rich country can become poor if they follow the same principle.