Pro-choice Catholics

[Rence]

Ah, the irony!
[SIGN1]There is simply NO WAY that any medical professional can say, “You will die unless you have an abortion.”[/SIGN1]

Even better than that, studying the woman herself will not be able to predict that she will die without an abortion.

That is simply ga-ga la-la medicine one is practicing.

Ok, I understand what you’re saying But when a diagnosis is made by a physician and a treatment is prescribed, that’s between the patient and the doctor, and thankfully no one can intervene legally without just cause. Anyone can disagree with that diagnosis all they like, whether an abortion is prescribed or whether a triple bypass is prescribed…and one can agree with that diagnosis all they like - especially those without medical degrees However, I don’t know about anyone else here, but I personally wouldn’t want someone else in my medical records and all about my business, and thankfully the law not only provides me with the authority to legally consent to that prescribed treatment, or legally refuse the treatment – but the law also provides me with confidentiality, so it really doesn’t matter. No one else really matters because it’s down to that doctor and that patient. Everything else is pure speculation regardless of whether they agree or disagree with the whole case.

What relevance does “legal” have in a discussion about Pro-choice Catholics? Not much.

Well, last I checked, I still have that indelible mark that makes me Catholic and it matters to me But it’s totally okay with me if it doesn’t mean anything to you. We both feel very strongly about our beliefs and we have reasons for how we feel about them.

 

[PRmerger]

Ok, I understand what you’re saying But when a diagnosis is made by a physician and a treatment is prescribed, that’s between the patient and the doctor, and thankfully no one can intervene legally without just cause.

Indeed.

And what could be more just than intervening to save the aborting of a child?

Anyone can disagree with that diagnosis all they like,

This is truly bizarre. There is no such diagnosis of “death unless patient procures an abortion.”

Do you know what ICD9 code the provider would use to make this “diagnosis”? :whacky:

 

[Rence]

Indeed.

And what could be more just than intervening to save the aborting of a child?

Well, I totally understand your position, really I do. But legally it’s not cause enough to interfere with that patient’s treatment. You can’t even file an injunction to stop it. There’s really nothing you can do to intervene. Well, you could pray that the woman have a change of heart, or pray to her guardian angel that she seeks a second opinion. But you can’t physically stop her… there is no just cause to interfere with a woman in the hospital while she’s receiving medical care unless you have durable power of attorney, and then you can’t even use it unless she is somehow incapable of answering for herself, and probably by then she will have signed the consent forms because it’s the first thing they do when they enter a hospital.

This is truly bizarre. There is no diagnosis of “death unless she has an abortion.”

Do you know what ICD9 code the provider would use to make this “diagnosis”?

Yeah, that would be really bizarre! I agree But that’s not really the diagnosis. The diagnosis would be something like (off the top of my head, for example) pulmonary hypertension, cardiogenic shock, pulomary disease, hemorrhage, copd exacerbation, or some other condition that was exacerbated by the physiological changes that occured with the pregnancy.

 

[PRmerger]

However, I don’t know about anyone else here, but I personally wouldn’t want someone else in my medical records and all about my business, and thankfully the law not only provides me with the authority to legally consent to that prescribed treatment, or legally refuse the treatment – but the law also provides me with confidentiality, so it really doesn’t matter. No one else really matters because it’s down to that doctor and that patient. Everything else is pure speculation regardless of whether they agree or disagree with the whole case.

This is an interesting treatise, and one that really no pro-life Catholic would disagree with, Rence.

Well, last I checked, I still have that indelible mark that makes me Catholic and it matters to me

Again, all Catholics ought to agree with you on this.

Legal or not, it’s immoral, so appealing to the legality of abortion is irrelevant to this discussion.

But it’s totally okay with me if it doesn’t mean anything to you. We both feel very strongly about our beliefs and we have reasons for how we feel about them.

Hence the reason for the dialogue, eh?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

So, why is there no code in medical jargon to provide a diagnosis for medically neccessary abortion?

Maybe because they don’t exist?

I agree with PRmerger, there is no medical condition where the “cure” is abortion.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, I totally understand your position, really I do. But legally it’s not cause enough to interfere with that patient’s treatment.

Thus, we have dialogue in order to change the hearts and minds of those in positions to change such an abominable position.

There’s really nothing you can do to intervene.

This is categorically untrue.

This discussion, while it may not change your heart, certainly may impact the many many lurkers here.

But you can’t physically stop her… there is no just cause to interfere with a woman in the hospital while she’s receiving medical care unless you have durable power of attorney, and then you can’t even use it unless she is somehow incapable of answering for herself, and probably by then she will have signed the consent forms because it’s the first thing they do when they enter a hospital.

Yes. Sadly, this is true.

Yeah, that would be really bizarre! I agree But that’s not really the diagnosis. The diagnosis would be something like (off the top of my head, for example) pulmonary hypertension, cardiogenic shock, pulomary disease, hemorrhage, copd exacerbation, or some other condition that was exacerbated by the physiological changes that occured with the pregnancy.

Pulmonary hypertension is treatable with medication.
Cardiogenic shock? No abortionist in his right mind would attempt an abortion on someone who’s in cardiogenic shock. As if!
Pulmonary disease? Like asthma? Heh.
Hemorrhage? An abortion during a hemorrhage? Again, any abortionist who attempts this is begging to lose his license.
COPD exacerbation: delivery of the baby or medication.

 

[Rence]

So, why is there no code in medical jargon to provide a diagnosis for medically neccessary abortion?

Maybe because they don’t exist?

I agree with PRmerger, there is no medical condition where the “cure” is abortion.

Well, there are Mary Gail, just not in laymen’s terms. They’re in medical terms. There are codes that represent diagosis, and there are codes that represent procedures, and all procedures have to be appropriate for the diagnosis. That’s what you’ll see. So you wouldn’t see a diagnsosi of “urinary infection” matched to a “right lung lobectomy”. You’ll see, for example, a diganosis of cardiogenic shock, copd exacerbation, and/or hemorrhage, maybe infection, whatever the case may be, and then the procedure will represent the abortion, whether it was a D&C or administration of a medication, or whatever it was they did. Of course, there is no procedure called “abortion”, but rather a procedure called “D&C” for example. I hope that helps

 

[PRmerger]

Of course, there is no procedure called “abortion”, but rather a procedure called “D&C” for example. I hope that helps

Yet there is no code for the imaginary diagnosis of “death unless patient procures an abortion”.

 

[Rence]

Thus, we have dialogue in order to change the hearts and minds of those in positions to change such an abominable position.

This is categorically untrue.

This discussion, while it may not change your heart, certainly may impact the many many lurkers here.

Oh I’m sure it does! But one thing it will do is hopefully make room for understanding each other.

Pulmonary hypertension is treatable with medication.
Cardiogenic shock? No abortionist in his right mind would attempt an abortion on someone who’s in cardiogenic shock. As if!
Pulmonary disease? Like asthma? Heh.
Hemorrhage? An abortion during a hemorrhage? Again, any abortionist who attempts this is begging to lose his license.
COPD exacerbation: delivery of the baby or medication.

Yeah, but treatments are prescribed by physicans in accordance to the severity of the patient’s signs and symptoms. We can’t deny that, pregnant or not, there is a point when medications just don’t cut it anymore. For example, there are instances when medications won’t affect pulmonary hypertension without relieving the stress on the body caused by the phsyiological changes brought on by pregnancy first. That’s why doctors examine the patient, run the apprpriate tests and prescribe the treatments. And like I said, it’s between the patient and the physician. And the patient has the right to either consent to the prescribed treatment or refuse it, without interference from someone outside of that relationship.

I completely understand that some people out there think there is no reason in the world for a pregnancy to put a woman at risk but the reality of it is, there exists high risk pregnancies and some pregnancies lead to endangering women’s lives. And this is recognized by the medical world and the lawmakers, otherwise, even where countries where abortion is illegal, there are exceptions for when the life of the woman is in danger. It may not mean something to someone who discounts the legality of abortion in the cases where women’s lives are in danger, but it certainly does mean something to the women who are in danger and can have medical treatments to help them live longer.

 

[Rence]

Yet there is no code for the imaginary diagnosis of “death unless patient procures an abortion”.

Yeah, just like I explained in the post #699

just not in laymen’s terms. They’re in medical terms. There are codes that represent diagosis, and there are codes that represent procedures, and all procedures have to be appropriate for the diagnosis. That’s what you’ll see. So you wouldn’t see a diagnsosi of “urinary infection” matched to a “right lung lobectomy”. You’ll see, for example, a diganosis of cardiogenic shock, copd exacerbation, and/or hemorrhage, maybe infection, whatever the case may be, and then the procedure will represent the abortion, whether it was a D&C or administration of a medication, or whatever it was they did. Of course, there is no procedure called “abortion”, but rather a procedure called “D&C” for example. I hope that helps

 

[PRmerger]

But one thing it will do is hopefully make room for understanding each other.

Only in the same way that having a dialogue with a white supremacist helps us understand him.

 

[PRmerger]

Yeah, but treatments are prescribed by physicans in accordance to the severity of the patient’s signs and symptoms.

Yep.

We can’t deny that, pregnant or not, there is a point when medications just don’t cut it anymore. For example, there are instances when medications won’t affect pulmonary hypertension without relieving the stress on the body caused by the phsyiological changes brought on by pregnancy first.

And yet aborting the child would still never be the only option for the mama.

That’s why doctors examine the patient, run the apprpriate tests and prescribe the treatments.

True indeed.

And like I said, it’s between the patient and the physician. And the patient has the right to either consent to the prescribed treatment or refuse it, without interference from someone outside of that relationship.

Unless, like you said, there’s “just cause” for interference.

I completely understand that some people out there think there is no reason in the world for a pregnancy to put a woman at risk

This is, again, bizarre, given the many posts here discussing high-risk pregnancies. Why would you even pretend to not acknowledge this?

but it certainly does mean something to the women who are in danger and can have medical treatments to help them live longer.

Except that there is not a single situation in which abortion would be the only option for this woman. Not a single one. :nope:

 

[PRmerger]

just not in laymen’s terms. They’re in medical terms. There are codes that represent diagosis,

Yes.

and there are codes that represent procedures, and all procedures have to be appropriate for the diagnosis.

Indeed.

That’s what you’ll see. So you wouldn’t see a diagnsosi of “urinary infection” matched to a “right lung lobectomy”. You’ll see, for example, a diganosis of cardiogenic shock, copd exacerbation, and/or hemorrhage, maybe infection, whatever the case may be, and then the procedure will represent the abortion, whether it was a D&C or administration of a medication, or whatever it was they did. Of course, there is no procedure called “abortion”, but rather a procedure called “D&C” for example. I hope that helps

Yet there’s no diagnosis for “death unless the patient aborts her child.”

It only exists in the imaginations of those who have an misaligned compassion for women. A good thing that has been vitiated and poisoned by the author of lies.

 

[Rence]

And yet aborting the child would still never be the only option for the mama.

I totally understand your perspective on that, yet we can’t say that for sure without knowing the woman and her medical senario.

Unless, like you said, there’s “just cause” for interference.

Yes, exactly. There is no “just cause” for interfence, otherwise, people would be bursting into doctor’s offices, emergency rooms and operating rooms interfering. But they can’t do that, no matter how much they would like to do so.

This is, again, bizarre, given the many posts here discussing high-risk pregnancies. Why would you even pretend to not acknowledge this?

I don’t know what I’m not acknowledging to your satisfaction The fact is, there are high risk pregnancies that can be treated, and some that pose such significant harm to the woman that the physician recommends, and the woman consents to, an abortion.

Except that there is not a single situation in which abortion would be the only option for this woman. Not a single one. :nope:

I completely understand your refusal to acknowledge that there are some cases out there that have no other option, I really do. But they exist, that’s why even in countries where abortion is illegal, there is exception when the life of the woman is at risk. Even the Church acknowledges that there are cases where the woman would die, and says that if death results than it’s unfortunate. And it is, that’s for sure. My point is, the woman is the only one who can make that sacrifice. It can’t be something that another party would force on her against her will. She has the right to medical treatment prescribed by her physician for her unique condition.

 

[Rence]

Yet there’s no diagnosis for “death unless the patient aborts her child.”

Of course there is, in medical terms as I described in #699

It only exists in the imaginations of those who have an misaligned compassion for women. A good thing that has been vitiated and poisoned by the author of lies.

I completely understand your perspective, I do. You fight hard for what you believe in, and you should do no less. But I have a different perspective, and that is that I feel there isn’t enough compassion for women, and I feel there isn’t enough respect for women as their own entities with control over their own bodies. Thankfully though, our great nation affords women the right to practice the religion of their choosing, and doesn’t force another person’s religion on her. She has the right to treatment prescribed by her physician despite what another’s religion dictates, and it’s truly between her and her physician to determine a course of action that affects her. She’s the one with consent, the decision lies with her.

 

[PRmerger]

I totally understand your perspective on that,

Well, Rence, of course you can. What’s not to comprehend about the position? It is logical. It is well-reasoned. It is, really, indisputable.

yet we can’t say that for sure without knowing the woman and her medical senario.

This is a scenario that exists only in the imaginations of those who are misaligned in their compassion towards females. (Child-bearing females only, of course.* In utero* females, there’s not so much compassion from you, is there? :sad_yes

Yes, exactly. There is no “just cause” for interfence, otherwise, people would be bursting into doctor’s offices, emergency rooms and operating rooms interfering. But they can’t do that, no matter how much they would like to do so.

Sadly, you are correct on this.

The fact is, there are high risk pregnancies that can be treated, and some that pose such significant harm to the woman that the physician recommends, and the woman consents to, an abortion.

Again, this is true.

What’s being argued here, of course, is that *there is no such medical condition, *except in one’s imagination, in which an abortion is the only option for the woman.

I completely understand your refusal to acknowledge that there are some cases out there that have no other option, I really do. But they exist,

Please cite sources. Something documenting that the woman was certain to die and an abortion was the only option.

(Unfortunately, anecdotal evidence is ineffective and insufficient for this venue.)

Even the Church acknowledges that there are cases where the woman would die, and says that if death results than it’s unfortunate.

Source, please.

My point is, the woman is the only one who can make that sacrifice.

Yes, Rence. That is most certainly true.

It can’t be something that another party would force on her against her will. She has the right to medical treatment prescribed by her physician for her unique condition.

But not the right to abort her child–a living human being with an immortal soul that came into existence by the very will of God.

 

[CMatt25]

Indeed.

But it seems rather curious that you seem to feel the CC made no errors in compiling the Bible.

Doesn’t that seem strange to you, Matt?

The Church got it right when it proclaims that God is love, and that your sins are forgiven, that Jesus and 2 natures, human and divine, and that Jesus is “the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

But the Church got it wrong when it proclaims that “whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery” or that women cannot be priests, or whatever other areas you’ve dissented.

Where the teachings of Christ are palatable to you, it seems you can assent. When it requires a little bit more, and requires you to change and conform your views, the *Church *gets it wrong?

:coffeeread:

No PR it does not seem strange to me at all. I have faith God could ensure the compilation went forth correctly.

As far as what the Catholic Church proclaims, I don’t believe Jesus meant for Christianity to be a complicated faith with man made rules. Jesus said to believe in Him for eternal life and He gave us Matthew 25:31-46 to provide us with an example of a righteous way to express our belief and love. Peace.

 

[Rence]

Well, Rence, of course you can. What’s not to comprehend about the position? It is logical. It is well-reasoned. It is, really, indisputable

Oh of course it is And so my position, in fact, many share it. Otherwise we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

This is a scenario that exists only in the imaginations of those who are misaligned in their compassion towards females. (Child-bearing females only, of course.* In utero* females, there’s not so much compassion from you, is there? :sad_yes

Of course there is I feel compassion for all parties involved.

What’s being argued here, of course, is that *there is no such medical condition, *except in one’s imagination, in which an abortion is the only option for the woman.

That’s an odd claim.

Please cite sources. Something documenting that the woman was certain to die and an abortion was the only option.

The fact that women are having abortions due to high risk pregnancies speaks for itself.

(Unfortunately, anecdotal evidence is ineffective and insufficient for this venue.)

So is claiming that no such cases exist.

But not the right to abort her child–a living human being with an immortal soul that came into existence by the very will of God.

Actually, she does have exactly that right. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

 

[catharina]

Actually, she does have exactly that right. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

rence, again you are stating that under the current law in the USA, she has that right; is that correct? Is that what you’re stating? No one disputes that is the current state of the law in this country. What is under discussion is that the law of God forbids us to kill another to save some different life. Do you agree that the law of God states that … we cannot kill anyone in order to “save” another’s life (other than in just war, etc…)?

 

[CMatt25]

But I can find secular people who are also against abortion rights. The point is, of course, that you do support all of those active govt. programs because of the bible. Yet, you don’t call that theocratic. Then when a pro-lifer uses religious reasons for their opposition to abortion you call that theocratic. You say the word “abortion” is not in the bible - neither is the word “trinity” but I assume you believe in the trinity? The reason I keep coming back to this, CMatt is because the whole house of cards that you base your pro-choice position on is a lie. One would hope that those who espouse such a position would have the intellectual honesty to admit it. How about it, Cmatt?

Ishii

Here Ishii is the Trinity. 2Cor 2:13 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the charity of God, and the communication of the Holy Ghost be with you all. Amen.

No my friend the house on which I base my position does not lie. Again I would support a very strong govt role in helping the poor and the sick outside of Scripture as well. And if secular people choose to oppose abortion rights, that is their choice. Just as I have said you can continue to proclaim your choice of views. I have stated my position. If you can not understand it, then you can not understand it And that’s fine. God bless.