Pro-choice Catholics

[CMatt25]

No, CMatt. That will be because God has said that is what will be. It has nothing to do with my faith. That was an objective fact before I ever came into existence, and would be even if I had never been born. My personal faith, or lack of it, does not change the Truth.

Yes but Guan you can’t arrive at your what you call truth and fact without first placing faith in a Creator, faith in what the Catholic Church has declared Herself to be, and then belief in all Her interpretations, writings and so forth.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I’m not really sure with what kind of medical knowledge or degree you have that you can make these claims, but obviously a woman with pulmonary hypertension and cardiogenic shock had the procedure she needed. She was in distress and had the procedure, so to say that no doctor, abortionist, or anesthesiologist wouldn’t do it is untrue, by virtue of the fact that it was done and documented

I do? Are you sure about that? I think I was very clear about what I believe And I very clearly stated it was a medical-surgical procedure. Many fall under this category, including abortion.

And yet, this woman required an abortion, a legal and sanctioned procedure, a procedure falling within the medical-surgical category, appropriate for her medical condition. As documented.

I don’t have a medical degree…

but if the condition “Cardiogenic shock” causes a prognosis of “surgery contraindicated” BUT she had the surgery (12 week abortion is surgery)

It might mean that she might nit have been in “cardiogenic shock”

And why not do these treatments:

Treatment
Cardiogenic shock is a medical emergency. Treatment requires hospitalization, usually in the Intensive Care Unit. The goal of treatment is to identify and treat the cause of shock in order to save your life.

Medications may be needed to increase blood pressure and improve heart function, including:

•Dobutamine

•Dopamine

•Epinephrine

•Norepinephrine

When a heart rhythm disturbance (dysrhythmia) is serious, urgent treatment may be needed to restore a normal heart rhythm. This may include:

•Electrical “shock” therapy (defibrillation or cardioversion)

•Implanting a temporary pacemaker

•Medications given through a vein (intravenous)

You may receive pain medicine if necessary. Bed rest is recommended to reduce demands on the heart.

Receiving oxygen, either by a nasal tube or mask over the mouth, lowers the workload of the heart by reducing tissue demands for blood flow.

You may receive intravenous fluids, including blood and blood products, if needed.

Other treatments for shock may include:

•Cardiac catheterization with coronary angioplasty and stenting

•Heart monitoring, including hemodynamic monitoring, to guide treatment

•Heart surgery (coronary artery bypass surgery, heart valve replacement, left ventricular assist device)

•Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP) to improve heart and blood vessel function

•Pacemaker

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001237

I have a heart condition…I see my cardiologist re my condition. Cardiologists don’t do abortions do they?

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not really sure with what kind of medical knowledge or degree you have

Clearly, more than you.

but obviously a woman with pulmonary hypertension and cardiogenic shock had the procedure she needed. She was in distress and had the procedure, so to say that no doctor, abortionist, or anesthesiologist wouldn’t do it is untrue, by virtue of the fact that it was done and documented

That’s why the article is suspect.

It says that abortion was absolutely contraindicated.

The source I provided, however, says she procured the abortion in an absolutely different scenario.

I do? Are you sure about that? I think I was very clear about what I believe And I very clearly stated it was a medical-surgical procedure. Many fall under this category, including abortion.

Perhaps, then you’d like to edit this statement? You do *not *believe it’s a "medical-surgical procedure"?

Originally Posted by Rence
Abortion, like it or not, is a sanctioned medical-surgical procedure, and sometimes is prescribed for the cases above.

I dunno. It certainly sounds like you think it is a **“medical-surgical procedure” **

Until you cited a source that contradicts your argument.

 

[Rence]

Ok. Let’s go with your source.

It stated that abortion/surgery was absolutely contraindicated. Absolutely. Contraindicated.

It seems peculiar to me that you would cite this as an example of a woman requiring an abortion to save her life. The article states exactly the opposite. Surgery was NOT the answer.

It’s very peculiar to me as well, that you would argue and argue about what is written in black and white in front of you. The article states clearly that she needed the pregnancy ended to save her life due to the her medical condition. That is not the exact opposite of any contraindicated procedure. They would have all lost their licenses for doing a contraindicated procedure, and then publishing it for the whole world to see. They didn’t do a contraindicated procedure at all. They did was was indicated for her condition, and it was documented and then published for the world to see.

 

[PRmerger]

I am SOOO sorry you are having such difficulty comprehending all this documentation. I’m not sure what in the world I can say to you to make it more clear. The document cited actually has all the information you need to understand. I’m wondering if you read it because it’s very clear to me. Maybe you should have someone go over it with you?

Sarcasm is the protest of the weak, Rence.

I rarely use it. And then, only in teensy doses.

 

[PRmerger]

By signing consent forms upon admission, by saying “yes” to her doctor, by having her husband sign consent forms for her, by making her wishes known to a medical team that will honor her wishes.

This is the most obvious example that abortions are never done to save the life of the mother.

It’s a scenario that exists only in the imaginations of those who wish to promote the culture of death.

If the above example involved consent with all the above criteria, the woman being conscious and rational, she is clearly not in cardiogenic shock. Death is not imminent unless an abortion is procured.

As if.

 

[Rence]

Clearly, more than you.

Great, then you should have no problem understanding the document

It says that abortion was absolutely contraindicated.

Actually, no it doesn’t. It says surgery was contraindicated.

Perhaps, then you’d like to edit this statement? You do *not *believe it’s a "medical-surgical procedure"?

Um, no, I don’t think so
PRmerger;7516114:

I dunno. It certainly sounds

like you think it is a **“medical-surgical procedure” **

Until you cited a source that contradicts your argument.

Look, I totally understand you’re trying to go round and round in circles here. I understand you, it’s part of your fight against what you believe to be totally and completely wrong. And really I commend you for it.

But the fact of the matter is, a very sick woman was unable to bring her pregnancy to term and was dying due to the physiological demands of the pregnancy on her body, and the pregnancy was terminated to give her a fighting chance.

The important thing about it is that her doctor examined her, made the diagnosis and prescribed treatment. And it was a treatment to which she consented, and as a patient with complete autonomy and the right to consent, she received the treatment prescribed and lived. That’s the point of it all.

You can say it’s all lies, and that’s okay, I don’t mind. And the reason why I don’t mind is because no matter how much you try to fight against me you’re really fighting against the wrong person, because I don’t make the laws. You’ll have to fight them without me because I agree that women have the right to consent to treatments prescribed by their doctors to stabilize them when they are in crisis. The right for a woman to have and retain the right to consent or refuse treatment is very important to me, and I clearly stated why. That’s just me I understand I’m different than you

 

[Rence]

Sarcasm is the protest of the weak, Rence.

I rarely use it. And then, only in teensy doses.

Actually, I wans’t being sarcastic at all. I truly don’t get why you are unable to understand what’s in the article. But now I realize it’s not that you don’t get it, you just don’t agree with it. Wouldn’t it have been easier to just say that you didn’t agree with it, rather than deny what was there in black and white?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Rence, if surgery was contraindicated, why give her surgery (an abortion of a 12 week fetus) how is that done, but through surgery?

Why not do:

Treatment
Cardiogenic shock is a medical emergency. Treatment requires hospitalization, usually in the Intensive Care Unit. The goal of treatment is to identify and treat the cause of shock in order to save your life.

Medications may be needed to increase blood pressure and improve heart function, including:

•Dobutamine

•Dopamine

•Epinephrine

•Norepinephrine

When a heart rhythm disturbance (dysrhythmia) is serious, urgent treatment may be needed to restore a normal heart rhythm. This may include:

•Electrical “shock” therapy (defibrillation or cardioversion)

•Implanting a temporary pacemaker

•Medications given through a vein (intravenous)

You may receive pain medicine if necessary. Bed rest is recommended to reduce demands on the heart.

Receiving oxygen, either by a nasal tube or mask over the mouth, lowers the workload of the heart by reducing tissue demands for blood flow.

You may receive intravenous fluids, including blood and blood products, if needed.

Other treatments for shock may include:

•Cardiac catheterization with coronary angioplasty and stenting

•Heart monitoring, including hemodynamic monitoring, to guide treatment

•Heart surgery (coronary artery bypass surgery, heart valve replacement, left ventricular assist device)

•Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP) to improve heart and blood vessel function

•Pacemaker

 

[guanophore]

Remember that no one is subject to the laws of the Church unless they subject themselves voluntarily.

Anyone who is validly baptized is subject to the laws of the Church. Most of our separated brethren don’t know this.

Most our “catholic” brethren are rebellious subjects.

Peter was appointed and gifted to care for the one, whole flock of God. The fact that some of the sheep refuse to be governed does not change the facts.

 

[Tigg]

… you can’t arrive at your what you call truth and fact without first placing faith in a Creator, faith in what the Catholic Church has declared Herself to be, and then belief in all Her interpretations, writings and so forth.

Some Catholics will not assent to a particular teaching unless the Church has demonstrated to their satisfaction that the teaching is true. Some go so far to reserve the right to overrule any magisterial pronouncement with a judgment of conscience. In doing so, they erroneously apply the Church’s teaching on conscience, in essence arguing that every Church teaching is subject to their approval. Faith is not mere agreement, but a humble submission to God’s authority.

cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=149

 

[Rence]

This is the most obvious example that abortions are never done to save the life of the mother.

It’s a scenario that exists only in the imaginations of those who wish to promote the culture of death.

If the above example involved consent with all the above criteria, the woman being conscious and rational, she is clearly not in cardiogenic shock. Death is not imminent unless an abortion is procured.

As if.

Actually it’s not a good example at all if you go by the fact that the woman gave consent therefore she wasn’t dying enough. And the reason is, 1) she was a repeat admission, and she was chronically ill, and could have given consent before - verbally to her doctor, which is allowed, and 2) her husband could have given consent if she was in fact not able to. You know this.

And I don’t wish to promote the culture of death. In fact, I think life is very important, even after birth. The life of the woman is important too. I don’t just forget about her because she’s already been born.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

These are good questions, canadianguy, but beyond the scope of this thread. Would you like to open a new one, or shall I do it? The point has already been appropriately made that this subject will draw us apart from the topic.

For the purpose of this thread, a person who commits or supports abortion cannot be labelled a heretic just because they do so. A person who has embraced a heresy is not necessarily a heretic. However, one who has (knowingly and willfully) embraced a heresy has committed a mortal sin.

A person who has had an abortion, or supported abortion may not have committed a mortal sin, either. It depends upon the circumstances of their participation in this great evil. The main point is that we are not in a position to judge the hearts of others on this matter.

Only because you can’t answer them.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[Rence]

Anyone who is validly baptized is subject to the laws of the Church. Most of our separated brethren don’t know this.

No one is subject to anything or anyone without consenting to be subject to that person or thing. Unless by force. There is nowhere in the CCC that says to force a validly baptized person into submission to the Church. The CCC says that validly baptized persons are subject to canon, but have no way to enforce it, and in no way suggest to do so. Therefore, if one doesn’t recognize the authority of the Church over them, they do not subject themselves to the laws of the Church.

 

[PRmerger]

Actually, no it doesn’t. It says surgery was contraindicated.

And in your very own words (which you aren’t rescinding? or are you?) you acknowledge that abortion is a medical-surgical procedure.

Originally Posted by Rence
Abortion, like it or not, is a sanctioned medical-surgical procedure, and sometimes is prescribed for the cases above.

You can say it’s all lies, and that’s okay, I don’t mind.

Well, it certainly is contrasted with this article.

Do you think that’s “all lies”?

Not to mention that your source does indeed use the term “absolutely contraindicated” with regard to abortion/surgery.

It seems that those who wish to defend their Catholic identity yet abort babies created a very different scenario.

And the reason why I don’t mind is because no matter how much you try to fight against me you’re really fighting against the wrong person, because I don’t make the laws.

Ya know, Rence, this is a forum for discussion. Nothing more, and nothing less.

I agree that women have the right to consent to treatments prescribed by their doctors to stabilize them when they are in crisis.

This is very Catholic of you to say.

The right for a woman to have and retain the right to consent or refuse treatment is very important to me, and I clearly stated why. That’s just me I understand I’m different than you

Well, this is peculiar. What Catholic in the world would disagree with that?

We simply profess and proclaim that each human life has inherent dignity and is willed to be here by the Creator. And this little boy baby that’s in a woman’s womb is a *separate *human life. There is simply no arguing with that fact.

 

[Rence]

Rence, if surgery was contraindicated, why give her surgery (an abortion of a 12 week fetus) how is that done, but through surgery?

Why not do:

Because the patient wasn’t responding to the other treatments, as indicated in the document I cited. But she did actually respond to the treatment they did give her.

 

[PRmerger]

Actually, I wans’t being sarcastic at all.

Here it is.



I rarely use that eye-rolling icon either.

But sometimes some posts just warrant it.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

And I don’t wish to promote the culture of death. In fact, I think life is very important, even after birth. The life of the woman is important too. I don’t just forget about her because she’s already been born.

Rence, you know we care about those who are born too. We want the same rights that have been given to those born to also be given to those unborn. Why don’t you? Now, back a few pages in this thread you said you believe you are “pro-choice” in cases of rape or health of the mother. We gave you the pro-life response that helps both the mother and her child. As well as this, we gave you links to signed statements by many doctors who said they would never recommend an abortion to help a sick patient.

Your response.

 

[Rence]

And in your very own words (which you aren’t rescinding? or are you?) you acknowledge that abortion is a medical-surgical procedure.

I stand by all of my posts on this thread

Well, it certainly is contrasted with this article.

Do you think that’s “all lies”?

I’m not sure, but I certainly believe the one I cited.

Not to mention that your source does indeed use the term “absolutely contraindicated” with regard to abortion/surgery.

It seems that those who wish to defend their Catholic identity yet abort babies created a very different scenario.

Well I can understand you saying so, because that’s how I feel about the first article. So I can’t blame you for saying the same thing I would say

This is very Catholic of you to say.

Thank you, I try

Well, this is peculiar. What Catholic in the world would disagree with that?

We simply profess and proclaim that each human life has inherent dignity and is willed to be here by the Creator. And this little boy baby that’s in a woman’s womb is a *separate *human life. There is simply no arguing with that fact.

Only when you’re arguing with the fact that a woman is her own entity and has the right to medical treatment prescibed for her, and the right to consent or refuse that treatment.

 

[PRmerger]

Only when you’re arguing with the fact that a woman is her own entity and has the right to medical treatment prescibed for her, and the right to consent or refuse that treatment.

Again, no Catholic ought to disagree with you on the above.