Well wouldn’t it be a grave risk…surgery contraindicated, and she was given surgery nonetheless???
My response is that you can line up the same nnumber of doctors who will attest that there are instances when a woman is unable to tolerate the physiological changes brought on by pregnancy and that though rare, may require the termination of that pregnancy to help her stabilize and regain her health and live. I still am pro-choice in the cases of rape or the health of the mother. And if there is no other way to save a woman, as deemed appropriate by her doctor, and as agreed to by her herself, then she should be given that choice, and given the medical care she requires. We always want to help both the mother and the child of course. But when that can’t be done, the woman is the one with the right to consent or refuse treatment. And if she gives consent to that treatment, it should be delivered, as it is her right to receive it.
While it is true that non-Catholics are not bound in conscience to the Church, there is a much broader dimension here that should be pondered and one that touches upon the missionary mandate of the Church.
The Church must stand as a “bulwark of truth, a City built on a hill, and a reflection of eternal light” against the darkness and moral evil of the world, even if no one listens. She is commissioned to evangelize regardless of the acceptance or rejection of the message. As Catholics, we are called upon to be a part of this mission. And we are to adhere to the true meaning of compassion and charity which in no way tolerates such evil as abortion.
Well, you can disagree with what was written and believe that the patient was not as presented. That’s your choice. No one can make you believe or not believe. But I have no reason at all to doubt it’s contents because there is documentation to back it up. If one denies the integrity of one case, we can of course deny the integrity of them all. And of course it’s your choice to believe the document or not. As presented, the patient received the medical treatment she needed for her condition, and she lived. Whatever was done was appropriate for her and helped her recover and live longer. It was a procedure prescribed for her by her doctor, given her medical condition, she consented to it, received it and that’s it.
Now that I agree with. Evangelization is important and should always be continued…But you can’t force someone to accept the message. And we’re not to try and force them either. But by continuing to spread the word and by continuing to spread the message, we raise the chances that one will accept the message
So you believe anything that an MD writes or says…?.
Mary Gail, my position is pro-choice in the cases of rape and when the life of the mother is at risk. I know you don’t agree with me and I accept that. I am not trying to change anyone’s mind, and I’m not trying to say I am right and you are wrong, or anyone else for that matter. But I always hope that they have that choice. Honestly, I don’t think a woman needs to be on death’s door, floating to the light, with her blood all over the floor and running down the halls, in order to receive intervention.
There are two aspects of the condition of being subject. Objectively, all validly baptized persons are subject to the Church. Jesus appointed authority over His One Flock.
She is her own entity, and she also has the care of another own entity inside of her. There is no difference between her moral obligations for that baby in her womb and those she might have for an elderly parent over whom she has Power of Attorney.
I was reading about the case of a nine year old girl who was raped by her uncle. Should a nine year old girl be required to go through the trauma of a pregnancy like that, especially if her life is in danger since she is too young and weak to endure it? Is it better to let both the girl and the baby die from natural causes than to have the doctor save the life of the girl by terminating the pregnancy?
But she is still her own entity, and has the right to medical treatment prescribed for her, and has the right to refuse or consent to such treatment, and the right to receive such treatment once she consents. No one can force her to have treatment she has refused, and no one interfere in the deliery of treatment once she has consented to it.
This is not the case, CMatt. There are many ways to arrive at Truth even without faith. Science has been able to determine much about Truth from a totally faithless point of view.
I don’t think I advocated that.
Yes I can do that…I find nesting convenient on log posts but it is not necessary. Please know that my remarks about you were favorable.Mike, could you please not nest your responses? Please see this thread in order to learn how to post so that others can respond to your comments conveniently.
So you see in the above your comments about me are not included because they were nested.
It is to that whichI am responding (although, sadly, it does not appear when I hit "quote): it is the culture in the CAFs that all members are invited to dialogue. They can interject even in an apparent 2-poster discussion. It’s just the way it works here.
A nine year old is young for sure, but the age of viability is 20 weeks. If she were my daughter, ideally, I would have her carry her pregnancy to viability if she could and then she would have a C-section, and then the doctors would be directed to do all they could to save the baby delivered by c-section. That said ---- I have no idea what the medical records of this 9-year old girl that you are talking about say. I have no idea what her medical condition was. I have no idea what the medical ramifications would have been to have her carry to viability. I have no idea how far along she was. I have no idea what the state of her health was, nor do I have a clue as to the underlying conditions she may have had. Therefore what I would do is irrelevant. I leave that up to her mother and her doctors. And again, the mother has the right to consent or refuse treatment on behalf of her 9-year old daughter. The one with the power of consent was the rape victim’s mother because she was only 9 years old. However, I hope that her rapist was castrated…but I’m sure his reproductive rights were considered way too important to deal with
Indeed. The scenario as presented makes no medical sense. It makes no legal sense. It makes no rational sense. (And, of course, it makes no moral sense.)
Well I understand that she was too ill, and I understand that her doctor prescribed and she received the abortion and that she did well in respons to that treatment, and I understand that other treatments didn’t work for her…as described in the article.
No, actually, the answer I have in the postings of the mods are sufficient for me. When I read the forum rules, it seems clear to me that calling people names is out of bounds. However, if you wish to discuss the broader liberty you have claimed for yourself to judge the souls of others in this matter, canadian has been kind enough to create a thread for that purpose. I thought we had agree that this did not belong on this thread?
