Pro-choice Catholics

[guanophore]

yet you, a nurse, won’t participate in an abortion

because of the “limitations imposed on” you by the Church?

Either you believe what you’ve been proclaiming here

or

you assent and affirm the Church’s teachings.

What “limitations” have been imposed on you by the Church that allow you to proclaim your support of abortion rights in mouth but not in deed?

It seems to me that she believes both. And I would further note that her personal stance to avoid putting herself in a professional position where she would have to violate the Teachings of the Church IS a “deed”.

She has also been quite clear about following the Teahings in her personal behavior.

I think what is missing is the mental construct that abortion is not treatment, and that if medical treatment is administered for the medical complications and the pregnancy is inadvertatnly lost, it is not considered an abortion.

 

[catharina]

It seems to me that she believes both. And I would further note that her personal stance to avoid putting herself in a professional position where she would have to violate the Teachings of the Church IS a “deed”.

She has also been quite clear about following the Teahings in her personal behavior.

I think what is missing is the mental construct that abortion is not treatment, and that if medical treatment is administered for the medical complications and the pregnancy is inadvertatnly lost, it is not considered an abortion.

In addition, a defense of “abortion rights” as “treatment” while in dialogue regarding actual teachings of the Church is a matter that approaches some form of public “wrong teaching.”

 

[guanophore]

In addition, a defense of “abortion rights” as “treatment” while in dialogue regarding actual teachings of the Church is a matter that approaches some form of public “wrong teaching.”

Yes, this constitutes a public scandal.

Before Roe v Wade, when a pregnancy came to an end due to treatment of other complications, it was called “medical abortion”. However, we are not at liberty to use this term anymore, because like the word “gay”, the meaning of it has changed so substantially that we misrepresent the concept if we do so.

As has been pointed out (quite rightly) by Iowa Mike, the language we use to talk about this issue is critical.

 

[Rence]

Well I appreciate your response and civility in your post. You say a woman has “ownership over her own body”. What about the body of the unborn baby? Again, don’t say “the woman has the rights under the law”. I ask, what about the body of the unborn baby? Also, given you think that abortion should be legal in cases of rape or the life of the mother, do you not then agree that the decision of Roe V Wade which legalizes abortion for any reason whatsoever should be overturned? That states should be able to outlaw abortion as they see fit?
Ishii

Ok, so again, remember you’re asking me for what I think and with what I agree. I think it’s unfortunate for the unborn baby, but the right of consent is STILL with the woman. While it’s still in her body, the woman has the right to consent or refuse treatment to her own body, despite the effects on the baby. Her ownership over her own body, her autonomy and her liberty are primary.

No, I don’t agree that Roe Vs Wade should be overturned because a woman is still the owner of her own body and reserves the right to make decisions with regard to her body. In addition, many people on this thread have said that abortions in the case of rape should be denied a woman, even the morning after pill, and don’t even acknowedge that a pregnancy might endanger a woman…therefore, no way would I agree that having Roe Vs Wade overturned. I wouldn’t lift a finger to see that happen.

That’s what I think about it. I wouldn’t ever counsel a woman to have an abortion, in fact, I’d counsel her on everything but an abortion, and I have. And though it’s hard for me to uhm, celebrate and rejoice in the fact that a 15 year old girl has followed in the footsteps of her 19 year old sister and got pregant and is keeping the baby, as opposed to smacking her upside the head for her loose morals, I am supportive of them and use positive reinforcement so that they know they always have options other than abortion. And they know they and their children will always be loved and respected.

But I’d never participate in an abortion, I’d never drive someone to one, I’d never picket for abortion rights, but I am glad we have them. My priest told me I am breaking no church laws for my feelings regarding abortion, as long as I don’t actively try to support it or participate in it, or counsel someone down the wrong direction. And that’s what I do despite feeling very very strongly about it.

 

[PRmerger]

It seems to me that she believes both. And I would further note that her personal stance to avoid putting herself in a professional position where she would have to violate the Teachings of the Church IS a “deed”.

Oh, indeed. I give kudos to you, Rence, for not being willing to participate in the aborting of a child.

She has also been quite clear about following the Teahings in her personal behavior.

Fair enough.

to you, Rence, for that!

I think what is missing is the mental construct that abortion is not treatment, and that if medical treatment is administered for the medical complications and the pregnancy is inadvertatnly lost, it is not considered an abortion.

What I find puzzling is the disconnect between proclaiming dissent in Catholic teaching but not following it to its logical conclusion.

I can think of no other areas in life in which one would state, “I strenuously and vigorously believe in “A”, but I won’t help anyone achieve “A”. In fact, I will do all in my power to avoid being in a position to have anyone achieve “A:””

 

[Rence]

But it does not HAVE to be. When you speak about killing babies in the womb as “a part of life” it comes across as an inevitability, like growing older - something over which we have no control.

But it is not like aging or other natural processes. Killing the innocent does not HAVE to be a part of life.

I agree with you completely that it doesn’t HAVE to be. You’re right about that. But people want it to be, and as long as they want it to be, and they want to exercise their rights in this way, it will continue to be a part of life.

It is for many women because they feel trapped.

That’s a whole different story. If a woman feels trapped into having an abortion, those around her have failed her.

Yes, murders and rapes happen every day. The fact that they happen does not make them morally justifyable or supportable. We have an obligation to resist evil.

I understand where you’re coming from. But I feel it is evil to force a pregnancy on a woman who has been raped, and/or whose life is in peril because of it.

Abortion is not “medical treatment”. Abortion is for the sole purpose of ending the pregnancy. Pregnancy is not a medical problem that requires treatment.

Medical treatment, actions taken to address complications that may exist during or because of pregancy, is NOT abortion. Even if the pregnancy is inadvertantly terminated, it is still not abortion. There is NEVER an intention to deliberatly kill the child.

I agree with you that pregnancy is not a disease. It should be a joyous occassion and should be the most special thing a woman can ever experience. Unfortunately, sometimes a woman is not able to tolerate the physiological changes that pregnancy bring, which can lead to complications, or exacerbate existing complications, and can endanger her life. So terminating that pregnancy will normalize their physiological system so that they can regain their health and live longer. Of course the ideal thing, the best thing for both, is to bring the pregnancy to viability if she can, and have a C-section if she can, so that both can be treated separately and with the best medicine has to offer. A smart woman will always try to find a doctor who will do that. But again, it’s up to her to consent or refuse treatment that her doctor prescribes in order to bring her back to health and give her a fighting chance to live longer and better.

 

[Rence]

But I asked you about the unborn child’s body. What about that? It is seperate and distinct from the mother’s. It is dependent on the mother just as it is if were two months post partum. But when you say “a woman must have the freedom to control her own body” you are ignoring the other body inside her, living and growing and developing just as a two month old lives, grows, and develops. You wouldn’t want a mother to be able to legally kill her two month old post-born baby would you?

Ishii

Ok, again, you asked. Here’s my answer …No, of course I wouldn’t want a mother to be able to legally kill her two month old post-born baby. But until the baby is born, the mother has the right to make decisions about her own body, about her own health, and direct medical interventions that affect her own body, despite the effects on the unborn. Her health of mind and body is primary. And as Catholics we see this with the principle of double effect in the case of uterine cancer or tubal pregnancy. But again, being Catholic is a choice. You can’t hold down a woman by force and force her to be pregnant against her will and I just don’t see the morality of it at all in the cases of rape or when the woman’s life is in danger.

 

[guanophore]

What I find puzzling is the disconnect between proclaiming dissent in Catholic teaching but not following it to its logical conclusion.

I can think of no other areas in life in which one would state, “I strenuously and vigorously believe in “A”, but I won’t help anyone achieve “A”. In fact, I will do all in my power to avoid being in a position to have anyone achieve “A:””

Indeed, there is a disconnect. There is also one in saying that the children of a pregnancy that she would prefer not to have happened “will always be accepted and loved” no matter what, but it is ok to kill th child if one does not like the father or what the father did (in the case of rape). To kill the victim in the case of such an offense is a bizarre solution.

However these are her two main objections - medical complications and rape. So, if she could understand that the treatment of a medical problem does not constitute an abortion it would be a big step.

Then there is recognizing the child in the womb as a person…there seems to be a problem there.

 

[bjryman]

No there are not “pro-choice” Catholics for reasons I already outlined. If someone has had an abortion or has reformed and no longer support abortion fine. But if they still embrace it…no. You can’t be pro-choice, pro-abortion and be Catholic at the same time.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

Let’s see, I’m adjusting my Medivel Armor, and sitting aside my stallion ready to engage the extremists. OOOOPS, did I say extremists? Yep, sure did. Anytime, ANYONE OF US post anything with absolute assurity, we are ignoring 1. The uncomprehendable mysteries of our faith and 2. That we are told by our Church to travel down our own pathway of holiness with an ever evolving Open Consciousness.

Need the experts in this forum list the infractions committed by our Magisterium over the past 2,000 years? The high, or low point, depending upon your viewpoint of our physical church just before the Reformation be revisited? What happened with the priest scandal…especially in Boston and the resultant protection of Cardinal Law from secular prosecution. Anyone who makes the claim “Our Church, Our Magisterium, Right Or Wrong” really needs to look into the mirror. WE ARE THE CHURCH, the Magisterium is a group that continuously tries its able best to interpret how Jesus means us to live within an ever changing set of circumstances.

Then of course, most extremists cannot fathom the difference between supporting Pro-Choice while at the same time particiapting in a Rosary service in front of a Planned Parenthood facility, or helping a young pregnant women get all the information they need to make an informed decision…not to abort. IF that decision is made within her informed conscious, prayerfully, with understanding she will stand before Christ with her belief and decisio. That is the goal of proper pro-choice individuals,

There may just be the dirty little secret of it all folks…Pro-Choice does not necessarily mean pro-abortion.

There is a simliar discussion to be had at the “end of life”. That is, if we can’t touch anything at the beginning of life, then we should not touch it at the end of life either…period. No man made prolonging of natural death and reunion with Christ of anykind. Otherwise, how dare man to withold a soul destined for Christ one minute beyond natural life? (No…don’t go down this path here. I just wanted to draw an anology)

A Catholic who may question some Magisterium teachings, may be out of “Full Communion” with the hierarchies teaching…no question. I submit a minority of our members meet the definition of being 100% in alignment with major Church teachings.
The balance are in healthy engagement with our teachings, and watching viligentlly to protect the message from those who might stretch its meanings.

So, now to the bottom line. We have a wonderful 10 year old grand child that was born out of wedlock. I can still remember as clear as day when our son gave us the news. We immediately gave him assurances of as much fiscal and emotional support that we could. We also understood the tremendous challenge he would have since he was just then leaving his girlfriend, and he felt absolutely responsible for not using contraception.
In the end, he decided to inform the birth mother that he wanted the conception to evolve into a baby, one that would have his name. He then ended up taking full custodial legal responsibility for the baby…with our help.
So you say, great your Pro-Life. We told our son that we would back his decision regardless of what it was. You see, the mother wanted the abortion…she was on drugs and believed the child would never be taken care of. She also knew she was completely irresponsible and would never make a good mother. We believe that Jesus also wants families to be fiscally responsible and emotionally responsible…not ONLY physically responsible. So again, Pro-Choice was the stance, but with all the caveate actions taken above to help overcome the real world reasons that the decision might have gone in the other direction. BTW, we also believe that there is a tipping point regarding when the above choice to abort is taken away from all parties…but there again that gets into the “at conception” teaching, doesn’t it.

OK, my helmet and chain mail is in place…

 

[beafedor]

Ok, again, you asked. Here’s my answer …No, of course I wouldn’t want a mother to be able to legally kill her two month old post-born baby. But until the baby is born, the mother has the right to make decisions about her own body, about her own health, and direct medical interventions that affect her own body, despite the effects on the unborn. Her health of mind and body is primary. And as Catholics we see this with the principle of double effect in the case of uterine cancer or tubal pregnancy. But again, being Catholic is a choice. You can’t hold down a woman by force and force her to be pregnant against her will and I just don’t see the morality of it at all in the cases of rape or when the woman’s life is in danger.

Rence, I think that your understanding of the principle of double effect isn’t correct. The act of deliberately destroying a child in the womb is not double effect but it is the direct effect of an act which only purpose is to destroy the child.

 

[Rence]

This is quite curious. You have no problem proclaiming your dissent from the Church, providing intricate and detailed apologia for your stance, declaring that it’s legal and therefore the woman’s right, being quite adamantine that there’s legitimate, valid and moral reasons for a woman to seek an abortion…

yet you, a nurse, won’t participate in an abortion

because of the “limitations imposed on” you by the Church?

Either you believe what you’ve been proclaiming here

or

you assent and affirm the Church’s teachings.

What “limitations” have been imposed on you by the Church that allow you to proclaim your support of abortion rights in mouth but not in deed?

This is a discussion form, and I am discussing my views and beliefs. I’m not trying to pass them off as beliefs that a Catholic should have. You guys are making it quite clear what the Church wants it’s members to think So I don’t have to worry about improperly influencing someone, as you all are citing all the rules of the Church. The question went something like, can you be Catholic and pro-choice and why. And I have done my best to explain how I feel about my position. I am in no way trying to influence anyone at all.

If I shouldn’t be allowed to express my feelings, then wouldn’t it be fair that the question not be allowed to be asked? I mean, I didn’t post a thread entitled: “hey guys! I’m catholic and I’m prochoice!” did I? If the question is allowed to be asked, then we should be able to answer truthfully without being called names or being told we’re less Catholic than anyone else. Otherwise, why ask? Honestly, I don’t mean to be rude, I respect all of you, you all fight hard for your beliefs, but why are you all asking me a bunch of questions for me to answer, when you don’t think I have the right to my feelings about the subject?

Yes, I won’t participate in an abortion or counsel someone to have one, or help someone to obtain one, ONLY because of the limitations of the Church. I will obey their rules for myself, because they impose those rules and I’m still Catholic. But I can’t agree that it should be forced on someone else, without their consent. I have consented to those rules freely. I do very much believe everything that I’m saying here. But I CHOOSE to live by the rules of the Church – freely.

Last year, before I came to this forum I was researching IVF. When I found out the Church forbids it (thanks CAF), I completely disagree with their rules, but I stopped my research and CHOSE to obey the rules, whether I like them or not. And I don’t like them. I don’t agree with the Church’s rules on artificial birth control, but not only do I obey them willingly, but have a deep repugnance for ABCs, so it’s easy for me to speak out against them…however, it’s still the woman’s choice.

You don’t have to agree with everything the Church says, but if you want to be in good standing with the Church you have to follow their rules. I will not spout out lies about what I think like a robot. When asked, I will give my opinion.

Cases of rape and cases where a woman’s life is in danger are very sensitive areas for me. My patient’s rights as patients is very important to me. It’s a huge stumbling block for me, that I choose to obey, but again, I won’t participate in stripping the rights of other women.

 

[Tigg]

None of this takes place for an abortion. Actually, the abortionist needs to have the ultrasound for two reasons - the obvious one is to visualize the embryo and the second is to determine the price! Abortions fees are based on the gestational age. The screen is not only turned away from the mother but the sound is turned off… so she does not hear the heart beat.

If I may, I would like to share a memory of a college anatomy & physiology course I took. There was a large machine designed to register the electrical activity of the heart - as in a modified EKG. Now, what you have to imagine is that there is only this machine in the class and a tape recording of the instructor who was performing the experiment on the animal (dog in this case). Our instructor just turned on the machine and the tape recorded. Again: NO ANIMAL WAS PRESENT IN THE CLASSROOM. Well, various drugs (chemicals) were given to the anesthesized dog and we could see the effect it had on the electrical system of the heart. The last one decreased the the contraction ever so slightly - but with each beat you could see the pattern being traced out of diminishing waves until the dog’s heart just was a flat line with no electrical activity. Three of the girls in our class had begun crying and walked out before the end of the demonstration - others just sobbed in class. Really, the actually instructor called for a break for the class to recompose itself. Some never came back for the remainder of the class. And, this was about a dog who electrical waves had been recorded. This was 28 years ago and I remember it like it was yesterday.

God bless

Wonderful post, Tom. Aaahhhh, yes……the “beating” heart which gives testament to life!

Doesn’t the biblical perception of “heart” include the entire man – our faculties of mental and moral perception, our reason, emotions and will? In this debate, how does one possibly separate the “head conviction” which to me would promote the superiority of the “law of the land” or “so-called rights” given only to the mother, from the “heart” conviction or divine law and fullness of life that Christ gives? There must be some denial of the inner self in order to place secular law over God’s law which should reign in our hearts.

And then there’s the concept of motherhood and the psychological dimensions that surely must be deep within the heart of every woman to protect that life growing within. It is contrary to the very character of nurturing female. It’s staggering to me (as a woman) that your story above could cause such a heart-wrenching reaction for some, in contrast to the brutal reality of abortion today.

 

[Rence]

It seems to me that she believes both. And I would further note that her personal stance to avoid putting herself in a professional position where she would have to violate the Teachings of the Church IS a “deed”.

She has also been quite clear about following the Teahings in her personal behavior.

Thank you for understanding me, even if you don’t agree with me. I appreciate you

I think what is missing is the mental construct that abortion is not treatment, and that if medical treatment is administered for the medical complications and the pregnancy is inadvertatnly lost, it is not considered an abortion.

No, I understand it, I just don’t agree with it. (Ok now, without opening up a big can of worms) To me, there is no difference in the morality of the treatment of tubal pregnancy if the whole tube is removed or methotrexate is used. The outcome, the intention is the same - however the interventions are quite different in being invasive and in salvaging a fallopian tube. Why should she have an invasive surgical procedure and remove a fallopian tube, when she can take methotrexate? It should be her choice. But it’s a rule of the Church to remove the whole tube and that’s the way it is…but that’s MY choice. I don’t believe if forcing that on another woman. She has to freely consent to that.

 

[guanophore]

I agree with you completely that it doesn't HAVE to be. You're right about that. But people want it to be, and as long as they want it to be, and they want to exercise their rights in this way, it will continue to be a part of life.

As you have rightly pointed out, each of us has a responsibility not to make it part of our personal lives.

What you have not accepted is the duty to be light and salt to the world in the turning over of unjust laws (those that go against divine law). Our present “way of life” in America with regard to abortion denies the personhood of the baby in the womb. This is a situation that we are all obligated to change. Saying that you won’t work for that is putting you in the same category as CMatt, who places secular law over divine law as a guide.

That’s a whole different story. If a woman feels trapped into having an abortion, those around her have failed her.

Oh, I agree! But, as a person who used to work in these clinics, I can attest that this is what happens MOST of the time. Most women who seek abortions are pressured into it, and feel they have no options, or few options, all of them bad ones. They dont seek abortions for medical reasons or because they are raped. They seek them because it seems like it is the best way to solve the problem.

I understand where you’re coming from. But I feel it is evil to force a pregnancy on a woman who has been raped, and/or whose life is in peril because of it.

Rape is evil, and has many horrific consequences. Punishing the innocent victim that is helpless in the womb is not the best solution.

Life being in peril is a matter of medical complications, and does not involve abortion.

I agree with you that pregnancy is not a disease. It should be a joyous occassion and should be the most special thing a woman can ever experience. Unfortunately, sometimes a woman is not able to tolerate the physiological changes that pregnancy bring, which can lead to complications, or exacerbate existing complications, and can endanger her life. So terminating that pregnancy will normalize their physiological system so that they can regain their health and live longer.

Yes, of course. However, in such cases, the goal is always to address the complications, and never to slay the innocent life. This is a critical distinction that must be made. It must be made because most abortions are problem solving of other kinds,and do not result from medical problems.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Silentstar,

Your post touched on a number of topics. Let me offer a comment or two that hopefully will be helpful. Hmmmmm … it looks like I can’t do ths in one post … so, this is 1 of 2

First and formost, let me express my sorrow at the suffering you and family experienced during this time in your lives. It was a major burden that you bear to this day. Maybe there can be some help for you today.

My mother, during her 7th and last pregnancy, had toxic shock as a complication of pregnancy. This involved multiple organ failure and 2 weeks in the hospital. She was lucky to survive. She had a stillbirth at 5 months and was so ill she does not know what day that happened. She had needed an abortion but refused it and when she came home she had postpartum psychosis. She accused me of murdering the baby b/c I did not do enough household chores. I was 12. She was never really the same after that and I think it was a combination of psychological trauma and maybe neurological injury from the illness.

The first problem I had comes in your statement about “She had needed an abortion…” Your Mother could have gotten toxic shock from the abortion, there is no reason to believe that she would not have gotten postpartum psychosis - and, there would be the added trauma of her knowing that she actively consented to the death of her unborn child. There is no “if-I-had-done-this-then…” type response that is going to be accurate.

Her blaming you for the problems she experienced is truly regretable but understandable. With a mental disorder, people do not process informaiton correctly and this has a major impact on how they preceive reality. It may be that you have internalized this blame she tried to put on you - and, in my opinion, it is time to turn this over to Christ - the Great Healer - Who heals in His Own Time and in His Own Ways. Honest. It really can be out of your hands and put into His All-Loving nail-scared Hands.

I’m not saying this to make people feel sorry for me but rather to point out that my family was very devout and no one in our Catholic community was there for us when we needed them despite my parents’ extensive involvement in church, volunteer work, etc. and my sister and I were in Catholic school. People in the community might have thought abortion was never needed to save a woman’s life well in this one case they chose not to pay attention.

Again, Silentstar, you are going back to that ‘abortion-is-the-answer’ lie that is spun out by the abortion business types.

Your feelings of abandonment by the Catholic Community where you went to Church and to school are truly understandable. I have no answer to this apparent neglect - but, believe me when I tell you that NOTHING happens that is contrary to the Will of God. For whatever reason, God allowed this suffering to befall you and your family. While people will always have the great potential to fail us - our strength is NOT in people, but in God Who sent His Son for each of us individually.

CONTINUED - Page on Page 2

 

[beafedor]

Pro-Choice does not necessarily mean pro-abortion.

Now this I copied from NARAL PRO-CHOICE’s website:

Quote: Anti-choice people want to outlaw abortion, regardless of the woman’s situation. They will stop at nothing to make it harder for women to access abortion. They even target the doctors who provide abortion care. Anti-choice people use many of the following tactics to reach their goals:

* Violent tactics that intimidate doctors and patients
* Bans on safe abortion methods that protect women's health
* Restrictions on low-income women's access to abortion and other health care
* Dangerous laws that jeopardize young women's health and safety
* "Crisis pregnancy centers" that intentionally mislead women
* "Personhood" measures that would ban abortion
* Distortions of science to instill fear
* Restrictions on women's access to RU 486
* Refusal clauses that deny women basic health services

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Silentstar, here is Page 2 of 2

I spend time here b/c I think of returning to the Church but when I see categorical statements that abortion is never needed - doctors told me differently. In the rare cases where it is needed the Catholic community for whatever reason fails to pay attention. That is what I was told by doctors in the hospital who quite frankly thought my family was a bunch of behind the times religious idiots for taking this kind of risk.

From my experience as an RN, most physicians lack the expression of compassion (bed side manner?) A physician should have seen how this set of tragic events had affected you - so telling you that your religion is made up of idiots, must have been close to being the last straw for you. When these guys can see into the future and correctly and consistently call the outcomes - then they will have improved their science - but, they still will not be God!

This may be hard to believe, but there are millions of truly grieving women who have had aboritons and long to hold the child they had butchered. This weighs heavily on their spirits and their souls. And, it is a reality they must deal with. These physicians second-guessing the good-faith decision made by your Mom - and doing so to distress your further are poor excuses for human beings.

My feelings are complicated and difficult to sort out but I was told by doctors that Catholics were hypocrites on this issue. I heard really harshly judgmental things said by doctors who thought my mother had thrown her life away and potentially wrecked our family, and that my father was negligent and abusive. The result was I was angry at everyone.

You know, the great physician, Hippocrates hit the nail on the head when he said, “Primum non nocere” - First, do no harm! In my judgment, you are related how these physicians harmed you by their cutting words and total indifference to your own situation. If they are so concerned about hypocrites, then they should first look in a mirror - pretending to be healers when they have destroyed your compusure, tranquility and sense of self-worth. Who are these people, who apparently know nothing about the Catholic Faith, yet declare it to be of no value? I think you have listened to the wrong people for too long.

I don’t mean to direct this criticism at anyone at CAF and I’m not asking for pity but my mother really should have had an abortion. Toxic shock is very rare and more associated with tampon use but that was not the problem in this case. That said the doctors by judging my family at that point made me angry b/c we needed understanding however they were correct that the Catholic community did not show concern, and I don’t know why.

No one can answer that question for you today. Some things in life simply require that we put our Faith in God and trust to His Mercy that He will get us through this trial. Abandoning one’s Faith because of the failure of human beings would require us all to abandon everything - because eventually we all will be failed by someone we counted on. There of course is an exception - actually, an Exceptional Someone Who died on the Cross for each of us. Don’t abandon Him or the Church He founded on Peter (just look how repeatedly Peter failed Christ before the Resurrection).

I’m afraid I ended up concluding a pox on both their houses - the doctors I felt would judge and the Catholic community who did not seem to care. At this point I don’t know what to do. My mother accusing me of killing the baby has been difficult for me to forgive and I had later abuse partly b/c my parents were impaired and disconnected.

I don’t know if things have changed about Catholics and support for women who have high-risk pregnancies since then.

You are carrying a tremendous burden. Maybe it is time to put it down? One place to go would be to your parish priest! Yes, even if you have not been to Church in a while, you need to come home now. Tell the priest just what you told us. Listen to what he has to say. I am confident that the Voice of God will be heard through this man’s words - and you will not only find you have left at least some of your burdens on His doorstep, but you will have some ideas on what to do next. Having a plan for the future is most important - and, you do have a future in God’s Plan for Salvation.

God bless

 

[guanophore]

.No, of course I wouldn't want a mother to be able to legally kill her two month old post-born baby. But until the baby is born, the mother has the right to make decisions about her own body, about her own health, and direct medical interventions that affect her own body, despite the effects on the unborn. Her health of mind and body is primary.

I think how you have set up your priorities here is what brings you into dissent with the Church. We are not allowed to make decisions for ourselves “despite the effects” to anyone. We are always to prefer the needs of others above our own. This does not mean that she is not responsible for, and must have consent over her own body, which is also the responsibility of the human person. It just means that she is not the only person involved in the decision, and to cut the other life out of the decision making is participating in the culture of death in which we now live.

You can’t hold down a woman by force and force her to be pregnant against her will and I just don’t see the morality of it at all in the cases of rape or when the woman’s life is in danger.

No, but then, the vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with rape or endangerment. They have to do with convenience, and as we discussed above, feeling trapped. Supporting all this needless loss of life is not a moral choice for Catholics. We have an obligation to speak up for those who can’t speak for themselves. There are hardly more helpless persons than those lives in the womb.

 

[Rence]

What I find puzzling is the disconnect between proclaiming dissent in Catholic teaching but not following it to its logical conclusion.

I can think of no other areas in life in which one would state, “I strenuously and vigorously believe in “A”, but I won’t help anyone achieve “A”. In fact, I will do all in my power to avoid being in a position to have anyone achieve “A:””

Yes, religion certainly has a unique place in our lives. But there is nothing to be puzzled about. I just choose to follow the teachings even though I don’t agree with them. I have a choice: I can either obey the rules or not obey them.

Should I just pick up a picket and march for reproductive rights instead? That’s what I want to do, but I know I would be going against Church teaching if I did. I wanted to be a SANE nurse working in the emergency room and caring for rape victims. But I couldn’t ever not disclose their options about plan b. That’s immoral to deny this to a rape victim, but it’s against the rules of the Church to not deny them, so I’m not a SANE nurse.

But really, would you rather I retain my beliefs but act in accordance to the Church, or would you rather I retain my beliefs and actively support women’s right to choose? You can be all perplexed and puzzled by it, but the very big truth is: I disagree with the teaching, but freely choose to obey it. I just won’t force another person to do the same because it has to be their free choice to do so as well.

 

[Rence]

Rence, I think that your understanding of the principle of double effect isn’t correct. The act of deliberately destroying a child in the womb is not double effect but it is the direct effect of an act which only purpose is to destroy the child.

I do understand it. With removing the tube, it’s not a “direct assault on the embryo”. Removing the tube is primary, and the fact that there is an embryo in it is secondary. But with methotrexate, the primary intervention is the flush out the embryo from the tube. I understand it, I just don’t agree with the limitations imposed by the Church regarding the treatment of tubal pregnancy. Again, it’s their rules and I’ll obey them. But I don’t agree with them.