Perhaps so. Then we would know who the Faithful Bishops and Priests are.Because the US Government condone abortion, do you think the Catholic Church lose their tax exempt status?
Pro-Choice Advocates says that we should lose it. Why or why not?
HappyRevert;4415040:
The Catholic Church is not trying to exert control over the US government
And trying to claim that taxation is persecution means you don’t understand the true meaning of that word considering that every citizen of this nation is subject to taxation. You belittle the sacrifices of those who truly have been victims of persectution when you make that claim.How can you even say that? As US bishops are publicly stating that they are making a concerted effort to pressure the incoming administration to pass laws that they favor you sit there and say they aren’t.
So we keep our Fatih inside the Church building? I think this has been the complaint of Priests, Ministers etc. for how many years? We go to Church and forget what was said the minute we walk out the door?
Can you rationalize that putting someone innocent to death is the solution to depriving them of the opportunity to suffer through life? Also can you rationalize that life is the cause of suffering or is suffering intrinsically linked to the lives of all human beings who have the opportunity to live?In the case of rape or incest, I have mixed feelings. I realize the Church’s stance on this, and I abide by it, however, I can on the other hand understand the horrors and conflict that a raped woman may face, and I can’t help but wonder if the child will not ultimately suffer direly as a result of it.
It is the same.In the case of incest, I think its not so much the same.
In other words, the more doctors available to give the opinion that it is acceptable to kill an innocent human being, the more likely it is to be acceptable?I choose not to really express opinion on those areas. But on the issue of medical necessity, I say leave that to competent medical doctors, maybe a minimum of three to make the call.
Who can claim to know, understand, or even speculate on what God’s will is? So far throughout history, almost every human being that has ever lived has had to die. God has chosen the circumstances of death for all of those people He has called from this world.In the issue of mortality, yes we all are. However, I do not believe that it would be God’s will or intention that a mother would die as the result of catastrophic problems created by a pregnancy.
Why is that? Would treating her for a heart attack involve the immoral act of killing an innocent human being in the process? Would it involve any immoral act at all? Are we not called to do all things in accordance with the will of God? We are required to act when necessary, and to order our actions to the will of God. We are not permitted to act immorally even to achieve a desired result. That is pretending to know the will of God.Its what I call a “never say never” situation.
In so far as it being in the hands of God… I do not necessarily espouse to that, as I cannot in good conscience do that with a narrow scope or by picking and choosing the occasion or act, as that is disingenuous… If I was to espouse to that, I would be caused to apply it to absolutely everything, especially medically. I would have had to sat and watched my wife die from a massive heart attack instead of calling 911 and getting her to the hospital where they saved her life.
Isn’t it interesting that people who don’t like when Catholics go into the voting both as U.S. citizens and vote according to Catholic teaching, likely at odds with how they are voting, will then claim that the Catholic Church is exerting its power. To an extent they are correct though, the Church militant in action in society.So we keep our Fatih inside the Church building? I think this has been the complaint of Priests, Ministers etc. for how many years? We go to Church and forget what was said the minute we walk out the door?
I am not rationalizing anything, I was merely musing as to what the possibilities were. Where they have been children born to rape victims that have been loved and cared for, how about the ones that have suffered grievously and been physically and psychologically abused as the result of their innocent birth.Can you rationalize that putting someone innocent to death is the solution to depriving them of the opportunity to suffer through life? Also can you rationalize that life is the cause of suffering or is suffering intrinsically linked to the lives of all human beings who have the opportunity to live?
Maybe, maybe not. I chose not to make the judgment call.It is the same.
Acceptable is not the operant word. Medically “justifiable” is the word. Don’t mistake me as being one who freely gives ground. I have very strong feelings against abortion. I am though, pragmatic enough to understand that not all issues are “black and white”.In other words, the more doctors available to give the opinion that it is acceptable to kill an innocent human being, the more likely it is to be acceptable?
And therein your rational is completely “situational” and applied vicariously to limited situations. How did or would you know that it was the “will of God” that I not sit on the bedside looking at my wife writhing on the floor in pain from the massive heart attack? Conversely, how can you state that it is not the “will of God” under those very limited circumstances where an abortion would save the mother’s life and prevent two deaths. If we are required to act when necessary…then we act when necessary, as opposed to doing absolutely NOTHING and standing by self-righteously declaring that the death of both mother and child were “God’s will”. By doing absolutely NOTHING…you “presume to know the will of God”, when in reality, you are doing absolutely nothing but “washing your hands of responsibility” by avoiding a decision…in other words, “copping out and using God as the scapegoat”.Who can claim to know, understand, or even speculate on what God’s will is? So far throughout history, almost every human being that has ever lived has had to die. God has chosen the circumstances of death for all of those people He has called from this world.
Why is that? Would treating her for a heart attack involve the immoral act of killing an innocent human being in the process? Would it involve any immoral act at all? Are we not called to do all things in accordance with the will of God? We are required to act when necessary, and to order our actions to the will of God. We are not permitted to act immorally even to achieve a desired result. That is pretending to know the will of God.
Yes, very interesting. The liberals accuse us of oppression when we open our mouths to stand up for the truth, or use our morals in the voting booth. They have a warped concept of what Natural law is. Their hearts are so hard the writing on them is obscured.Isn’t it interesting that people who don’t like when Catholics go into the voting both as U.S. citizens and vote according to Catholic teaching, likely at odds with how they are voting, will then claim that the Catholic Church is exerting its power. To an extent they are correct though, the Church militant in action in society.
One can prioritize treatment for one or the other, and the procedures may indirectly result in the death of one of the other, but there is no scenario in which it is acceptable to stab the baby in the head with scissors and suction him out or any other deliberate and direct killing method. Having “strong feelings” against abortion is no more meaningful than me having strong feelings against the designated-hitter rule.I would side on the side of abortion
I think you have framed it correctly. Forgive my mis-articulation. The choice I would make would be to “prioritize” the treatment to protect my wife. I think some may have misunderstood my prior post. It was perhaps too bluntly worded. I cannot fathom myself ever desiring my God given child to be stabbed in the head or suctioned out…or pointedly killed in any overt or direct manner. As both a matter of love and conscience I would expect, nay “demand” that all cautions be taken to protect and save the child.One can prioritize treatment for one or the other, and the procedures may indirectly result in the death of one of the other, but there is no scenario in which it is acceptable to stab the baby in the head with scissors and suction him out or any other deliberate and direct killing method. Having “strong feelings” against abortion is no more meaningful than me having strong feelings against the designated-hitter rule.
What do you think your wife would want? Her life, or her child’s?I think you have framed it correctly. Forgive my mis-articulation. The choice I would make would be to “prioritize” the treatment to protect my wife. I think some may have misunderstood my prior post. It was perhaps too bluntly worded. I cannot fathom myself ever desiring my God given child to be stabbed in the head or suctioned out…or pointedly killed in any overt or direct manner. As both a matter of love and conscience I would expect, nay “demand” that all cautions be taken to protect and save the child.
My strong feelings are far more than what you might consider strong feelings. I abhor abortion. I have tried very hard to ameliorate my language so as to not rile people up. I had previously been chastised for bluntness…
Principle of double effect.What do you think your wife would want? Her life, or her child’s?
You cannot do this. No operation which directly tries to kill an unborn is permitted. Even tho in the above case of the ectopic pregnancy it seems that this is the purpose, it is not for the purpose of the operation is to remove the fallopian tube or part of it.The choice I would make would be to “prioritize” the treatment to protect my wife.
Sure, right after Planned Parenthood loses their tax exemption.Because the US Government condone abortion, do you think the Catholic Church lose their tax exempt status?
Pro-Choice Advocates says that we should lose it. Why or why not?