O
Ockham
Guest
So when does life begin, troubled soul? 24th week providing there are no health issues?
- Status
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Maybe He answered you the way… He knew you were expecting to be answered…???..
C
Christopher68
Guest
I did not claim that this was ‘my’ position. I merely stated an opposing position for sake of discussion.
Yet the position you are advocating has ‘big government’ written all over it. If you were president, I suspect that you would use the force of government to outlaw birth control.
S
SunnaB16
Guest
Having had dealings with you on earlier threads, eg the slanderous accusations made against the pope by “The Press”, it`s necessary to alert others.
Axe grinding has nothing to do with being an “enquirer”.
Z
Zatzat
Guest
Focus on the discussion, not on me. I am polite, respectful and I do listen to the Catholics on this forum.
Why are you so afraid of me?
S
SunnaB16
Guest
Your only reason for listening to the Catholics on this forum is to take swipes at us.
Why would i be afraid of an anti-Catholic with an agenda?
The teachings of the Church on Faith and Morals are what matter.
Your opinions are worthless.
Soutane is another CAF member who understands your game. The others probably do, as well.
As far as focussing “on the discussion, not on me.” is concerned: unfortunately,“me” IS part of the discussion.
Exposure of motives is necessary.
Over and Out!
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Many think that the Ethics Committee met to treat this Woman’s PAH
That is absolutely wrong
She was already being treated for PAH… before the Ethics Committee was formed.
You do not need an Ethics Committee to treat PAH
The Ethics Committee was formed for one reason.
To morally justify treating the unborn baby as a disease AND as such… the moral right to abort it.
It The Ethics Committee ] was expressly called into action for this sole purpose
That is absolutely wrong
She was already being treated for PAH… before the Ethics Committee was formed.
You do not need an Ethics Committee to treat PAH
The Ethics Committee was formed for one reason.
To morally justify treating the unborn baby as a disease AND as such… the moral right to abort it.
It The Ethics Committee ] was expressly called into action for this sole purpose
I
iluvburpees
Guest
You’ve been defending it as if it were your position. If it’s not your position, why are you stating your case as if you believe in it?
I guess punishing the crime of homocide is “big government” as well
Don’t suspect. Be assured of it.
I doubt you are against the government outlawing the murder of people outside the womb. Why should this not apply to those inside?
C
catharina
Guest
Really, isn’t it clear that nobody is afraid of you?
The issue with/for you is that you are wildly confrontational.
I’m responding with that observations since you’ve asked for the “why” of your conflicts.
Isn’t the “why” perfectly clear? It’s been stated in the past.
You confront people and present issues in a disrespectful manner
- then act surprised to find conflict. Don’t be surprised. It’s your attitude.
Z
Zatzat
Guest
Please, let’s get back to discussion of the thread, instead of discussing me.
C
catharina
Guest
Thank you for your civil response.
The thread asserts correctly that the sister’s approval of an abortion caused her
automatic and immediate excommunication. She knew the consequence prior to acting.
F
FidesSpesCarita
Guest
Jumped ahead a bit to make sure I addressed this
We should PROTECT those who are completely dependent upon us, not be allowed to slaughter them all willy-nilly.
Satisfied, no. Pleased that no babies were being killed, yes.
ftr, ABC is not murder, it is prevention of life. Just as bad, but a semantic difference.
A baby cannot survive outside the womb with someone to feed, clothe, and protect him/her. It is not until around 8 or 9 years of age that a person can be said to be self sufficient (minimally, but sufficient). So should we allow them to be aborted up to the age of 8, since that is your reasoning behind allowing abortions? Heck, I wasnt self sufficient until 23 after I got out of college and was thrown out of my parents house (FTR, I put the remote on the couch instead of the coffee table… My father was having a bad day and I am quite stubborn)
We should PROTECT those who are completely dependent upon us, not be allowed to slaughter them all willy-nilly.
F
FidesSpesCarita
Guest
But that child is still wholly dependent upon SOMEONE to care for it. Just as it was in the womb. Why would it not be morally acceptable to abort at that point?
Ummm, the death of an innocent to save the life of an innocent is never an accptable choice unless the innocent party that will die makes the choice to martyr oneself to save another. The foetus, child, baby, cannot amke that decision.
Two things:
First, individuals make errors in judgment under emotional duress. I know that I have, and I feel safe in assuming that you have as well. If it were illegal, that error in judgment could not be made.
Second, there are no shades of grey, just a mix of white and black. The primary principle of logic: A thing cannot simultaneously be and not be. It is either true or false, no matter whether you personally, or anyone for that matter, know the truth. There are no shades of grey. Logically they cannot exist.
False. The onus is on the one putting forward the new opinion. The heliocentric theory required proof when it was put forth, not the geocentric theory. The theory of evolution required that it be proven over creationism. The spherical earth theory required proof that it was correct and the flat earth theory was wrong. In this instance YOU are putting forward the new theory, that it is not a human being until it is self sufficient or at a minimum capable of surviving outside the womb, thus the onus is on YOU, and those believing as you do, to prove this belief (often taken to the level of a faith).
Please, please do so.
Quote from the holy father
no mention of homicide. Again, not MURDER, but equally offensive to God.
Come on Ockham, no reason to discuss his soul. BUT, a very good question. Again Zatzat, I ask you to prove that it is not a human being.
How about this, what is YOUR understanding of the defining characteristics of life, in particular those things which distinguish HUMAN life?
J
JReducation
Guest
I believe this thread has taken a curve somewhere. The original story is not about what the posters here believed regarding abortion. It’s about the fact that a woman religious incurred excommunication for approving an abortion when she has the obligation to disapprove.
As Pope John Paul II so clearly said in Evangelium Vitae, truth is not about who believes what or who can prove what. Truth is truth. As St. Paul wrote in the first chapter, vs 6 and forward of his letter to the Galatians, there is no other truth but that revealed by Jesus Christ, regardless of what others claim is truth. St. Paul and his successors were very clear with the Galatians. They were to accept the truth that had been revealed by Jesus and transmitted to them through the Apostles. They were not deny and not tolerate, under threat of eternal damnation, any other position that claimed to be true but was in conflict with that truth handed down by the Apostles. They were never to accept anyone’s opinion of truth, if they had the power to reject it. They were to change the social structure of their time and even civil laws, if those structures were in conflict with the truth. The Galatians were Greek. They lived in a democratic society. They had the right to participate in civil life and to fight for the truth. This is very much like our own society today.
St. Paul and the Father’s of the Church held them morally accountable for their failure to promote truth in their city. They were held morally accountable for tolerating any other proclamation of truth as having equal dignity and deserving of equal respect as that which was revealed by Christ. Nothing that comes between Christ and the soul is worthy of respect, much less equal to revealed truth. The argument that this is a Christian belief that is not applicable to others does not hold among Christians. This has never been taught by any Christian, because it’s heresy.
There is a confusion here between treating a person with respect and respecting the falsehood that to which the person subscribes. Falsehood deserves no respect, but the person who subscribes to it does. Respect means that the person must always be treated with charity, compassion, and never denied those human rights which have been revealed by God, not the ones assigned by society. The human rights assigned by society do not always align with those that have been revealed by God.
The argument that we do not live in a theocracy holds no water in the spiritual life. If you want to be a good citizen, you can subscribe to this. If you want to save your soul, you must move to the next level and realize that democracy is a means to an end, not the end itself. We cannot deny or abdicate our duty to the truth in order to preserve democracy. Democracy has to be a means that allows the truth to the spoken in and out of season. Anyone who denies the truth to preserve democracy has excommunicated himself. That’s what this woman religious did. She abandoned truth that has been revealed and which may never be compromised for the sake of a non-truth that has been allowed by a democratic system that is has gone immoral.
Whether she realizes this in her heart of not, we do not know. Therefore, we owe her a certain modicum of respect. That means that we must speak to her and about her with respect. We may never show respect for her choice and her action. But we may never judge her soul, her motives, or her relationship with God. We can only judge her action and say that her actions are those of a person who abandons truth and that such a person cannot remain a member of the physical Catholic Church. Therefore, she is severed from the Church and she no longer enjoys the privilege of working out her salvation with the support of the sacraments or the support of the Church. This is a disciplinary action that the Church imposes in the hope that Sister will think about this and wish to return to the sacraments, therefore recanting her position, denouncing her actions and asking for forgiveness. It is not the Church’s hope that she dies in a state of grave sin and be damned. It is the hope that she will see the gravity and danger of what she has done while there is still time to ask for forgiveness, if she needs forgiveness.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
As Pope John Paul II so clearly said in Evangelium Vitae, truth is not about who believes what or who can prove what. Truth is truth. As St. Paul wrote in the first chapter, vs 6 and forward of his letter to the Galatians, there is no other truth but that revealed by Jesus Christ, regardless of what others claim is truth. St. Paul and his successors were very clear with the Galatians. They were to accept the truth that had been revealed by Jesus and transmitted to them through the Apostles. They were not deny and not tolerate, under threat of eternal damnation, any other position that claimed to be true but was in conflict with that truth handed down by the Apostles. They were never to accept anyone’s opinion of truth, if they had the power to reject it. They were to change the social structure of their time and even civil laws, if those structures were in conflict with the truth. The Galatians were Greek. They lived in a democratic society. They had the right to participate in civil life and to fight for the truth. This is very much like our own society today.
St. Paul and the Father’s of the Church held them morally accountable for their failure to promote truth in their city. They were held morally accountable for tolerating any other proclamation of truth as having equal dignity and deserving of equal respect as that which was revealed by Christ. Nothing that comes between Christ and the soul is worthy of respect, much less equal to revealed truth. The argument that this is a Christian belief that is not applicable to others does not hold among Christians. This has never been taught by any Christian, because it’s heresy.
There is a confusion here between treating a person with respect and respecting the falsehood that to which the person subscribes. Falsehood deserves no respect, but the person who subscribes to it does. Respect means that the person must always be treated with charity, compassion, and never denied those human rights which have been revealed by God, not the ones assigned by society. The human rights assigned by society do not always align with those that have been revealed by God.
The argument that we do not live in a theocracy holds no water in the spiritual life. If you want to be a good citizen, you can subscribe to this. If you want to save your soul, you must move to the next level and realize that democracy is a means to an end, not the end itself. We cannot deny or abdicate our duty to the truth in order to preserve democracy. Democracy has to be a means that allows the truth to the spoken in and out of season. Anyone who denies the truth to preserve democracy has excommunicated himself. That’s what this woman religious did. She abandoned truth that has been revealed and which may never be compromised for the sake of a non-truth that has been allowed by a democratic system that is has gone immoral.
Whether she realizes this in her heart of not, we do not know. Therefore, we owe her a certain modicum of respect. That means that we must speak to her and about her with respect. We may never show respect for her choice and her action. But we may never judge her soul, her motives, or her relationship with God. We can only judge her action and say that her actions are those of a person who abandons truth and that such a person cannot remain a member of the physical Catholic Church. Therefore, she is severed from the Church and she no longer enjoys the privilege of working out her salvation with the support of the sacraments or the support of the Church. This is a disciplinary action that the Church imposes in the hope that Sister will think about this and wish to return to the sacraments, therefore recanting her position, denouncing her actions and asking for forgiveness. It is not the Church’s hope that she dies in a state of grave sin and be damned. It is the hope that she will see the gravity and danger of what she has done while there is still time to ask for forgiveness, if she needs forgiveness.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
M
mmm1
Guest
Shocking, but true. This is exactly what partial birth abortion is. You should look it up!
M
mmm1
Guest
Do you know how many women are killed & injured every year due to legal abortions? The number is pretty high & severely under-reported because ER physicians & those treating these poor women & girls want to spare them & their family pain & embarrassment. They often list the reason as something other than post-abortive complication. I don’t have the statistics on this, but I’m sure someone here does.
All of these deaths & injuries, due to legal & illegal abortion, could have been avoided.
O
Ockham
Guest
By choosing life. Amen.
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Using WHO figures is misleading at the very best. WHO is partners with Marie Stopes International…International Planned Parenthood and UN Population Control UNIPCC ]
Here is an interesting CDC article
cnsnews.com/news/article/55956
The goal of supporting Maternal WHO death numbers is to take away from the number of Aborted deaths… as if justifiable
It has had this pointed out to them before
U
urban-hermit
Guest
Sister Margaret McBride, RSM, of the Catholic Sisters of Mercy, along with the rest of the “ethics committee”, committed a grave error in judgment by facilitating a direct abortion. That is a fact.
What’s very troubling is the fact that not one of these people in such an area of awesome responsibility knew what the right thing to do was. They even protested after the fact saying they were correct to approve the abortion, when the bishop in communion with the Pope told them point blank they were wrong. These people need some major remedial catechesis. Every one of them should be fired for the sake of other small human beings they might mistakenly murder in the future.
For those outside the Catholic faith - especially those who consider themselves Catholics who don’t necessarily believe every Catholic doctrine, check this: Despite the fact that we do not know all the medical details, from the information we do have it is very probable that they were also MEDICALLY wrong:
from lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/may/10051712.html
Catholic Healthcare West, which oversees St. Joseph’s hospital, sent a letter to Olmsted Monday defending McBride’s and the hospital’s actions.
“If there had been a way to save the pregnancy and still prevent the death of the mother, we would have done it,” the letter says. “We are convinced there was not.”
However, Dr. Paul A. Byrne, Director of Neonatology and Pediatrics at St. Charles Mercy Hospital in Toledo, Ohio, disputes the claim that an abortion is ever a procedure necessary to save the life of the mother, or carries less risk than birth.
In an interview with LifeSiteNews, Dr. Byrne said, “I don’t know of any [situation where abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother].
“I know that a lot of people talk about these things, but I don’t know of any. The principle always is preserve and protect the life of the mother and the baby.”
Byrne has the distinction of being a pioneer in the field of neonatology, beginning his work in the field in 1963 and becoming a board-certified neonatologist in 1975. He invented one of the first oxygen masks for babies, an incubator monitor, and a blood-pressure tester for premature babies, which he and a colleague adapted from the finger blood pressure checkers used for astronauts.
Byrne emphasized that he was not commentating on what the woman’s particular treatment should have been under the circumstances, given that she is not his patient.
“But given just pulmonary hypertension, the answer is no” to abortion, said Byrne.
Byrne emphasized that the unborn child at 11 weeks gestation would have a negligible impact on the woman’s cardiovascular system. He said that pregnancy in the first and second trimesters would not expose a woman with even severe pulmonary hypertension – which puts stress on the heart and the lungs – to any serious danger.
A pregnant mother’s cardiovascular system does have “major increases,” but they only happen “in the last three months of pregnancy,” Byrne explained.
The point of fetal viability is estimated at anywhere between 21 - 24 weeks, at which point he speculated the baby could have been artificially be delivered and had a good shot at surviving. In the meantime the mother’s pulmonary hypertension could be treated, even by such simple things as eliminating salt from her diet, exercising, or losing weight.
“It’s not going to be any extra stress on the mother that she can’t stand,” said Byrne. “Eventually you get to where the baby gets big enough that the baby can live outside the uterus and you don’t have to do an abortion.”
“I am only aware of good things happening by doing that. I am not aware of anything bad happening to the mother because the baby was allowed to live.”
“The only reason to kill the baby at 11 weeks is because it is smaller,” which makes the abortion easier to perform, he said, not because the mother’s life is in immediate danger.
“I’ve done this work just about as long as neonatology has existed,” said Byrne. “The key is we must protect and preserve life, and we have to do that from conception to the natural end.”
What’s very troubling is the fact that not one of these people in such an area of awesome responsibility knew what the right thing to do was. They even protested after the fact saying they were correct to approve the abortion, when the bishop in communion with the Pope told them point blank they were wrong. These people need some major remedial catechesis. Every one of them should be fired for the sake of other small human beings they might mistakenly murder in the future.
For those outside the Catholic faith - especially those who consider themselves Catholics who don’t necessarily believe every Catholic doctrine, check this: Despite the fact that we do not know all the medical details, from the information we do have it is very probable that they were also MEDICALLY wrong:
from lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/may/10051712.html
Catholic Healthcare West, which oversees St. Joseph’s hospital, sent a letter to Olmsted Monday defending McBride’s and the hospital’s actions.
“If there had been a way to save the pregnancy and still prevent the death of the mother, we would have done it,” the letter says. “We are convinced there was not.”
However, Dr. Paul A. Byrne, Director of Neonatology and Pediatrics at St. Charles Mercy Hospital in Toledo, Ohio, disputes the claim that an abortion is ever a procedure necessary to save the life of the mother, or carries less risk than birth.
In an interview with LifeSiteNews, Dr. Byrne said, “I don’t know of any [situation where abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother].
“I know that a lot of people talk about these things, but I don’t know of any. The principle always is preserve and protect the life of the mother and the baby.”
Byrne has the distinction of being a pioneer in the field of neonatology, beginning his work in the field in 1963 and becoming a board-certified neonatologist in 1975. He invented one of the first oxygen masks for babies, an incubator monitor, and a blood-pressure tester for premature babies, which he and a colleague adapted from the finger blood pressure checkers used for astronauts.
Byrne emphasized that he was not commentating on what the woman’s particular treatment should have been under the circumstances, given that she is not his patient.
“But given just pulmonary hypertension, the answer is no” to abortion, said Byrne.
Byrne emphasized that the unborn child at 11 weeks gestation would have a negligible impact on the woman’s cardiovascular system. He said that pregnancy in the first and second trimesters would not expose a woman with even severe pulmonary hypertension – which puts stress on the heart and the lungs – to any serious danger.
A pregnant mother’s cardiovascular system does have “major increases,” but they only happen “in the last three months of pregnancy,” Byrne explained.
The point of fetal viability is estimated at anywhere between 21 - 24 weeks, at which point he speculated the baby could have been artificially be delivered and had a good shot at surviving. In the meantime the mother’s pulmonary hypertension could be treated, even by such simple things as eliminating salt from her diet, exercising, or losing weight.
“It’s not going to be any extra stress on the mother that she can’t stand,” said Byrne. “Eventually you get to where the baby gets big enough that the baby can live outside the uterus and you don’t have to do an abortion.”
“I am only aware of good things happening by doing that. I am not aware of anything bad happening to the mother because the baby was allowed to live.”
“The only reason to kill the baby at 11 weeks is because it is smaller,” which makes the abortion easier to perform, he said, not because the mother’s life is in immediate danger.
“I’ve done this work just about as long as neonatology has existed,” said Byrne. “The key is we must protect and preserve life, and we have to do that from conception to the natural end.”
O
Ockham
Guest
On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
“…human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ 'spawning… human beings who never should have been born.” Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people
On the extermination of blacks:
“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” she said, “if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon
“…human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ 'spawning… human beings who never should have been born.” Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people
On the extermination of blacks:
“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” she said, “if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon
- Status