Sorry - but another abortion hard case question

  • Thread starter Thread starter PhilliesFan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PhilliesFan

Guest
Thank you so much to everyone who answered my question about Gianna Beretta Molla.

Great answers, but another question comes to mind about some of these hard cases.

How do you handle the question of a mother who is about to give birth to a child, who will live a life of pain.

I know of one such couple who had a child who had leukemia and spend days screaming in pain.

My question is how can you claim to be compassionate in the case of a mother who is carrying a child who will live a life of pain. Isn’t it more compassionate to have an abortion, or to give the child an overdoes of sedatives at birth to spare it that life of pain?

You have given me such excellent answers on the last question I would really appreciate your insights on this question. All I can think of is killing never justifies anything. But to me it is a weak answer.
 
To be brief:

No it is not.

It is never good to directly kill a child. Period.

One helps them with their pain yes - but kill them no.

Persons who suffer are to be helped not killed.

(PS: abortion is very painful too…!)
 
Great answer Bookcat. And if there is nothing that can be done for their pain? Sorry for playing the devil’s advocate here.

My response would be that who are we to question God’s plan for this child. Perhaps the pain will be fleeting, perhaps God has a reason, but I can see that Richard Dawkin’s response would be that your God is a sadistic God.

Again a great reply and I sincerely thank you for it.
 
PhilliesFan said:
Great answer Bookcat. And if there is nothing that can be done for their pain? Sorry for playing the devil’s advocate here.

My response would be that who are we to question God’s plan for this child. Perhaps the pain will be fleeting, perhaps God has a reason, but I can see that Richard Dawkin’s response would be that your God is a sadistic God.

Again a great reply and I sincerely thank you for it.
Click to expand...
Who cares what Mr. Dawkins thinks? We know where he is coming from.

Again again remember too the pain of Abortion!

You never kill such a person - you do what you can to treat them and you love them while they are here with us…and above all you baptize them - giving them true life.

And the person has short time of some pain here…and is with their family…and loved by their family and are a gift to their family…and then great happiness for eternity.

Anything we suffer here due to the fallen nature man caused…God can more than “make it up” to us.
 
Under that logic then, should we go and kill every person.that has a disease that causes pain? Should we go an kill disable.people? Should we kill paraplegic? When someone gets to a doctor suffering from cancer instead of treating them should.we just kill the patient so they won’t suffer?
 
Should we kill a child who might be in pain? No, the answer is palliative care to relieve pain. There are specialists in pediatric palliative care.
 
PhilliesFan said:
My question is how can you claim to be compassionate in the case of a mother who is carrying a child who will live a life of pain. Isn’t it more compassionate to have an abortion, or to give the child an overdoes of sedatives at birth to spare it that life of pain?
Click to expand...
As bookcat already said killing a child (or in my opinion innocent and defenseless humans, children usually among that group) is wrong.

But even if we would accept that killing a child is “right” if it is within the best interest of the child to get killed (e.g. due to suffering lots of pain), such killing a person unable to consent while claiming it would be in the person’s interest to get killed at absolute minimum would require great care/caution to ensure that its realy the interest of that human to get killed; at minimum the caution should be similar to the caution that should be applied before someone sentencing to death.

That requires applying the best methods to determine exactly the situation, e.g. what the medical condition of the child realy is.

And that is only possible if the child can be directly examined by “competent” medical professionals.

Which is not possible while child is in womb.

So even if one buys into killing people to spare them pain/suffering, this does not justify abortion; if one buys into it, one should do it after birth so that risk of misdiagnosis is minimized.
 
what if the child was born normal, but later was diagnosed with cancer? does that give the parents the right to euthanize their otherwise healthy child?

No condition or diagnosis gives ANYONE the right to MURDER a helpless child.

Think of each unborn child as a baby Jesus and then maybe you’ll realize WHY you should never abort a child.

Can you imagine someone telling Mary…Jesus will suffer on the cross, its better to abort him so that doesn’t happen.

Do you not realize that abortion is painful for a child?
 
PhilliesFan said:
Thank you so much to everyone who answered my question about Gianna Beretta Molla.

Great answers, but another question comes to mind about some of these hard cases.

How do you handle the question of a mother who is about to give birth to a child, who will live a life of pain.

I know of one such couple who had a child who had leukemia and spend days screaming in pain.

My question is how can you claim to be compassionate in the case of a mother who is carrying a child who will live a life of pain. Isn’t it more compassionate to have an abortion, or to give the child an overdoes of sedatives at birth to spare it that life of pain?

You have given me such excellent answers on the last question I would really appreciate your insights on this question. All I can think of is killing never justifies anything. But to me it is a weak answer.
Click to expand...
Similar logic could apply to all of us; life does involve pain at times. God gives meaning to pain not a life free from pain. When we believe our “compassion” results in killing a person, child or adult, we put ourselves on equal footing as God and God never advocates killing of another.
 
We all suffer terrible things in life. Physical, emotional pain, hardships, privations. Who are you to say that my suffering could be alleviated by killing me? Who are the doctors to play God and kill patients just because of possible future suffering? Yes, “we could alleviate much suffering in the world by killing everyone before they can begin to suffer”… that’s twisted logic.

It is Christian belief that God uses suffering to bring about some greater good. It is a central moral tenet that we must never do evil so that good can come about, and yet God can use all kinds of evil, malicious evil, natural evil, to bring about some kind of good effect in the end. The September 11th attacks were a terrible tragedy, but they united us and bound us together as a nation like never before. In the aftermath there was a great outpouring of patriotism and national pride and brotherhood among Americans. If that suffering could have been prevented, then great… but the good results never would have occurred either.

You don’t know what kind of good can come from the suffering and pain of a child. Perhaps his parents are sanctified by that pain. Perhaps they are brought closer to God and closer to each other than ever before. Perhaps they reach out in prayer and it strengthens their faith.

For a comprehensive treatment on the topic of redemptive suffering, I refer you to the Encyclical Letter of St. John Paul the Great, Salvifici doloris. I gave a copy of this to someone who is mixed up with Prosperity Gospel preachers, who teach error. It is important to understand the orthodox Christian view of suffering, not as something to be eliminated, but something to be embraced and celebrated.
 
First: you are obviously a very wise person because you are a Phillies fan and a very loyal person because you advertise that when we are at a time when the Phillies are so bad! 👍

In regards to your question… There are many reasons: from the sanity of life, etc.

For me, one of the reasons redemptive suffering. While it’s hard to see the good in a suffering baby, suffering children can be an inspiration to the world.

For example: look at Alex’s Lemonade Stands. That child bravely faced cancer and tried to use the disease for good. Alex was a true inspiration and a courageous child.

When we see people suffer bravely with dignity or a baby live with suffering, it touches us. We want to do something about it and help. It calls us to help.

When we are formed within Christian morality, it calls us to moral actions. But when we are formed with or influenced by secular or pagan ideas, it can cause us to suggest immoral responses to that call.

The idea that abortion is merciful is based on our ‘call to action’ when we see suffering. However, the lack of proper formation and a warped sense of mercy and morality is what causes people to think abortion is a valid response to the suffering.

For example: if it’s OK to abort a baby who is ill, then why isn’t it ok to kill an old person who is ill (which is exactly where we are now). Then, if it is OK to kill a sick old person, then how about a sick teenager or sick 30 year old (happened on the west coast). If it’s ok to kill physically sick people, why not kill mentally sick people or people who are depressed? If mentally sick people can be killed, then why not kill all criminals? If you can kill all criminals, why not kill all poor people? If it’s ok to kill all of these people why not kill people who the government determines are jerks or lowlifes? If it’s OK to kill government labeled jerks & lowlifes, then why allow me to kill everything I think is a jerk or lowlife?

I know my example goes far down the rabbit hole, but that is what it was like in a pagan world.

Abortion is a throwback from a pagan world and allowing abortion for any reason is validating the pagan practices of pagan society.
 
PhilliesFan said:
Thank you so much to everyone who answered my question about Gianna Beretta Molla.

Great answers, but another question comes to mind about some of these hard cases.

How do you handle the question of a mother who is about to give birth to a child, who will live a life of pain.

I know of one such couple who had a child who had leukemia and spend days screaming in pain.

My question is how can you claim to be compassionate in the case of a mother who is carrying a child who will live a life of pain. Isn’t it more compassionate to have an abortion, or to give the child an overdoes of sedatives at birth to spare it that life of pain?

You have given me such excellent answers on the last question I would really appreciate your insights on this question. All I can think of is killing never justifies anything. But to me it is a weak answer.
Click to expand...
Here’s the thing about it. What I can pull anyway. The thing about killing is what it does to the one who decides to kill. And the one who has to go through with the killing. So yeah. It’s a bit of a push to say it’s the right thing to do. Because even if it might reduce pain. Even if it might take away from that trauma. There’s more to this. A lot more.

Because pain’s how we grow deep. It’s a way to link to true meaning. Life without pain’s a pointless maze. Pain digs us deep in. It makes the mountains seem tall. It makes the time without pain seem good for us. So killing because of pain’s the wrong way around. Killing people as they grow deeper’s not the plan. It’s the emptying of the plan.

Now. I’m not saying to look for pain. And I’m not saying to do nothing for the pain. Because obviously in the first case that’s a false forwards. And in the second too much pain will leave no room for applying it. For developing it. So no. It’s got to be in a balanced way this pain thing. Besides. Compassion’s not compassion if we can’t help someone else who’s in a bad way. That’s exercise for us. That’s how we use the pain we knew before. That pain we’ve had in the past. To understand how another feels. And to want to fix that. That’s the result of former pain in present action. It should not be stopped in its tracks. It needs to act.

So that’s why killing’s the backwards move here. It cements pain into the heart of the one trying to be compassionate. And it kills the chance for life’s lessons to get learned.

Peace.

-Trident
 
My friend Candi was in her fifth month when they discovered her baby had cyclopia. The babies’ head failed to develop so there was only one eye and the horn shaped nose did not connect to an airway. In fact, once the umbilical cord was cut, the baby would try to breath, but couldn’t and would die.

Candi refused to play God and gave birth, two months early, on April 28th, the feast of St. Gianna Molla. When the cord was cut I barely had time to baptize him before laying him on his mother’s chest where he made three attempts to breath, then died.

Months of doctors and social workers trying to convince her that it was more humane, more maternal that she spare the child an agonizing life by killing him, sometimes made Candi question herself. All doubts were erased in three futile breathes. This baby did not die alone in the womb being chopped up while he still felt pain. He died held by a mother who fought for every chance for him to live, surrounded by people whose lives he already touched and embraced by a Church that would take him home.
 
Antegin said:
My friend Candi was in her fifth month when they discovered her baby had cyclopia. The babies’ head failed to develop so there was only one eye and the horn shaped nose did not connect to an airway. In fact, once the umbilical cord was cut, the baby would try to breath, but couldn’t and would die.

Candi refused to play God and gave birth, two months early, on April 28th, the feast of St. Gianna Molla. When the cord was cut I barely had time to baptize him before laying him on his mother’s chest where he made three attempts to breath, then died.

Months of doctors and social workers trying to convince her that it was more humane, more maternal that she spare the child an agonizing life by killing him, sometimes made Candi question herself. All doubts were erased in three futile breathes. This baby did not die alone in the womb being chopped up while he still felt pain. He died held by a mother who fought for every chance for him to live, surrounded by people whose lives he already touched and embraced by a Church that would take him home.
Click to expand...
If I may, those three breaths were not futile. God sent her child to her to affirm her faith. Through his birth and 3 breaths, your friend Candi came as close to holding Christ in this life as she possibly could. And now her child is with Jesus and praying for her.🙂
 
Thanks so much for all of your answers. I truly appreciate your efforts to educate me. I am going to purchase and read Aborting Aristotle. Clearly I need a better grounding in these arguments.

Antegin that is such a beautiful story you give. Awesome!!!

phil19034 - thanks for your kind words. You made me laugh.
 
PhilliesFan said:
Thank you so much to everyone who answered my question about Gianna Beretta Molla.

Great answers, but another question comes to mind about some of these hard cases.

How do you handle the question of a mother who is about to give birth to a child, who will live a life of pain.

I know of one such couple who had a child who had leukemia and spend days screaming in pain.

My question is how can you claim to be compassionate in the case of a mother who is carrying a child who will live a life of pain. Isn’t it more compassionate to have an abortion, or to give the child an overdoes of sedatives at birth to spare it that life of pain?

You have given me such excellent answers on the last question I would really appreciate your insights on this question. All I can think of is killing never justifies anything. But to me it is a weak answer.
Click to expand...
It does not matter what the circumstances are it is NEVER permissible to have a direct abortion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top