Texas Filibuster on Anti Abortion

[Texas2014]

Good morning y’all!

I’m new to this forum so I wasn’t really sure where to post this so I thought abortion would fall under family life.

I’m a 21 year old University student and I was born and raised Catholic so I’m always pro life. However, I have been very confused and lost regarding abortion and where I should stand. I know that abortion is VERY wrong but what happens when the mother’s life is endangered?

I’m sure y’all have heard about the 13 hour filibuster in Texas regarding the anti abortion bill and I was wondering what y’all think about it? Also, how do you think the Church would feel about it and how would that impact us?

Thank you and God bless

 

[lexabagatnan]

Hello!

You’re right about standing on the pro-life side. As Catholics, that’s what we are called to do. I’ve seen this question pop up a lot, and out of my own curiosity, I’ve only been able to find a little bit to answer.

It depends on what sort of thing is really endangering the mother’s life. For example, and ectopic pregnancy is extremely dangerous and would cause the mother to die if she didn’t seek medical treatment. Here, the doctor would have to remove her uterus and do something to the fallopian tubes permanently. She would no longer be able to have children, and the small fetus that was beginning to grow would be killed. That would be considered an indirect abortion. The Humanae Vitae reads, “the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.”

In a nutshell? You never want to get an abortion, because you would be guilty of a mortal sin. But in some cases, it really depends. I hope I could at least answer your question somewhat.

Have a good day; God bless you!

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Hello!

You’re right about standing on the pro-life side. As Catholics, that’s what we are called to do. I’ve seen this question pop up a lot, and out of my own curiosity, I’ve only been able to find a little bit to answer.

It depends on what sort of thing is really endangering the mother’s life. For example, and ectopic pregnancy is extremely dangerous and would cause the mother to die if she didn’t seek medical treatment. Here, the doctor would have to remove her uterus and do something to the fallopian tubes permanently. She would no longer be able to have children, and the small fetus that was beginning to grow would be killed. That would be considered an indirect abortion. The Humanae Vitae reads, “the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.”

In a nutshell? You never want to get an abortion, because you would be guilty of a mortal sin. But in some cases, it really depends. I hope I could at least answer your question somewhat.

Have a good day; God bless you!

To clarify, direct abortion, which is what we always mean when we talk about abortion politically, is never justified under any circumstances. It is murder, an intrinsic evil that cannot be committed for any reason, even to save another person’s life. It’s not a matter of not wanting to do it but possibly getting into a morally ambiguous situation, but of complete moral unambiguity whenever it is a question of directly and intentionally taking an innocent human being’s life.

Technically you could call any medical action that ends a pregnancy an abortion, and so treating an ectopic pregnancy or uterine cancer during a pregnancy could be considered indirect abortion. But in these cases the death of the child is only an unintended consequence of the action, and so in grave enough circumstances they can be permissible. Since this is so widely agreed upon it is not a politically debated issue.

Regarding the filibuster, I’m glad it was defeated and that the pro-life bill looks likely to become law. It is unfortunate that its proponents have had to mask its true purpose for legal reasons, but I don’t think they fooled anyone on either side or really wanted to. I would not be surprised if the courts strike it down though.

 

[anp1215]

Hello!

You’re right about standing on the pro-life side. As Catholics, that’s what we are called to do. I’ve seen this question pop up a lot, and out of my own curiosity, I’ve only been able to find a little bit to answer.

It depends on what sort of thing is really endangering the mother’s life. For example, and ectopic pregnancy is extremely dangerous and would cause the mother to die if she didn’t seek medical treatment. Here, the doctor would have to remove her uterus and do something to the fallopian tubes permanently. She would no longer be able to have children, and the small fetus that was beginning to grow would be killed. That would be considered an indirect abortion. The Humanae Vitae reads, “the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.”

In a nutshell? You never want to get an abortion, because you would be guilty of a mortal sin. But in some cases, it really depends. I hope I could at least answer your question somewhat.

Have a good day; God bless you!

Whoa, clarification is needed. An ectopic pregnancy occurs when the embryo implants in the fallopian tube rather than the uterus. If the baby continues to grow while implanted in the tube, the tube ruptures and can cause the mother to die. To save the life of the mother, it is morally permissible to remove the fallopian tube in which the baby is growing. An indirect and tragic result is that the baby will die. The uterus is NOT removed, and the woman most certainly can have children in the future since she still has one healthy tube.

 

[lexabagatnan]

Hello!

You’re right about standing on the pro-life side. As Catholics, that’s what we are called to do. I’ve seen this question pop up a lot, and out of my own curiosity, I’ve only been able to find a little bit to answer.

It depends on what sort of thing is really endangering the mother’s life. For example, and ectopic pregnancy is extremely dangerous and would cause the mother to die if she didn’t seek medical treatment. Here, the doctor would have to remove her uterus and do something to the fallopian tubes permanently. She would no longer be able to have children, and the small fetus that was beginning to grow would be killed. That would be considered an indirect abortion. The Humanae Vitae reads, “the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.”

In a nutshell? You never want to get an abortion, because you would be guilty of a mortal sin. But in some cases, it really depends. I hope I could at least answer your question somewhat.

Have a good day; God bless you!

Yes, what the two people after me said is completely correct, and I’m sorry that this seems so unclear and needed some clarification.

God bless.

 

[Theresaj]

I was so sad this morning when I saw this. I also wondered if they had limited the bill to just banning abortion after 20 weeks and not had the clinic rules and regulations if the bill would have passed.

 

[brumano]

Whoa, clarification is needed. An ectopic pregnancy occurs when the embryo implants in the fallopian tube rather than the uterus. If the baby continues to grow while implanted in the tube, the tube ruptures and can cause the mother to die. To save the life of the mother, it is morally permissible to remove the fallopian tube in which the baby is growing. An indirect and tragic result is that the baby will die. The uterus is NOT removed, and the woman most certainly can have children in the future since she still has one healthy tube.

Ectopic means in a place other than the womb, usually that is a fallopian tube, the embryo once it implants in the fallopian tube will not develop and continue to live because there will be no growth of the placenta for the baby to be nourished from. The reason the embryo will enlarge and pose a threat to the mother is due to the influx of fluid and blood into the embryo which physically at that point is no longer living. This is not an abortion direct or indirect, there’s no question about whether it can be excised, this is not a living embryo or fetus. this does not even come into the abortion question. This is a fallacy used to sway the public to think this justifies elective abortions for the protection of the mother’s life.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I was so sad this morning when I saw this. I also wondered if they had limited the bill to just banning abortion after 20 weeks and not had the clinic rules and regulations if the bill would have passed.

Wait. I thought the bill did pass your state senate and was just waiting for the governor. I thought it was the filibuster of the bill that failed. Am I missing something?

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Wait. I thought the bill did pass your state senate and was just waiting for the governor. I thought it was the filibuster of the bill that failed. Am I missing something?

Yes, you are missing something. The bill did not pass. Well, it technically did, but because it passed just after midnight, the special session had technically ended. Now, if this had been any other bill, the other side would have agreed to go ahead and let the bill stand as passed, but they would not agree, which is why Gov. Perry has now called a 2nd special session. I hope the Senators will be prepared for more hijinks this time and will get the bill passed as they should have earlier in the special session - all reports are that this time, it WILL be passed.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Good morning y’all!

I’m new to this forum so I wasn’t really sure where to post this so I thought abortion would fall under family life.

I’m a 21 year old University student and I was born and raised Catholic so I’m always pro life. However, I have been very confused and lost regarding abortion and where I should stand. I know that abortion is VERY wrong but what happens when the mother’s life is endangered?

I’m sure y’all have heard about the 13 hour filibuster in Texas regarding the anti abortion bill and I was wondering what y’all think about it? Also, how do you think the Church would feel about it and how would that impact us?

Thank you and God bless

You do not really need to worry about that situation, because it is very rare, and it was used as one of the arguments to get the camel’s nose in the tent, so to speak, when it came to legalizing abortion. Read up on Doe v. Bolton and you will see the whole ugly process that has led to over 55 MILLION dead children since 1973. Abortion is a very grave mortal sin, because you are killing an innocent baby. You should not remain lost and confused - I suspect it is because you are being told that abortion is a woman’s choice and that women will be hurt if abortion is made illegal again.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Yes, you are missing something. The bill did not pass. Well, it technically did, but because it passed just after midnight, the special session had technically ended. Now, if this had been any other bill, the other side would have agreed to go ahead and let the bill stand as passed, but they would not agree, which is why Gov. Perry has now called a 2nd special session. I hope the Senators will be prepared for more hijinks this time and will get the bill passed as they should have earlier in the special session - all reports are that this time, it WILL be passed.

Ugh. I see that now. One would think if the filibuster failed the senate could have passed the bill on time. I hope you are right about its chances this time around.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Ugh. I see that now. One would think if the filibuster failed the senate could have passed the bill on time. I hope you are right about its chances this time around.

If that law had actually passed, the wailing and gnashing of teeth from liberals would have drowned out the celebrating of gays who wanted DOMA struck down. When it does pass, it will immediately be challenged, but it’s a huge body blow to the right to kill innocent babies in their mother’s wombs.

 

[Texas2014]

Hi everyone,

Thank you all for contributing to this discussion. I’ve learned a lot from it!

God Bless!

 

[1ke]

I have been very confused and lost regarding abortion and where I should stand.

Why?

What is confusing about the fact it is wrong to kill babies?

I know that abortion is VERY wrong

So, how is it that you are confused about something you know to be VERY wrong?

but what happens when the mother’s life is endangered?

Then the doctor has two patients in need of his assistance.

I’m sure y’all have heard about the 13 hour filibuster in Texas regarding the anti abortion bill and I was wondering what y’all think about it?

What is there to think about? Ignorant people abound.

Also, how do you think the Church would feel about it and how would that impact us?

How would the Church feel about what? I’m not following you.