The Immaculate Conception VS. abortion

[catharina]

Of late, a number of posters in various forums have claimed to be Catholic while, at the same time, stating that they find direct abortion to be ‘acceptable’ under some circumstances. I can’t begin to grasp such conflicted thinking.

As Catholics we can be grateful that we must accept the infallibly defined doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary - and in doing so, we can easily see and appreciate the absolute and eternal value of each and every life at the moment of its conception.

So I ask all CA posters: how can any Catholic pretend to be “faithful” while, at the same moment, insisting on the acceptance of abortion for any reason at all?

Can anyone understand such convoluted thinking?

 

[JohnDamian]

I don’t see how Mary being free from sin from the first moment of conception as in any way relevant to the discussion of Abortion.

Your conclusion about abortion is correct. No Catholic who is truly faithfull would ever support abortion in any form. Nonetheless, Mary’s freedom from Original Sin; outlined in Ineffabilis Deus is irrelevant to the argument of Abortion.

Unless you were contending that every person was preserved from original sin “in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ” as Mary was – which would not be in line with Catholic Teaching on the nessecity of Baptism.

 

[Canto]

I don’t see how Mary being free from sin from the first moment of conception as in any way relevant to the discussion of Abortion.

Your conclusion about abortion is correct. No Catholic who is truly faithfull would ever support abortion in any form. Nonetheless, Mary’s freedom from Original Sin; outlined in Ineffabilis Deus is irrelevant to the argument of Abortion.

Unless you were contending that every person was preserved from original sin “in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ” as Mary was – which would not be in line with Catholic Teaching on the nessecity of Baptism.

I guess the argument could be that Mary was conceived immaculately and that as such her life clearly began at conception. Thus all life should be protected from conception onwards. The wealth of science, medicine and molecular biology upholds the truth that life begins at conception.

 

[JohnDamian]

I guess the argument could be that Mary was conceived immaculately and that as such her life clearly began at conception. Thus all life should be protected from conception onwards. The wealth of science, medicine and molecular biology upholds the truth that life begins at conception.

I had considered that… However I don’t think that they would accept such a doctrine. For someone to accept an infallible doctrine (ex cathedera or otherwise) one would have to have a high regard for the Church.

Seeing as anyone procuring an Abortion, or assisting/advising such behaviour is excommunicated Latae sententiae (automatically); then a Faithful Catholic would not procure or advise an Abortion.

I don’t see how if people reject one teaching of the church, that they would accept another.

Nonetheless, it does give good grounds for confused or ignorant Catholics as proof that life starts at conception.

 

[JackVk]

You may or may not have heard this one before: “If Mary was pro-choice, there would be no Christmas.”

 

[catharina]

I guess the argument could be that Mary was conceived immaculately and that as such her life clearly began at conception. Thus all life should be protected from conception onwards. The wealth of science, medicine and molecular biology upholds the truth that life begins at conception.

Yes. That’s the point.
Life begins at conception.
We can see that fact from this doctrine.
Yes again, science supports this truth regarding the begining of each life.

Thanks for pointing it out to others.
I didn’t realize that I should have spelled it out.

**O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee! **

 

[catharina]

I don’t see how Mary being free from sin from the first moment of conception as in any way relevant to the discussion of Abortion.

Your conclusion about abortion is correct. No Catholic who is truly faithfull would ever support abortion in any form. Nonetheless, Mary’s freedom from Original Sin; outlined in Ineffabilis Deus is irrelevant to the argument of Abortion.

Unless you were contending that every person was preserved from original sin “in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ” as Mary was – which would not be in line with Catholic Teaching on the nessecity of Baptism.

My point is that Mary was alive and fully herself at the first moment of conception.

If Catholics accept the doctrine regarding Mary’s conception, how can ANY of
the Catholics (who post here) entertain the idea that SOME abortions are ‘not really bad?’
Yet some recent posts have presented that view - that pregnant women whose lives are at
“great risk” due to pregnancy - should be acceptable candidates for abortion.

Seeing such ideas promoted by “Catholics” on CA has staggered me
and deeply saddened me and truly angered me.

 

[vera_dicere]

The label of “cafeteria catholic” aside, I view this in the same way I view those who are non-Catholic Christians, a kind of ignorance, whether self-imposed, taught or just from circumstance exists upon those who are Christian yet not Catholic.

I view those “catholics” and I will only use a lower case “c” to denote them, as ignorant, both of Church teaching and of science. Of coruse, many of these catholics know what Church teaching is, but they just simply chose to ignore it, which is based on ignorance of social justice and ignorance of medical science, and sociology.

Of course, if they aren’t ignorant of the facts, then they are simply just prideful, wanting to live their own lives with little regard for the most vulnerable amongst us.

All we can do is pray for the scales to fall from their eyes, as the saying goes.

 

[Schrode]

Of late, a number of posters in various forums have claimed to be Catholic while, at the same time, stating that they find direct abortion to be ‘acceptable’ under some circumstances. I can’t begin to grasp such conflicted thinking.

As Catholics we can be grateful that we must accept the infallibly defined doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary - and in doing so, we can easily see and appreciate the absolute and eternal value of each and every life at the moment of its conception.

So I ask all CA posters: how can any Catholic pretend to be “faithful” while, at the same moment, insisting on the acceptance of abortion for any reason at all?

Can anyone understand such convoluted thinking?

Actually, I can kind of understand it. For instance I read a post that Fr. Serpa made some time back, saying that if a woman was using birth control for medical reasons, even if it happened that the pill worked as an “abortifacient”, the use of the pill was still acceptable.
I can probably find the quote if needed.

I also read a poster on here who had some serious medical problems and both she and the baby were going to die. In order to save the mother, they had to allow the pregnancy to terminate (apparently, the pregnancy was too young to save). So even though I am Catholic, I can understand why some might feel in those two situations that abotion as a last resort might be acceptable. I’m not trying to get anyone all angry or anything, I’m just trying to answer the question.

Schrode

My Lord and My God,
My Love and My Life,
Don’t leave me here all alone!
Cradel me in Your Arms,
Hold me in Your Heart,
Until You bring me Home!

 

[catharina]

Actually, I can kind of understand it. For instance I read a post that Fr. Serpa made some time back, saying that if a woman was using birth control for medical reasons, even if it happened that the pill worked as an “abortifacient”, the use of the pill was still acceptable.
I can probably find the quote if needed.

I also read a poster on here who had some serious medical problems and both she and the baby were going to die. In order to save the mother, they had to allow the pregnancy to terminate (apparently, the pregnancy was too young to save). So even though I am Catholic, I can understand why some might feel in those two situations that abotion as a last resort might be acceptable. I’m not trying to get anyone all angry or anything, I’m just trying to answer the question.

Schrode

My Lord and My God,
My Love and My Life,
Don’t leave me here all alone!
Cradel me in Your Arms,
Hold me in Your Heart,
Until You bring me Home!

Thank you for responding and I look forward to seeing the quote from Fr. Serpa.
However, that kind of response concerns a possible double-effect from a medicine.

What has become a point of grave contention here is your second scenario.

The second scenario speaks of a mother killing her baby in order to “save” her life.
This is indeed the argument that has been presented repeatedly on CA by some posters.
It’s the first time (in my memory) that I have heard Catholics speak FOR this action.
As Catholics, if faithful, this type of “exception” is unavailable to all of us.
There are no exceptions allowed if one accepts the sanctity of every life.
Encouraging any mother to allow direct abortion of her child is barbaric.
Abortion is certainly a crime against humanity at its most innocent stage, in utero.

For the duration of our lives, we are to be in the hands of God.
For all of our lives, we ask God to bless us with holy deaths.

To stand in place of God, to choose to kill one’s own child, is to accept barbarism.
As Catholics, as Christians, much more is expected of us.

All of us know of this saint of recent history who chose self-sacrifice rather than self-love.
I’ve chosen a quote from wikipedia indicating that even the secular world can see this fact.

"Gianna Beretta Molla
Saint Gianna Beretta Molla
Born October 4, 1922
Magenta, Italy
Died April 28, 1962
Monza, Italy
Venerated in Roman Catholic Church
Beatified April 24, 1994 by Pope John Paul II
Canonized May 16, 2004 by Pope John Paul II
Feast April 28
Patronage mothers, physicians, preborn children

Saint Gianna Beretta Molla (October 4, 1922 – April 28, 1962) was an Italian pediatrician, wife and mother who is best known for refusing both an abortion and a hysterectomy when she was pregnant with her fourth child, despite knowing that continuing with the pregnancy could result in her death. She was canonized as a saint of the Catholic Church in 2004."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianna_Beretta_Molla

So again, I wonder how any Catholic can see herself as an exception to the rule.
The “rule” bans any direct abortion. The Church has always taught this.

PS - “allowing a pregnancy to terminate” is a euphemism. Nature itself can allow
a pregnancy to terminate. Choosing to terminate a pregnancy is another matter.
Choosing to terminate a pregnancy is abortion and it’s not allowed to any of us.
In fact, the law of God Himself applies to all humanity, despite the secular applause for
such a solution to “save” a woman’s life.

O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee!

 

[elts1956]

I don’t see how Mary being free from sin from the first moment of conception as in any way relevant to the discussion of Abortion.

Your conclusion about abortion is correct. No Catholic who is truly faithfull would ever support abortion in any form. Nonetheless, Mary’s freedom from Original Sin; outlined in Ineffabilis Deus is irrelevant to the argument of Abortion.

Unless you were contending that every person was preserved from original sin “in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ” as Mary was – which would not be in line with Catholic Teaching on the nessecity of Baptism.

I think what Catherina was saying is Church dogma says we must believe in the Immaculate Conception. In other words, one must believe life begins at conception, all life, especially human life. If one is pro choice, or does not believe life begins at conception, then one is also denying the Immaculate Conception.

 

[elts1956]

I don’t see how Mary being free from sin from the first moment of conception as in any way relevant to the discussion of Abortion.

Your conclusion about abortion is correct. No Catholic who is truly faithfull would ever support abortion in any form. Nonetheless, Mary’s freedom from Original Sin; outlined in Ineffabilis Deus is irrelevant to the argument of Abortion.

Unless you were contending that every person was preserved from original sin “in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ” as Mary was – which would not be in line with Catholic Teaching on the nessecity of Baptism.

Actually, I can kind of understand it. For instance I read a post that Fr. Serpa made some time back, saying that if a woman was using birth control for medical reasons, even if it happened that the pill worked as an “abortifacient”, the use of the pill was still acceptable.
I can probably find the quote if needed.

I also read a poster on here who had some serious medical problems and both she and the baby were going to die. In order to save the mother, they had to allow the pregnancy to terminate (apparently, the pregnancy was too young to save). So even though I am Catholic, I can understand why some might feel in those two situations that abotion as a last resort might be acceptable. I’m not trying to get anyone all angry or anything, I’m just trying to answer the question.

Schrode

My Lord and My God,
My Love and My Life,
Don’t leave me here all alone!
Cradel me in Your Arms,
Hold me in Your Heart,
Until You bring me Home!

I think I have read the thread questioning whether one can abort to save the life of the mother. The answer was there could be no direct abortion. If, when the Drs. did all they could to save the life of the mother using methods other than abortion, but the baby was still lost, this was a circumstance that could not be avoided. Sticky, but true.

 

[JohnCS]

Actually, I can kind of understand it. For instance I read a post that Fr. Serpa made some time back, saying that if a woman was using birth control for medical reasons, even if it happened that the pill worked as an “abortifacient”, the use of the pill was still acceptable.
I can probably find the quote if needed.

I also read a poster on here who had some serious medical problems and both she and the baby were going to die. In order to save the mother, they had to allow the pregnancy to terminate (apparently, the pregnancy was too young to save). So even though I am Catholic, I can understand why some might feel in those two situations that abotion as a last resort might be acceptable. I’m not trying to get anyone all angry or anything, I’m just trying to answer the question.

Schrode

My Lord and My God,
My Love and My Life,
Don’t leave me here all alone!
Cradel me in Your Arms,
Hold me in Your Heart,
Until You bring me Home!

There is no greater love than to lay down ones life for a friend (or the chance that my unborn child will live) My wife told me this once… I was never quite so proud of her as I was then.

God bless.

 

[catharina]

I think what Catherina was saying is Church dogma says we must believe in the Immaculate Conception. In other words, one must believe life begins at conception, all life, especially human life. If one is pro choice, or does not believe life begins at conception, then one is also denying the Immaculate Conception.

That is exactly what I’m saying. Thank you.
I consider the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception to be a powerful sign for our times.
This belief clearly signals that all life begins at conception.
Therefore, how dare any Catholic remain ‘uncertain’ regarding the actual evil of abortion.

 

[Rence]

Actually, I can kind of understand it. For instance I read a post that Fr. Serpa made some time back, saying that if a woman was using birth control for medical reasons, even if it happened that the pill worked as an “abortifacient”, the use of the pill was still acceptable.
I can probably find the quote if needed.

I also read a poster on here who had some serious medical problems and both she and the baby were going to die. In order to save the mother, they had to allow the pregnancy to terminate (apparently, the pregnancy was too young to save). So even though I am Catholic, I can understand why some might feel in those two situations that abotion as a last resort might be acceptable. I’m not trying to get anyone all angry or anything, I’m just trying to answer the question.

Those are good examples Schrode, I can understand that too. I would be lying if I didn’t say that I certainly would not want my mother, sister, aunt, best friend, etc. do die in a lose-lose situation. So I can understand why people choose abortion when the life of the woman is in danger.

I’d like to add one. The use of emergency birth control as part of a woman’s emergency rooom treatment after a rape is discouraged by some (and given equal status to an abortion) but is being allowed by the US Bishops. They require a negative pregnancy test first, which is beyond reasonable because, of course, you don’t want to terminate a pregnancy that has nothing to do with the current rape. The other requirement is that the woman tests negative for ovulation, which I don’t agree with, but that’s the US Bishops recommendation. And I’m glad that they acknowledge what a horrible violation rape is, and that women have the right to attempt to protect themselves from further harm in a rape situation, by taking action to prevent conception from taking place. On the other hand, I understand why a woman would forgo the plan b in the case of rape. But it’s about time they were given the choice.

 

[philochsfan]

Thank you for responding and I look forward to seeing the quote from Fr. Serpa.
However, that kind of response concerns a possible double-effect from a medicine.

What has become a point of grave contention here is your second scenario.

The second scenario speaks of a mother killing her baby in order to “save” her life.
This is indeed the argument that has been presented repeatedly on CA by some posters.
It’s the first time (in my memory) that I have heard Catholics speak FOR this action.
As Catholics, if faithful, this type of “exception” is unavailable to all of us.
There are no exceptions allowed if one accepts the sanctity of every life.
Encouraging any mother to allow direct abortion of her child is barbaric.
Abortion is certainly a crime against humanity at its most innocent stage, in utero.

For the duration of our lives, we are to be in the hands of God.
For all of our lives, we ask God to bless us with holy deaths.

To stand in place of God, to choose to kill one’s own child, is to accept barbarism.
As Catholics, as Christians, much more is expected of us.

All of us know of this saint of recent history who chose self-sacrifice rather than self-love.
I’ve chosen a quote from wikipedia indicating that even the secular world can see this fact.

"Gianna Beretta Molla
Saint Gianna Beretta Molla
Born October 4, 1922
Magenta, Italy
Died April 28, 1962
Monza, Italy
Venerated in Roman Catholic Church
Beatified April 24, 1994 by Pope John Paul II
Canonized May 16, 2004 by Pope John Paul II
Feast April 28
Patronage mothers, physicians, preborn children

Saint Gianna Beretta Molla (October 4, 1922 – April 28, 1962) was an Italian pediatrician, wife and mother who is best known for refusing both an abortion and a hysterectomy when she was pregnant with her fourth child, despite knowing that continuing with the pregnancy could result in her death. She was canonized as a saint of the Catholic Church in 2004."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianna_Beretta_Molla

So again, I wonder how any Catholic can see herself as an exception to the rule.
The “rule” bans any direct abortion. The Church has always taught this.

PS - “allowing a pregnancy to terminate” is a euphemism. Nature itself can allow
a pregnancy to terminate. Choosing to terminate a pregnancy isff another matter.
Choosing to terminate a pregnancy is abortion and it’s not allowed to any of us.
In fact, the law of God Himself applies to all humanity, despite the secular applause for
such a solution to “save” a life.

O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee!

Catharina, I agree with you, up to a point. That point, ectopic pregnancy. The baby is doomed, the mother is not unless the pregnancy continues. Is there a way to detach a baby from the fallopian tube, once it has become attached, and reattach it in the uterus? I’ve not heard of this happening. If the baby continues to grow, the tube will burst and the baby will die, even the mother will be very ill, perhaps even fatally so, due to the extreme loos of blood.

The baby is going to die anyway. Does the mother have to do so, too, just to prove a point?

Catholics can not be pro-choice. However, when one experiences an ectopic pregnancy, there really is no choice.

The abortion, in the case of the ectopic pregnancy, would not be done to terminate the pregnancy, that would already be the outcome. The abortion would ONLY be done to save the life of the mother.

Janice

 

[portarica]

Catharina, I agree with you, up to a point. That point, ectopic pregnancy. The baby is doomed, the mother is not unless the pregnancy continues. Is there a way to detach a baby from the fallopian tube, once it has become attached, and reattach it in the uterus? I’ve not heard of this happening. If the baby continues to grow, the tube will burst and the baby will die, even the mother will be very ill, perhaps even fatally so, due to the extreme loos of blood.

The baby is going to die anyway. Does the mother have to do so, too, just to prove a point?

Catholics can not be pro-choice. However, when one experiences an ectopic pregnancy, there really is no choice.

The abortion, in the case of the ectopic pregnancy, would not be done to terminate the pregnancy, that would already be the outcome. The abortion would ONLY be done to save the life of the mother.

Janice

If what you say is true, it is the intent that determines whether it is an abortion or a life saving measure for the mother.

But the church doesn’t always allow the intent to determine the nature of an act. For example with NFP , just by the fact it is used, the intent is not to improve or accelerate in time the chances of a pregnancy. Yet it is still not considered birth control.

Peace

 

[catharina]

Catharina, I agree with you, up to a point. That point, ectopic pregnancy. The baby is doomed, the mother is not unless the pregnancy continues. Is there a way to detach a baby from the fallopian tube, once it has become attached, and reattach it in the uterus? I’ve not heard of this happening. If the baby continues to grow, the tube will burst and the baby will die, even the mother will be very ill, perhaps even fatally so, due to the extreme loos of blood.

The baby is going to die anyway. Does the mother have to do so, too, just to prove a point?

Catholics can not be pro-choice. However, when one experiences an ectopic pregnancy, there really is no choice.

The abortion, in the case of the ectopic pregnancy, would not be done to terminate the pregnancy, that would already be the outcome. The abortion would ONLY be done to save the life of the mother.

Janice

If what you say is true, it is the intent that determines whether it is an abortion or a life saving measure for the mother.

But the church doesn’t always allow the intent to determine the nature of an act. For example with NFP , just by the fact it is used, the intent is not to improve or accelerate in time the chances of a pregnancy. Yet it is still not considered birth control.

Peace

It seems the two of you share the same confusion.

In allowing the removal of a rutured and/or rupturing fallopian tube, the Church is
allowing a medical intervention that, in a SECONDARY way, will end a pregnancy.

In no way is an operation that results in a INDIRECT abortion
the same as the actual procedure of DIRECT abortion.

If this makes no sense to you, please look it up.
You are lacking in very common knowledge.
A planned and procurred direct abortion is worlds removed from an indirect abortion.

An INDIRECT abortion is an outcome of the treatment of an ectopic pregnancy.

 

[elts1956]

Those are good examples Schrode, I can understand that too. I would be lying if I didn’t say that I certainly would not want my mother, sister, aunt, best friend, etc. do die in a lose-lose situation. So I can understand why people choose abortion when the life of the woman is in danger.

I’d like to add one. The use of emergency birth control as part of a woman’s emergency rooom treatment after a rape is discouraged by some (and given equal status to an abortion) but is being allowed by the US Bishops. :tsktsk::bigyikes:They require a negative pregnancy test first, which is beyond reasonable because, of course, you don’t want to terminate a pregnancy that has nothing to do with the current rape. The other requirement is that the woman tests negative for ovulation, which I don’t agree with, but that’s the US Bishops recommendation. And I’m glad that they acknowledge what a horrible violation rape is, and that women have the right to attempt to protect themselves from further harm in a rape situation, by taking action to prevent conception from taking place. On the other hand, I understand why a woman would forgo the plan b in the case of rape.:bigyikes: But it’s about time they were given the choice.

Please provide a source for this statement. I think you are confused about the Bishop’s statement. In no way would they allow a D and C or plan B pill to be used. The dead person in a rape case if the woman conceives is the child. Yes, rape is a terrible thing, but killing your own child is worse.
Another question, if the woman is tested for ovulation or negative pregnancy case, why is any further action necessary? Explain please. Also, unfortunaely, I don’t think the Bishop’s can control the emergency rooms in hospitals. Totally facetious until you can give a legitimate source.

 

[Rence]

Please provide a source for this statement. I think you are confused about the Bishop’s statement. In no way would they allow a D and C or plan B pill to be used. The dead person in a rape case if the woman conceives is the child. Yes, rape is a terrible thing, but killing your own child is worse.
Another question, if the woman is tested for ovulation or negative pregnancy case, why is any further action necessary? Explain please. Also, unfortunaely, I don’t think the Bishop’s can control the emergency rooms in hospitals. Totally facetious until you can give a legitimate source.

No, I am most definitely not confused It’s right here:
nccbuscc.org/bishops/directives.shtml

A woman who has been raped may defend herself against a conception resulting from sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medication that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.

If a woman has tested negative for ovulation (which means she has not ovulated yet, or is not ovulating) or negative pregnancy, plan b’s job is to prevent ovulation from occuring. This is to prevent a forced conception from happening in the first place.

And thankfully the Bishops can’t control emergency rooms. All the ones surrounding my area give Plan B to rape victims with only a negative pregnancy test. No ovulation test is required.