The Killer Law!

[zerinus]

No, Mormonism allows direct abortion of some pregnancies, where killing the baby is the intended goal of the procedure and as a result, the mother’s life/health/sanity may be saved.

Catholicism allows for treatment of life-threatening conditions even when such treatment may cause the death of an unborn baby.

Thanks for giving me a good laugh. I think that should go into the dictionary—direct abortion and indirect abortion—a la Good-Daughter!

One example of this is ectopic pregnancy where, according to Catholic teaching, an unhealthy fallopian tube (containing an implanted baby) may be removed to save a mother’s life, although it will result in the death of the baby. This is indirect abortion.

Let me get this straight. If an ectopic pregnancy could be cured without removing the fallopian tube, but by just surgically removing the foetus, and keeping the tube intact, would that go against Catholic doctrine? Does the mother have to be permanently mutilated for your definition of “indirect abortion” to work?

If these babies could be saved, Catholics would probably be morally obliged to do so.

So would Mormons. But saved how? At the expense of the mother’s life? I should hope not.

It’s true, in the case of ectopic pregnancy, following either Mormon or Catholic teaching leads to the same end result, a dead baby and living mother. The means to reach that end in Mormonism are different from Catholicism, though I doubt I could ever convince you of that, zerinus.

You are right about that one—still laughing.

Suffice to say, Catholics have no interest in sacrificing pregnant mothers.

They sure sound like it, at least on this board. It is like the Indian Sati I told you about; except that Sati is supposed to be voluntary, but the Catholic one is obligatory! A Catholic mother has an obligation to burn herself to death on the funeral pier of her dead fetus, or burn forever in hell!

Catholicism makes no allowance for abortion in cases of rape, incest or fetal deformity . . .

Perhaps they should. People ought to do what is right, not what is customary or traditional.

. . . as we believe human life begins at conception. (Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers…).

Nobody knows when life begins. We don’t claim to know. The Catholics know neither. The decision is not based on when life begins and when it doesn’t.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

NO, this is not Catholicism.

Nicaraguan law is not in line with Catholic Church teaching.

If that is the case, why does the Catholic Church do nothing to stop it? Nicaragua is a Catholic country. This law was probably made in order to conform with Catholic teaching. If that is what the Catholic truly believes, they could exercise their influence with the government to do something about it. But evidently they don’t. So we must conclude that the Catholic position must be to burn the mother no matter what!

zerinus

 

[kellie]

You are not even putting the life of the mother ahead of the child. You are making the life of the mother absolutely worthless. You are saying that if the baby is going to die, then what use is the life of the Mother? Let the mother die too. Is that what Jesus taught you to do?

zerinus

If there is a complication in the pregnancy, threatening either or both lives, then surgery is carried out, to try and save both, and as we all know, surgeons aren’t God, and surgery is always risky, and one or both may die.

This is different to saying if their is a complication in the pregnancy, abort the baby, and let the mother get pregnant again later.

Catholics do not believe in letting the mother die along with the baby due to complications. We believe in trying to save both lives, even though it may mean one dies.

Z, you make it sound like we just shrug our shoulders when we see a complication and say “oh well mum ur doomed to die,farewell”, or “oh well baby, we need to save your mum, farewell”

It isnt like that at all. We dont believe in deliberately, as in intentionally, killing either mum or baby

 

[AgnosTheist]

With the exception of an ectopic pregnancy, (the Church’s position on this has already been explained here) can you give me an example of a situation where the child MUST die to say the mother?

no need to waste my time looking for an actual incident. its enough to know these facts:

in some other countries, two doctors must first certify that an abortion is medically or socially necessary before it can be performed.

and

Other countries, in which abortion is normally illegal, will allow one to be performed in the case of rape, incest, or danger to the pregnant woman’s life or health

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#Abortion_law

 

[AgnosTheist]

It is probable in such a scenario that a female child would survive to grow and mature and have more children than the mother ever would.

obviously the scenario assumes a male child.

but hey lets just settle with ‘extreme cases = extreme solutions’.

 

[MHalsey]

no need to waste my time looking for an actual incident. its enough to know these facts:

in some other countries, two doctors must first certify that an abortion is medically or socially necessary before it can be performed.

and

Other countries, in which abortion is normally illegal, will allow one to be performed in the case of rape, incest, or danger to the pregnant woman’s life or health

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#Abortion_law

You cannot answer the challenge either, so instead you post actual laws which we are not discussing here. We are discussing the morality of such laws and the Catholic Church’s stance in regard to them. And I guarantee the Church opposes both laws you gave.

 

[Good_Daughter]

Thanks for giving me a good laugh. I think that should go into the dictionary—direct abortion and indirect abortion—a la Good-Daughter!

Those are just super simple terms I use to highlight the difference between Catholic and Mormon moral thought. I only wish to explain the concept, not convince you of its validity.

Let me get this straight. If an ectopic pregnancy could be cured without removing the fallopian tube, but by just surgically removing the foetus, and keeping the tube intact, would that go against Catholic doctrine? Does the mother have to be permanently mutilated for your definition of “indirect abortion” to work?

I believe the alternative to tube removal is an injection that directly kills the baby, hence it goes against Catholic doctrine. No one is mutilated with one fallopian tube removed. (My aunt had cancer in her left breast and had it removed. She’s not mutilated, she’s beautiful and ALIVE.) It’s also my understanding that a fallopian tube, left intact after an ectopic pregnancy, is more prone to future ectopics. I’m open to correction on this.

So would Mormons. But saved how? At the expense of the mother’s life? I should hope not.

If a baby could be removed from a fallopian tube and reimplanted in the uterus, everyone would be fine. Should that become possible, I assume it would become the “Catholic” choice.

They sure sound like it, at least on this board. It is like the Indian Sati I told you about; except that Sati is supposed to be voluntary, but the Catholic one is obligatory! A Catholic mother has an obligation to burn herself to death on the funeral pier of her dead fetus, or burn forever in hell!

I don’t know if anyone on this board has misrepresented Catholic teaching on mothers with life-threatening pregnancies. (I do know any lack of charity by Catholic posters on this board misrepresents Catholic teaching.) Indian Sati is not comparable to Catholic teaching on abortion. A Catholic mother has no such obligation, I thought that had been adequately explained.

Perhaps they should. People ought to do what is right, not what is customary or traditional.

The Catholic Church teaches it is right, not customary or traditional to NOT kill innocent humans.

Nobody knows when life begins. We don’t claim to know. The Catholics know neither. The decision is not based on when life begins and when it doesn’t.

zerinus

Medical science knows. The Catholic Church holds a belief. There is no conflict between these two. If you’re not sure when life begins, wouldn’t it be safer to err on the side of caution?

 

[AgnosTheist]

You cannot answer the challenge either, so instead you post actual laws which we are not discussing here. We are discussing the morality of such laws and the Catholic Church’s stance in regard to them. And I guarantee the Church opposes both laws you gave.

everyone seems to agree with those laws except the most extreme among catholics & protestants.

majority rules… its moral.

 

[MHalsey]

everyone seems to agree with those laws except the most extreme among catholics & protestants.

majority rules… its moral.

Can’t answer, change the argument. If you want to discuss whether people see abortion as “subjectively” moral, start a new thread.

 

[Good_Daughter]

If that is the case, why does the Catholic Church do nothing to stop it? Nicaragua is a Catholic country. This law was probably made in order to conform with Catholic teaching. If that is what the Catholic truly believes, **they could exercise their influence with the ****government to do something about it. But evidently they don’t. **So we must conclude that the Catholic position must be to burn the mother no matter what!

zerinus

First, do abortion laws in Nicaragua truly conform to Catholic teaching or are they merely similar? If Nicaragua allows women with ectopic pregnancies to die, they are far removed from Catholic teaching. If we assume this is the case (I don’t actually know, do you?) of course the Catholic Church would wish things changed. Only apostate Catholics and anti-Catholics would not want such policies changed.

Utah is a Mormon state. Do people there drink coffee, gamble or disregard the Book of Mormon? Even in “Catholic” countries, secular influence is extremely powerful. Sometimes this influence even corrupts the true message of the Church, giving people the wrong impression of Her teachings.

Do you really know anything about the Catholic Church in Nicaragua, what is being promoted, what is being opposed?

I hope you can answer the first question in my post, then back up the assertion that I bolded in your post with some facts, if they exist. Thanks.

 

[PaulDupre]

If that is the case, why does the Catholic Church do nothing to stop it? Nicaragua is a Catholic country. This law was probably made in order to conform with Catholic teaching. If that is what the Catholic truly believes, they could exercise their influence with the government to do something about it. But evidently they don’t. So we must conclude that the Catholic position must be to burn the mother no matter what!

zerinus

Zerinus,
Even a child should know that when they say “a catholic country” they mean a country whose poulation is predominantly Catholic, not a country ruled by the Catholic Church. Nicaragua is not a theocracy. The Church is unable to dictate law in Nicaragua or anywhere else except the Vatican.

Please grow up.

 

[RebeccaJ]

obviously the scenario assumes a male child.

but hey lets just settle with ‘extreme cases = extreme solutions’.

Obviously your argument is based the outcome that you want. Nature does not give us what we want.

And your argument has now turned to abortion determined by sex. Read up on how that is going in China.

I have no idea what you mean by extreme cases=extreme solutions.

 

[AgnosTheist]

And your argument has now turned to abortion determined by sex. Read up on how that is going in China.

thats the reality of it. the world is becoming too crowded. with too much mouths to feed and a very limited resources, even catholics would be forced to abort pregnancies. when that happens, you would wish you have used condoms instead.

I have no idea what you mean by extreme cases=extreme solutions.

just saying that extraordinary problems often require extrordinary solutions.

 

[MHalsey]

thats the reality of it. the world is becoming too crowded. with too much mouths to feed and a very limited resources, even catholics would be forced to abort pregnancies. when that happens, you would wish you have used condoms instead.

Hmm. I don’t think I EVER heard this argument before!! The problem with starvation has little to do with overcrowding, but a whole lot to do with distribution.

But since we’re throwing out options for reducing world population, I suggest we start with the Agnostics followed by those who don’t believe in religion. Their lives are to me as valuable as the unborn.

Wow, it’s amazing how a civilized society can devolve so quickly into something resembling Germany in the 30’s and 40’s.

---

Why is it so difficult to understand where the Church stands on abortion.

The Church teaches that a new soul is created by God at the moment of conception.
The Church also teaches that life is sacred, and no one has the right to take the life of another no matter how small.
The catholic Church further teaches that a doctor dealing with a pregnant woman with complications has a responsibility to save the life of both the mother AND child. Not just let them both die.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Hmm. I don’t think I EVER heard this argument before!! The problem with starvation has little to do with overcrowding, but a whole lot to do with distribution.

easier said than resolved. face it pal, no matter how efficient your method of distribution is, the fact is the earth is limited in size and can only support a limited number of people. its not that bad right now, but its only a matter of time. and its gonna happen a lot sooner when catholics prohibit contraception and muslims try to out-birth christians.

But since we’re throwing out options for reducing world population, I suggest we start with the Agnostics followed by those who don’t believe in religion. Their lives are to me as valuable as the unborn.

finally your true colors! that pretty much throws your entire ‘holier-than-thou’ pretense out the window. talk about 40’s germany, ehehehe.

 

[RebeccaJ]

thats the reality of it. the world is becoming too crowded. with too much mouths to feed and a very limited resources, even catholics would be forced to abort pregnancies. when that happens, you would wish you have used condoms instead.

just saying that extraordinary problems often require extrordinary solutions.

POVERTY is the issue, not population.

A problem that could be solved if people/governments cared if enough to do so.

Abortion is not a solution, let alone an extraordinary one.

 

[RebeccaJ]

easier said than resolved. face it pal, no matter how efficient your method of distribution is, the fact is the earth is limited in size and can only support a limited number of people. its not that bad right now, but its only a matter of time. and its gonna happen a lot sooner when catholics prohibit contraception and muslims try to out-birth christians.

PROVE any of this.

 

[MHalsey]

easier said than resolved. face it pal, no matter how efficient your method of distribution is, the fact is the earth is limited in size and can only support a limited number of people. its not that bad right now, but its only a matter of time. and its gonna happen a lot sooner when catholics prohibit contraception and muslims try to out-birth christians.

finally your true colors! that pretty much throws your entire ‘holier-than-thou’ pretense out the window.

Lighten up, Francis. I’m just trying to prove a point. If a society starts requiring abortions to control population growth, it’s only a matter of time before that same society decides some groups are more valuable than others and decides to exterminate them. If a society can’t or won’t protect the most innocent, how can we expect it to protect anyone?

 

[dranzal]

But since we’re throwing out options for reducing world population, I suggest we start with the Agnostics followed by those who don’t believe in religion. Their lives are to me as valuable as the unborn.

AgnosTheist, please reread this quote. I think you’ll find that MHalsey is restating (albeit in a dramatic way) the Catholic position.

The lives of Agnostics and those who don’t believe in religion are as valuable as the unborn!!! We Catholics choose LIFE for them.

He’s saying (I think) that he’s about as willing to “abort” agnostics and atheists and he is willing to abort the unborn.

 

[dranzal]

easier said than resolved. face it pal, no matter how efficient your method of distribution is, the fact is the earth is limited in size and can only support a limited number of people. its not that bad right now, but its only a matter of time. and its gonna happen a lot sooner when catholics prohibit contraception and muslims try to out-birth christians.

I think you might be on to something there…