The pro-life common sense clincher

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Little Soldier~

You were correct in explaining the Church’s position as best you could. 🙂

I would advise if anyone hasn’t, reading the story of St. Gianna Beretta Molla, a doctor who gave her life to save her unborn child’s.

ewtn.com/library/MARY/BERETTA.HTM
 
Doc_Keele said:
She’s dead now, but if she hadn’t have had me, she’d have had just two handicapped children and a chronically schizophrenic husband:( so at least I was there to help her
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, too. It sounds like you had a rough life growing up.

I lost my Mom a few years ago and it still hurts so much. Not too many years before she passed on, she told me about how her OB/GYN told her she should have me aborted. When she told me this, she started crying a little.

At the time I was embarrassed. 😦 What a horrible reaction. I didn’t want to think about her even being pregnant, especially with me. I didn’t know then that I would carry her words with me always. She loved me enough to allow me life. I was never in any danger and neither was she. It was her OB/GYN’s agenda to remove me and he offered to sell me when I was born (healthy, BTW).

I’m happy you helped your Mom. She obviously needed help. And I’m sorry she isn’t with you and my Mom isn’t with me.

I guess someday it will all be OK. I keep telling myself that.

Ave Maria, ora pro nobis.
 
Indeed, LS. 🙂

**I heard a voice from heaven say, "Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on." “Yes,” said the Spirit, “let them find rest from their labors, for their works accompany them.” ~Revelation 14:13

youtube.com/watch?v=g3k1rJOQPdY&feature=related :bighanky:
 
You see even in the posts above the contradictions are illustrated. I’ve had people on these fora argue fervently that there is a fundamental difference between salpingectomy and methotrexate for ectopic pregnancy, and you’re saying treatment should aim to save both mother and child and that nothing can justify “direct killing of the innocent”. In other words, the foetus’ rights do trump the mother’s.

It used to be that Catholic mothers with ectopic pregnancy could have no treatment at all according to the church.

So I can’t agree with the church position.
 
The abortion for an ectopic pregnancy is the rarest type of abortion. There have not been 50 million such abortions since Roe v Wade. But there have been well over 50 million of the other kind … the unnecessary kind, the kind that mark us as as a decadent culture too hedonistic and selfish to care about anybody’s life but our own.

The founders warned us about becoming such a culture.

“Yes, we did produce a near perfect Republic, but will they keep it, or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom. Material abundance without character is the surest way to destruction.” Thomas Jefferson

Killing one’s own children is the surest way to lose our character and the surest way to self destruction.
 
well Charlemagne, one of the reasons why more people don’t actively support the Pro-Life movement is because the attitudes of some people to treatments for ectopic pregnancy, which is not a rare condition I must add. I doubt treatments for ectopic pregnancy would be included in stats for abortion.
 
Doc Keele

*I doubt treatments for ectopic pregnancy would be included in stats for abortion. *

Do you have stats for ectopic pregnancy?

And why would that impact our discussion anyway, as has already been pointed dout to you by others here?
 
If it’s off-topic I’ll drop it. It was a natural extension of where the conversation was going, but whatever:shrug:
 
Re: Ectopic Pregnancy

There’s a moral difference between directly killing the embryo–not OK.
And removing the tube–OK.

That’s my understanding.

If all we had to worry about were ectopic pregnancy, there would not be a million abortions a year.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
The abortion for an ectopic pregnancy is the rarest type of abortion. There have not been 50 million such abortions since Roe v Wade. But there have been well over 50 million of the other kind … the unnecessary kind, the kind that mark us as as a decadent culture too hedonistic and selfish to care about anybody’s life but our own.

The founders warned us about becoming such a culture.

“Yes, we did produce a near perfect Republic, but will they keep it, or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom. Material abundance without character is the surest way to destruction.” Thomas Jefferson

Killing one’s own children is the surest way to lose our character and the surest way to self destruction.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Doc Keele

Why do you suppose in the original Hippocratic Oath the ancient Greek physicians were required not to conduct abortions, whereas now we are edging closer to the State requiring Catholic hospitals to conducting them or be denied federal funds?
 
There’s a lot of thing about the Hippocratic Oath that are particular to the times, and not relevant to today. It’s very unlikely a physician would be in the situation of taking advantage of household servants for example. I imagine if you look into the culture of the times you will find an explanation.
 
Worthy5 said:
Correct, the Court found that the unborn was not a person— but how. Well let us go back to Mr. Justice Blackmun:

Is discussing what " person" was in other areas of the Constitution— " nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally…"
Click to expand...
Sure. There are different uses of the word person in the Constitution. Qualifications for public office and the like clearly do not apply to pre-natal persons.
Worthy5 said:
(quoting Blackmun)"…None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application."
Click to expand...
The deprivation of a person of life (i.e., without due process) is unconstitutional. It’s clearly stated in Amendments 5 and 14. Blackmun just makes an assertion about the impossibility of any pre-natal application. It’s absurd. The ordinary use of the word person clearly does not exclude this.
Worthy5 said:
And further the Court went on " throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word “person,” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn."

And further, " It is thus apparent that at common law, at the time of the adoption of our Constitution, and throughout the major portion of the 19th century, abortion was viewed with less disfavor than under most American statutes currently in effect. Phrasing it another way, a woman enjoyed a substantially broader right to terminate a pregnancy …the opportunity to make this choice was present in this country well into the 19th century. "
Click to expand...
By similar reasoning, one could argue for a return to slavery, since the freedom to own slaves was much freer in the 19th century than it is today.
 
Doc Keele

*There’s a lot of thing about the Hippocratic Oath that are particular to the times, and not relevant to today. It’s very unlikely a physician would be in the situation of taking advantage of household servants for example. I imagine if you look into the culture of the times you will find an explanation. *

In other words, there are no timeless truths? By any chance are you majoring in sociology? 😉
 
Doc_Keele said:
Well there’s not really any moral difference, and precious little practical difference.
Click to expand...
There’s a moral difference between going into your home and killing you, and removing your home in its entirety.

Removing a fallopian tube is not a direct killing of the embryo. The embryo cannot survive whether the tube is removed, or if the tube ruptures through continuance of an ectopic pregnancy, but the death of the embryo is not the intention of the procedure.

In any case, suppose that state laws and the SCOTUS permitted abortion when needed to save the mother’s life. Such laws, even though not 100% in accord with Catholic teachiing, would still save about 980,000 unborn children per year.

So what’s the limit? Do we have to allow abortion all the way up until birth? Is there a cutoff point? Or an unacceptable reason?
 
JimG said:
There’s a moral difference between going into your home and killing you, and removing your home in its entirety.

Removing a fallopian tube is not a direct killing of the embryo. The embryo cannot survive whether the tube is removed, or if the tube ruptures through continuance of an ectopic pregnancy, but the death of the embryo is not the intention of the procedure.
Click to expand...
Jim G, the analysis of the issue is a lot more sophisticated than that, believe me - or if you don’t believe me read the papers in the philosophical journals by orthodox Catholic philosophers. Like I have.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Doc Keele

*There’s a lot of thing about the Hippocratic Oath that are particular to the times, and not relevant to today. It’s very unlikely a physician would be in the situation of taking advantage of household servants for example. I imagine if you look into the culture of the times you will find an explanation. *

In other words, there are no timeless truths? By any chance are you majoring in sociology? 😉
Click to expand...
Not what I said at all is it?

Is the Hippocratic Oath “truth” from a Christian perspective?
 
Common sense.

We were all once 11 weeks old in our mother’s womb. Did we lack humanity? Did we lack personhood? Did we lack our mother’s love? What kind of a mind denies such humanity?

I do not mean to cast aspersions on mathematicians, but it should come as no surprise to anyone that Blackmun’s early education centered on mathematics, which is abstract and does not concern itself with the passions. There is an intellectual cold-bloodedness about Blackmun’s view that the child in the womb is not entitled to be viewed as a full blooded person in the making.

If we often think of intellectuals as lacking in common sense, nowhere is that more evident than in Roe v Wade. The Court that produced this decision had 7 intellectuals that were lacking in common sense, and two that were fully human … White and Rhenquist.

Not only is it lacking in common sense, but it is deliberately Faustian to assert that a mother’s right to privacy includes the right to kill her own child.

The blood of 50 million babies is on the hands of seven men in the blackest of robes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top