The Right to Choose

[fix]

I’m really having a hard time with this abortion thing - I have read so many things regarding it on here, with the bioethics link - and gone back and seen where a fetus was not ensouled untile 40th day or 80th day and where there begins to be variations on Catholic belief. God gave each of us the right TO CHOOSE: Why is it that Catholics (and yes I am one - even though I’m pro-choice in most circumstances) - want to take the ability to choose freely away from someone. And please don’t give the argument that “the fetus doesn’t get to choose…” because we all know the fetus or baby has no ability to choose - that requires cognitive thinking - of which they are not capable. I am not trying to cause a storm of responses with this - I really just want to know, with most other things - we seem happy to let people choose -

Because there is no right to choose evil. It is like asking why can’t we choose arson?

I used to think, (when I was much younger) it would be neat if we were all Catholic, but now I’m glad we’re not because I could see our lives and sex lives becoming something that was studied to see if we were living according to a book of rules - and taking away even more choice. I hope it never becomes that way because it sounds much like China just to the other extreme.

I think the problem is seeing truth and love as simply a book of rules. Catholics understand we follow the moral law because we love God. It is not about “rules” simply for the sake of rules. God desires what is best for us. We have the power to abuse freedom and choose evil, but that misuse of freedom needs to be limited when other innocent life is at stake.

 

[fix]

When it comes to medicine, a moral theology which is so absolute that it never allows for that 1-2% of highly compromised pregnancies where two lives are in the balance, is a theology which is at odds with physical reality.

Truth is absolute. Moral theology does not ask the impossible or ask us to commit suicide.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Obviously Elizabeth you dont believe the teachings of the Church are infallible or you would not have posted this

Obviously st.thomas you didn’t read my post with critical understanding. I said no such thing. I said that the Church doesn’t acknowledge its own fallible understanding of science, but believes you can just ‘wish away’ moral equivalencies (lives of two human beings --one born, one still in utero). Your post also indicates you don’t believe such ambiguities ever exist, but that if I shut my eyes real tight and just hope for the best and ignore the medical indicators, God will save my life.

You say that “God doesn’t value one life over another,” yet the RCC demands that a pregnant woman with a highly endangered pregnancy in the ER in fact value the unborn life over her own life. That is exactly what it demands.

 

[fix]

The Church asks us not to intentionally kill an innocent person.

 

[maryjk]

After having read through the thread, I think it comes down to this:

The Church has stated that abortion is wrong in EVERY case. There is no good reason to have an abortion.

BUT, if as you state, that being pregnant is killing you, you can deliver the baby early. This delivery can be by C-section or vaginally. Now at 4 months, the baby will most likely not make it. The purpose of this procedure would be to save the mother and possibly save the baby.

But what is not okay is having an abortion at 4 months because being pregnant is killing you. The purpose of an abortion is to kill the baby.

An abortion is the taking of a human life, premature birth on the other hand is not.

 

[stthomas]

Obviously st.thomas you didn’t read my post with critical understanding. I said no such thing. I said that the Church doesn’t acknowledge its own fallible understanding of science, but believes you can just ‘wish away’ moral equivalencies (lives of two human beings --one born, one still in utero). Your post also indicates you don’t believe such ambiguities ever exist, but that if I shut my eyes real tight and just hope for the best and ignore the medical indicators, God will save my life.

You say that “God doesn’t value one life over another,” yet the RCC demands that a pregnant woman with a highly endangered pregnancy in the ER in fact value the unborn life over her own life. That is exactly what it demands.

This has nothing to do with Science, is is about the love and ways of God…Understand why the Church proclaims such truths. Get over the fact that you are not God… When you stand before the Lord what will you say when he asks,why did you kill my child?

 

[Elizabeth502]

BUT, if as you state, that being pregnant is killing you, you can deliver the baby early. This delivery can be by C-section or vaginally. Now at 4 months, the baby will most likely not make it. The purpose of this procedure would be to save the mother and possibly save the baby.

I can respect this reply more than some others. I think the problem arises, Mary, when such a prediction cannot be made (always) at 4 months, AND when NFP fails. The problem is that the church puts some mothers, actually, in impossible no-win situations. Compared to ABC, NFP has a high failure rate. For most Catholic married couples, this should not be an issue – at least not where maternal health is concerned. But in a small minority of cases, this will be a problem, and again, a problem that the RCC refuses to acknowledge ever exists.

A relative in my family consistently developed high-risk pregnancies because of her high blood pressure which ramped up to a fatal degree in pregnancy. She has tried to carry several to term, two without huge risk to her life, but the others brought her near death, and I hate to say that there were apparently decisions made for late-term abortions because of it. But the RCC forbids ABC or sterilization, yet in doing so it creates situations where such extreme decisions even come into play. She had two healthy children, several aborted pregnancies. Eventually she apparently decided to get her tubes tied.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Hi Ryecroft,

I will try to be short, since there are so many posts.

1. I am not a doctor, but I have run the gamut on finding one that respected my beliefs.
2. I can totally sympathize with your dilemma, last year I faced the prospect of being told that I needed to abort or I would die. I ended up miscarrying naturally. The baby didn’t have any chance of survival at all, and he ended up dieing. Now different than you, I had 2 small children at the time, so my dieing would have left them without a mother. To emphasize how members of the church are confused, a Catholic Deacon, at the hospital told my husband we could abort in my scenario, because “it isn’t that you don’t want the baby.” BUT I COULD NOT. I COULD NOT DIRECTLY ABORT MY CHILD.

Now, perhaps if I hadn’t miscarried, I could have had surgery to save my life. The surgery, a complete hysterectomy, would have been much more complicated than taking the medication to end my child’s life. BUT, I wouldn’t have done anything to directly cause my child to die.

Again, I am not a doctor, but the church does not require the mother to die to save the fetus. The church requires that BOTH needed to be saved. Or at least try to be saved. Obviously, a baby cannot live if the mother dies. (except in cases where the mother can be kept in life support until the baby can be born)

If in trying to stabilize your condition, through various means including surgery, transfusions, medications, chemotherapy etc, and the baby died, then it wouldn’t have been a direct abortion.

THE CHURCH DOES NOT REQUIRE YOU TO DIE.

You didn’t know that then. But wouldn’t it be a relief for you to not have to relive that scenario by finding a doctor who knows how to handle the situation in accordance with our faith?

 

[Elizabeth502]

This has nothing to do with Science, is is about the love and ways of God…Understand why the Church proclaims such truths. Get over the fact that you are not God… When you stand before the Lord what will you say when he asks,why did you kill my child?

Get over the fact that you are not God – not over my soul or anyone else’s soul. I won’t be standing before the Lord and having him ask “why I killed a child” because I never did any such thing. Apparently you didn’t read the part about “There but for the grace of God…”

Worry about your own soul, as Fr. John Corapi tells us to do, as all the saints tell us to do, as Jesus tells us to do. I won’t be explaining any “murders” because there are none to explain. Will you be explaining to God how you condemned others when you had no clue as to the state of their souls or the morality & intentionality of their actions?

 

[mapleoak]

I don’t think she’s “struggling with her decision.” I think she’s struggling with the desire to believe in the humanity and compassion of the Church she loves and the faith she identifies with – and the unfortunate refusal of that same Church to acknowledge medical realities.

The Church does not have a failure to acknowledge medical realities. The Church says it is wrong to directly kill an innocent human being, period. Whether it is possible to kill a child with a surgical tool or with a shotgun is irrelevant. It is not morally permissible.

Unless you have a medical degree and have examined her chart in this particular case, no one here is in a position to determine that ryecroft would have lived given some other different medical decision at that time.

It makes absolutely no difference whether a medical degree is involved. No one has the authority to authorize the direct killing an innocent human being. That is the teaching of the Church. Medical science does not cancel out the Church.

Every day, in this country alone, dozens of life-and-death ‘best guesses’ are made in emergency rooms and operating rooms of hospitals by the attending surgeons. Many of those decisions were never predicted or predictable. Others are decisions based on solid experience (such as what has happened when a physician merely hopes for the best outcome against unsurmountable negative indicators).

To directly kill the unborn child as a means of preventative surgery is not a decision to save a life, it is a decision to extinguish a life. Moral medical practice involves the making of every effort to save and preserve life, even though such attempts may be futile. If God calls the unborn in spite of (not because of) the work of the doctors, that is up to Him.

When it comes to medicine, a moral theology which is so absolute that it never allows for that 1-2% of highly compromised pregnancies where two lives are in the balance, is a theology which is at odds with physical reality.

Yes, moral theology says it is never permissible to kill an innocent person, even 1-2% of the time. Even though there are medical means available to kill people, it is still not licit.

The bottom line is that the RCC refuses to acknowledge that there are ever equal “bads” or equal 'goods" in the operating room, that there is ever any gray area when one is dealing with unknowns.

This is an example of “the Church is wrong” rejection of Church teaching. There is no grey area as far as the taking of innocent life. The Church teaches that it is always wrong.

 

[stthomas]

Get over the fact that you are not God – not over my soul or anyone else’s soul. I won’t be standing before the Lord and having him ask “why I killed a child” because I never did any such thing. Apparently you didn’t read the part about “There but for the grace of God…”

Worry about your own soul, as Fr. John Corapi tells us to do, as all the saints tell us to do, as Jesus tells us to do. I won’t be explaining any “murders” because there are none to explain. Will you be explaining to God how you condemned others when you had no clue as to the state of their souls or the morality & intentionality of their actions?

I was not implying that you killed your child, and apologize if that is how you took it. What I am and have said is that if you are a devout Catholic you cannot in any circumstance justify killing a baby…Don’t bring Father Corapi into this conversation because your views dont match his. Plain and simple…Abortion is human sacrifice…a sacrifice to Satan…Answer this question…Would a mother of 5 have the right to risk the life of one of her children to save her own life because of the needs of the remaining 4 children? I suggest you know and live your faith.

 

[kage_ar]

I find your refusal to accept the Catechism as interesting.

You do understand that this version was published in the 90’s, however, it is simply an easy to follow reference that links us to the Scripture and other Magisterial Documents? Most with a jr. high education know how to follow the footnotes and references to find the referenced documents. They can be read at www.vatican.va

Someone did not just dream up what is contained in the CCC.

 

[traillius]

To paraphrase Jesus Christ superstar " the blood we’ve spilt on us will fall. " Even those who have opposed abortion, will, sadly but likely, share in the punishment that awaits us. I don’t wish God’s justice, but I fear it will not be stopped.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I suggest you know and live your faith.

I suggest that you stop stating that I am not living or knowing my faith. I know and live both. My views do coincide with those of Fr. Corapi, so I will “bring him into this” if I please. You’re not a dictator, although possibly you would like to be.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I find your refusal to accept the Catechism as interesting.

I don’t know whom you’re addressing as “your,” but it’s not I, since I don’t “refuse to accept the Catechism.” None of what I said stated or implied that.

 

[Becks]

After having read through the thread, I think it comes down to this:

The Church has stated that abortion is wrong in EVERY case. There is no good reason to have an abortion.

BUT, if as you state, that being pregnant is killing you, you can deliver the baby early. This delivery can be by C-section or vaginally. Now at 4 months, the baby will most likely not make it. The purpose of this procedure would be to save the mother and possibly save the baby.

But what is not okay is having an abortion at 4 months because being pregnant is killing you. The purpose of an abortion is to kill the baby.

An abortion is the taking of a human life, premature birth on the other hand is not.

I don’t understand why this quote is being mostly ignored as this discussion spirals downward in hatefulness. Is this suggestion not the solution which is most in line with what the Catholic Church teaches?

 

[traillius]

I suggest that you stop stating that I am not living or knowing my faith. I know and live both. My views do coincide with those of Fr. Corapi, so I will “bring him into this” if I please. You’re not a dictator, although possibly you would like to be.

Then you admit to being ardently pro-life in all circumstances, since that is the view of father corapi?

 

[JanetF]

I don’t think she’s “struggling with her decision.” I think she’s struggling with the desire to believe in the humanity and compassion of the Church she loves and the faith she identifies with – and the unfortunate refusal of that same Church to acknowledge medical realities.

I feel beyond fortunate never to have been in any situation similar to that, ever. There but for the grace of God go I – and you, and you…

Unless you have a medical degree and have examined her chart in this particular case, no one here is in a position to determine that ryecroft would have lived given some other different medical decision at that time. Every day, in this country alone, dozens of life-and-death ‘best guesses’ are made in emergency rooms and operating rooms of hospitals by the attending surgeons. Many of those decisions were never predicted or predictable. Others are decisions based on solid experience (such as what has happened when a physician merely hopes for the best outcome against unsurmountable negative indicators).

When it comes to medicine, a moral theology which is so absolute that it never allows for that 1-2% of highly compromised pregnancies where two lives are in the balance, is a theology which is at odds with physical reality. God never asks us to be suicidal. I realize that some women choose certain or probable death over their own life, but as ryecroft has pointed out, such a decision bestows a different evil on any existing loved ones who are dependent on that mother (not just the unborn, but any born family members).

The bottom line is that the RCC refuses to acknowledge that there are ever equal “bads” or equal 'goods" in the operating room, that there is ever any gray area when one is dealing with unknowns. Whether any particular physician “lied,” was hasty, or misunderstood the danger involved to any particular mother is not an indication of the universe of medical judgments, nor even of ryecroft’s own situation at the time. Many of the posters here are operating on the false but comfortable belief that the mother will always survive, and that doctors always use scare tactics and always make decisions based on potential lawsuits. Although I’m not a doctor, apparently I know much more about medicine than most of the posters on this thread.

Elizabeth, you are incorrect, I don’t think physicians lie, I think they have less information than God has. You know the part of the Our Father…“they will be done”. Anything other than allowing his will to be done, is called interfering with God. Of course the mother will not always survive, again God’s will, we may not always like his decisions, but they are his decisions to make, when we interfere, we are WRONG. Evil is not being bestowed, when we choose to make a commitment God’s will. Yes, it’s hard to grow up without a mother, but it’s not evil. God has the edge on human’s, He is always right. Human’s make mistakes. God has been known to perform miracles that no doctor could see coming.

 

[Agatina]

Dear ryecroft,
I’m glad you posted the added material about the moral issue of abortion.
This is the way I have always understood the Catholic position. It’s all about “intent”.
So the example of taking out the diseased uterus to save the mother’s life even though the unintended consequence would be that the baby would also die is a good example. No-one intended to do away with the baby. The action taken was for good.
That is a “natural” and sensible and right thing to do. The Church always cites “Natural Law” as something everyone “gets”. Even those who are not Christian usually get the idea of Natural Law when trying to decide between life & death.
I’m not saying this right probably but I hope it comes across that I am 100% Pro Life!’
But I would agree with taking the diseased uterus in the example given exactly for that reason. Pro Life. Saving the women’s life is also moral.
Love in Christ Jesus,
Agatina

 

[maryjk]

I can respect this reply more than some others. I think the problem arises, Mary, when such a prediction cannot be made (always) at 4 months, AND when NFP fails. The problem is that the church puts some mothers, actually, in impossible no-win situations. Compared to ABC, NFP has a high failure rate. For most Catholic married couples, this should not be an issue – at least not where maternal health is concerned. But in a small minority of cases, this will be a problem, and again, a problem that the RCC refuses to acknowledge ever exists.

A relative in my family consistently developed high-risk pregnancies because of her high blood pressure which ramped up to a fatal degree in pregnancy. She has tried to carry several to term, two without huge risk to her life, but the others brought her near death, and I hate to say that there were apparently decisions made for late-term abortions because of it. But the RCC forbids ABC or sterilization, yet in doing so it creates situations where such extreme decisions even come into play. She had two healthy children, several aborted pregnancies. Eventually she apparently decided to get her tubes tied.

As a woman with one child born 9 weeks early and a woman with a malformed uterus, I know that I shouldn’t get pregnant. My son is 13, and like most I believed the only way to ensure that I didn’t get pregnant again, I used ABC. When I learned how I could be aborting babies without knowing it, I stopped. I now use NFP and have been doing so for 5 years. Not one pregnancy during that time. With proper use, NFP is as effective as ABC. Check the stats. And if your relative really shouldn’t get pregnant, does she really trust the pill? Do you want to know how many people I know that got pregnant on the pill?

Now, if I had become pregnant, my doctor would monitor me to make sure my uterus didn’t burst. If it became a problem, she would deliver my baby early. Early could mean at 4 weeks, at 4 months or at 8 months. When I was pregnant the first time, we didn’t know it was an issue and the baby came naturally, early.

If you look at what a late term abortion is, it is killing the baby, then delivering it. Why kill it first? Why not just deliver the baby?