Vatican preparing new document on effects of abortion on women

[Holly3278]

Vatican City, Jul 31, 2010 / 11:33 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The new president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, Archbishop Ignacio Carrasco de Paula, announced that his dicastery is preparing a document on the effects of abortion on women, often called post-abortion syndrome. The document will focus on the study of the “habit of abortion” and is expected to be published next year.

In an interview with L’Osservatore Romano, Archbishop Carrasco discussed a few details of the new document. “We believe that in studying this issue, a distinction must be made. The existence of post-abortion syndrome is a well known fact that has already been developed in much literature. I am referring to the state of depression that isolates many women who have undergone an abortion,” he said.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-preparing-new-document-on-effects-of-abortion-on-women/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29

I am glad to hear that the Vatican is preparing such a document. Perhaps it will help those in the pro-life ministry to convince more women considering an abortion to not go through with it.

 

[Mukudi]

Hii all
Am graciously happy that at last Vatican is heeding to the call of many faithfuls.Well the issue is so thorny especially in My Country - Kenya. As We move to vote in referendum the eyebrows are raised. Is ONLY OUR FATHER’S Mercies to protect us. Can the forum advice me on church stand on abortion especially in situations where mother’s life is in danger?
Mukudi
Kenya

 

[Holly3278]

Hii all
Am graciously happy that at last Vatican is heeding to the call of many faithfuls.Well the issue is so thorny especially in My Country - Kenya. As We move to vote in referendum the eyebrows are raised. Is ONLY OUR FATHER’S Mercies to protect us. Can the forum advice me on church stand on abortion especially in situations where mother’s life is in danger?
Mukudi
Kenya

The Church’s stand on abortion, even when the mother’s life is in danger is that abortion is intrinsically evil. It is a mortal sin to get a direct abortion for any reason. Anyone who gets or participates in an abortion is immediately excommunicated. The excommunication can only be removed through sacramental confession. Only an indirect abortion is morally neutral. A couple examples of an indirect abortion would be where the fallopian tube was removed due to a tubal pregnancy or when a uterus containing a baby is removed due to cancer of the uterus. Note that in such cases, the baby is not directly killed but is indirectly killed.

 

[seanflynn]

We had a case in my state where a woman’s life was in danger from her pregnancy. Her abortion was still sinful because the medical solution to her extreme high-blood pressure (if I remember properly) was simply killing the baby. With the pregnancy over, her health would return to normal.

If you do something else medically *knowing the the baby will die *as a result of your non-abortion, then it is not a sin.

Kill baby to save mother = sin

Remove/repair/operate something, and baby (predictably) dies = not sin

 

[kgra]

catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-preparing-new-document-on-effects-of-abortion-on-women/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29

I am glad to hear that the Vatican is preparing such a document. Perhaps it will help those in the pro-life ministry to convince more women considering an abortion to not go through with it.

I would hope the document would be just as revealing about the effects of abortion on men, who are victimized through the abortion as well.

 

[remjsmom76]

To kill a child to save the mother is a big no no. Personally if a baby can be left to “cook” until it can be left in no longer…they should allow the child to be born and deal with the prematurity of the child.

I wonder though…is it wrong to make a woman go into labor knowing full well that the child will not survive at all. I mean your not killing the child directly. If a mother, has to terminate her pregnancy to survive…why kill the child. Have her go into early labor, I mean Ive had oxitocin injected into my IV to help me go into labor. Couldnt that be a way to not kill a child? Your letting it be born…and giving it a chance at life, right? I mean if they can take a tubal baby at cut the tubes…they are not directly killing the baby, they are cutting out the “infected tube” where it then starves the baby of nourshment…your not 'DIRECTLY" killing the baby. Wouldnt that be the same if you just let a woman give birth, even if we know a child wouldnt survive if its born at that age?

Hii all
Am graciously happy that at last Vatican is heeding to the call of many faithfuls.Well the issue is so thorny especially in My Country - Kenya. As We move to vote in referendum the eyebrows are raised. Is ONLY OUR FATHER’S Mercies to protect us. Can the forum advice me on church stand on abortion especially in situations where mother’s life is in danger?
Mukudi
Kenya

 

[Phil_Stone]

I recall a radio call in where a woman who was advised not to get pregnant again did so, and was told she would die if she went full term. She was worried for her other children should she die.
The priest who responded told her that such medical advice was usually overly pessimistic, and under no circumstances should she abort the baby.

There was a story last year in South America where a child was impregnated by a step father, and was expected to die if she delivered. As I recall, the local bishop demanded legal punishment for the doctors and the mother of the child if they acted to save her life. He was not popular locally as a consequence.

I also recall that back when C Everett Koop was Surgeon General of the US, he was opposed for confirmation because of his opposition to Abortion. But when the Administration told him he should tell everyone that abortion was unhealthy for women, and leave Tobacco and AIDs alone, he refused. He said that even though the Republicans had chosen him because he opposed Abortion, he was a scientist who would not go about in public saying that Abortion was inherently dangerous for the woman when there was no scientific evidence of it, inspite of an evangelical roadshow going about claiming otherwise. But because of political opposition from those who wanted to treat AIDs as God’s punishment, he was delayed on acting upon one of the greatest puplic health emergancies the country had seen, and the disease spread and many people died, both unnecessarily.

 

[remjsmom76]

You see could they not have forced her into pre-term labor…or maybe a c-section to take the child out instead. Your not killing the child…your allowing the child to be born. If its to young we know it will die, but your not DIRECTLY killing the child…your are saving the mothers life at the same time allowing the child to live and give it the opportunity to survive birth and maybe LIVE. Abortion is an end…PERMANENT END to the child no matter what. A forced early labor will save the mothers life…yet still have hope for the child to live. I dont know if I make sense?

We had a case in my state where a woman’s life was in danger from her pregnancy. Her abortion was still sinful because the medical solution to her extreme high-blood pressure (if I remember properly) was simply killing the baby. With the pregnancy over, her health would return to normal.

If you do something else medically *knowing the the baby will die *as a result of your non-abortion, then it is not a sin.

Kill baby to save mother = sin

Remove/repair/operate something, and baby (predictably) dies = not sin