S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
Holy Mother Church can never be ‘behind the times’ on issues, for Truth is Eternernal.
Please explain what you find loving and compassionate about slaughtering one baby so Mom won’t have to shop at Walmart.
- Status
Please explain what you find loving and compassionate about slaughtering one baby so Mom won’t have to shop at Walmart.
F
faithfully
Guest
Sorry, I can see how you might think that was the topic of response, given the OT… and since I deleted my post, you wouldn’t know what we were talking about with reagard to compassion… And it was not with regard to slaughtering a baby…
It was with regard to what people with fertitility problems go through…
In short, I’m a person who went through IVF. I put 2 embroys in. I got 2 babies out.
I admitted to failing in my research and full comprehension of the Churches teachings on the subject. I have worked all of this out with my priest.
The lack of compassion I FEEL is when people don’t actually know the whole story.
I’d rather a person just say… I’m sorry you’re dealing with this. As a Catholic I must advise…
Not… Why didn’t you do this. How come you didn’t do that… You’re basically selfish. A child is not property. A person is dealing with enough than to have accusations thrown at them… And that person has probably already looked at many of the routes offered with a tone of anger.
And I finalized with… I wish I would have had a chance to talk to a woman who is going to eliminate a twin. Or to my friend with triplets, or to another friend with quads. We could share that it’s not as bad as it might seem. Yes, it’s exhausting. And I do hear from twin moms with a 3rd singleton, they don’t have a clue what moms of singltons are whining about… how EASY it is… LOL… I doubt that. It’s just all realative. I feel the woman in this article was not only misinformed on much, but she was also pushed by a spouse not on the same page.
No, I don’t want to see compassion for ABORTION… I want to see compassion by PEOPLE for those that are going through something they aren’t really equipped to deal with.
Again, sorry that I through a curve into the neatness of this thread…
C
challam2010
Guest
You may want to check history for the many ways the Church has been “behind the times” and the many ways “the times” have forced the Church to discern further and to grow. “Dogma” was not handed down on two stone tablets – it has been evolving since the first Christian Pentecost and is evolving still. Life is not static, the Church is not static – change is one of the basics of life, and the Church is not exempt from life.
As to the second part of your (rude) question, I think “faithfully” answered that. As the mother of (natural) twins and as a woman who gave up a child to adoption rather than abort, my credentials are fairly secure. I certainly don’t support embryonic or fetal reduction in any way for any reason, but I do recognize that miscarriages are a risk of every pregnancy, both natural and assisted.
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
Okay. Didn’t know about deletions.
I understand that, but in matters of faith and morals the Church cannot be wrong. Modernism, scientism, whatever anyone may wish to call it - that changes nothing.
No one said it would be easy. But to assert that the Church needs to ‘update’ on anything in the name of ‘compassion’ I think misses the point.
I understand that, but in matters of faith and morals the Church cannot be wrong. Modernism, scientism, whatever anyone may wish to call it - that changes nothing.
No one said it would be easy. But to assert that the Church needs to ‘update’ on anything in the name of ‘compassion’ I think misses the point.
C
challam2010
Guest
Ishnian – I’m not trying to be argumentative here, but the only people who make decisions in the Church are those who are ordained in it. Since women are excluded from that privilege, they aren’t part of any decisions. Occasionally a few women may serve in an remote advisory capacity, but the final decision rests with the hierarchy.
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
As it should.
I am horrified by what passes for ‘compassion.’
Since God set this Church before us, we ought to be obedient. In matters of faith and morals, the Church cannot be wrong.
IVF and other things of that nature come under the heading of faith and morals, along with abortion.
Was this or was this not a topic expressing shock at the fact that a woman would abort one baby because she couldn’t ‘afford’ the other?
What about the cost of such artificial methods of conception?
What about the many women who can’t have babies of their own and would happily take ‘the extra twin?’
Compassion? For whom?
F
faithfully
Guest
Actually, from my point of view, I’m not suggesting that the Church update anything in the name of compassion…
I’m asking that PEOPLE show a little more compassion.
If you could hear the tone (in real spoken conversations) with some people. And then if you compare that to, my priest, for example. There’s only ONE situation there I actually felt love. And it was from my priest. Not from others slinging around their knowledge… And, for me anyway, I see that it’s compassion that will keep people and convert people to the Church… as opposed to running in horror in the other direction… which really is another thread all it’s own…
Who do you think could bring the author of the story around to the Church for example? Someone slinging accusations, or someone that can show forgiveness is possible for one, and pre decision, actual alternatives with a heart.
Sometimes I think, we think it’s ok to assualt people, verbally, in the name of God. We don’t see that verbal “bombs” can be just as destructive as an actual bomb.
C
challam2010
Guest
I completely agree with this assessment.
I think part of the division in the Church today between the traditionalists and moderates has to do with the dichotomy between following the letter of the law and living the Word of God in love.
Although many conservative brothers and sisters abhor the way Church law is applied (or abused, in their view) by some “badword “liberal” badword” priests – I thank God that these priests are not reluctant to extend God’s love to people in need, rather than making them toe the line of legalism. It is they who are on the front lines, serving and loving people – not closeted in some remote Roman conference room making lists of ways to alienate people with yet more rules and restrictions.
I
ishnianqueen
Guest
I don’t think SK read faithfully’s original post prior to deletion. I’m pretty sure he was just responding to the original article I linked, so I don’t think the question was out of line.
As for the rest - I think we’re straying from the original idea. It’d be a great thread to branch (I’d particularly like to hear about when the Church was truly “behind the times”) but it doesn’t really keep on the topic of how we as a culture have gotten to the point where we are purposely creating and then destroying life through IVF and following “selective reduction.”
F
faithfully
Guest
Agreed… I THINK those destroying life, just don’t have a religious background. If you don’t associate to a creation of God, then although I disgree, I understand how they get there…
Yes, it’s crazy… and very sad!
T
tapiocapudding
Guest
I also don’t really get this desire to control everything because we just can’t. Like, what if they are blessed with a high needs special needs child? That’s probably a lot more lifestyle change than twins. Are they going to give the baby back? It makes me so sad 
I
ishnianqueen
Guest
That’s another very good question. They said they did a screening to see if one baby was superior in health (because being potentially unhealthy means they’re worth less?), but there are tons of special needs kids that don’t have anything that you could find out prior to birth and development, like some forms of mental retardation and autism or even things like depression or severe allergies. Babies grow out of being babies. They don’t grow out of mental or developmental issues. But that doesn’t make them less of a person, and it certainly doesn’t give them a right to “selectively reduce” one that has those issues.I also don’t really get this desire to control everything because we just can’t. Like, what if they are blessed with a high needs special needs child? That’s probably a lot more lifestyle change than twins. Are they going to give the baby back? It makes me so sad
F
faithfully
Guest
I got me one of those too!I also don’t really get this desire to control everything because we just can’t. Like, what if they are blessed with a high needs special needs child? That’s probably a lot more lifestyle change than twins. Are they going to give the baby back? It makes me so sad
actually, not special needs… Simple stuff there. Speech therapy. Sensory issues… Nothing crazy… Nope… they don’t give the baby back. They love them with all the heart they ever intended… We adjust. No matter how hard things are…But, it is a sad situation. It’s too sterile for some…
C
CountrySinger
Guest
I personally felt sorry for the woman. I read it that she was almost forced to abort one of the twins by her husband. She even had to strong-arm the husband into having another child. Not that it doesn’t make it better, but I wonder if she would have reduced/aborted if the husband was supportive? 
I know women who get abortions because the man doesn’t want a child, and I wonder if that factor was in play?
feel free to ignore if this makes no sense to anyone else
I know women who get abortions because the man doesn’t want a child, and I wonder if that factor was in play?feel free to ignore if this makes no sense to anyone else
C
Charlotte1776
Guest
It sounds like the husband only wanted one child, but the wife wanted one additional child. So, they had IVF and implanted 2 embryos despite the fact that neither wanted twins. Both children survived implanation and were doing well, but neither mom nor dad wanted to give up their cushy lifestyle (they didn’t want to spend the money on putting three kids on private school instead of just two, for instance. :doh2I personally felt sorry for the woman. I read it that she was almost forced to abort one of the twins by her husband. She even had to strong-arm the husband into having another child. Not that it doesn’t make it better, but I wonder if she would have reduced/aborted if the husband was supportive?
feel free to ignore if this makes no sense to anyone else
so they killed one of the twins. BOTH parents wanted the second twin dead. She wasn’t coerced into it at all. In fact, if I remember correctly the husband said he would support her no matter what her choice was.This whole article is just disgusting. I wonder what the surviving twin will think if she finds this article online when she is older and realizes that her parents killed her brother right next to her!! Can you imagine finding out that your parents would do such an unspeakably evil thing?
L
lifeisbeautiful
Guest
She took a fertility drug that increased their chances of having multiples and then did intrauterine insemination (IUI), which resulted in the twin pregnancy. Her insurance required she try insemination first, before she did IVF. Other than that, I agree. It is a very sad and horrible article.It sounds like the husband only wanted one child, but the wife wanted one additional child. So, they had IVF and implanted 2 embryos despite the fact that neither wanted twins. Both children survived implanation and were doing well, but neither mom nor dad wanted to give up their cushy lifestyle (they didn’t want to spend the money on putting three kids on private school instead of just two, for instance. :doh2
This whole article is just disgusting. I wonder what the surviving twin will think if she finds this article online when she is older and realizes that her parents killed her brother right next to her!! Can you imagine finding out that your parents would do such an unspeakably evil thing?
Mary_Gail_36
New member
I think I see your point.I personally felt sorry for the woman. I read it that she was almost forced to abort one of the twins by her husband. She even had to strong-arm the husband into having another child. Not that it doesn’t make it better, but I wonder if she would have reduced/aborted if the husband was supportive?
feel free to ignore if this makes no sense to anyone else
But, she wasn’t a scared teen-ager. She was a 43, educated, successful writer. Baby wasn’t “unplanned” (I hate that tern btw), she did it on purpose.
She treated both babies as commodities. The poor baby boy didn’t fit her ideal, and he got killed. I saw my current baby’s sonogram when he was the age of these babies, his face is the same now as it was then (just bigger).
L
larkin31
Guest
At 43, twins (or more) are risky health propositions, both to the mother and to the children.I think I see your point.
But, she wasn’t a scared teen-ager. She was a 43, educated, successful writer. Baby wasn’t “unplanned” (I hate that tern btw), she did it on purpose.
She treated both babies as commodities. The poor baby boy didn’t fit her ideal, and he got killed. I saw my current baby’s sonogram when he was the age of these babies, his face is the same now as it was then (just bigger).
I can see how this process would upset some religious people, but I only have partial sympathy. First of all, the entire process of IVF or implantation (not insemination or hormone therapy) involves the creation of fertilized embryos that are either stored indefinitely or destroyed. Secondly, implantation most often includes losing a few embryos (multiple are implanted, as was described here). This does mean loss of potential lives (genetic individuals at the earliest stages). However, this also naturally occurs frequently in our bodies (30% of pregnancies result in miscarriage) and even–it turns out–NFP practices result in fertilized eggs (rare, but often enough in aggregate since so many people have unprotected sex all through a partner’s menstrual cycle) that are lost through menstruation. In other words, loss of fertilized “life” is a quite common natural experience. The addition of IVF loss numbers is hardly a blip on the natural death numbers for fertilized embryos. Add to this that the RCC in no way condemns other medical or technological practices when persons seek to correct, repair, or improve other physical dysfunctions, but in this case holds that to “artificially” circumvent a physical impairment is morally wrong even though it results, perhaps, in no greater number of lost embryos than a woman’s natural struggle with miscarriages or other lost embryos that are flushed out in menstruation and we never even know of. This apparent double standard is hard for many persons, even some decent Catholics, to justify and they end up seeking IVF treatment in their wish to get around their physical impairment and raise God-fearing, God-loving children of their own.
And I, for one, don’t blame them.
Mary_Gail_36
New member
The babies were both healthy, she was disappointed by the fact they were healthy, because it made it harder to choose which one to terminate.
L
larkin31
Guest
I know. THIS case made the parents look selfish, etc. I was commenting on the bigger picture, not just this case.
- Status