What does disagreeing with a Church teaching mean

[kalt]

Another poster on another thread said that he/she disagrees with the Church’s teaching on the pill. So what does that mean?

I disagree with the Church’s teaching on abortion, in that when a woman’s life is in danger** from the fetus**, she retains every right that a human being has when confronted by an enemy. IMO, she no more has to lay there an let the fetus cause her death than a mother whose adult son is in a murderous rage against her has to sit there and let him beat her to death. Both have the right to defend themselves, and to fight to the death if that’s what it takes.

Though the Church says it disagrees with me, it allows ectopic pregnancies to be aborted. I say it’s the same principle, yet the Church talks in circles around it, claiming that the main goal is to remove the “diseased” tube, not the growing baby. But if they could remove the growing baby and leave the tube in tact, they would. Why remove tissue when you don’t have to? I’m sure that this will be possible some day. I wonder what the Church would say in that situation. It’s obviously a case of life or death, but would the Church insist on removing the tube also, to protect herself from endorsing abortion in any case?

Anyway, back to the question. What does disagreeing with the Church mean? If someone disagrees with a teaching but follows the rules anyway, what does it mean?

I disagree with ridiculously slow speed limits on main roads by colleges (40 MPH through residential areas to 20 MPH in front of the college), but I obey the law. What does that mean?

 

[Eucharisted]

Abortion cannot be performed, supported, or paid for under any circumstances.

If you persist in your erranous belief that abortion is okay under certain circumstances, even after a confessor corrects you numerous times, than you will be guilty of heresy, which is a mortal sin. Furthermore, heresy usually leads to schism, so you would be putting yourself in danger of another mortal sin. Sin leads to sin. First you say you’ll just disagree, than you’ll persist in your belief despite being corrected, than you’ll be called a heretic, than in anger and confusion you’ll leave the Catholic Church because you think it’s wrong and you’re right. It is the usual way of how things go.

The Church dose not ask for blind faith but for submission to the truth. She bases her teaching on abortion on science and reason. It is science that says human life begins at conception, and it is reason that says prematured killing of a human person with malice afterthought is murder, and murder is never allowed. Human life begins at conception and human personhood begins at human life.

 

[guanophore]

Another poster on another thread said that he/she disagrees with the Church’s teaching on the pill. So what does that mean?

It can mean a lot of things. Most of the time, it means that the person is ignorant of the Church teaching. This ignorance is often combined with a poorly formed conscience, because one cannot make good moral decisions when they are ignorant of the Church teaching. Along with these two factors, there is often pride, selfishness, and disobedience at work in the soul, where one is willfully choosing to “keep the Church out of my bedroom”. This is basically the same as saying God, who made me, should have no say in how I conduct my procreative affairs.

I disagree with the Church’s teaching on abortion, in that when a woman’s life is in danger** from the fetus**, she retains every right that a human being has when confronted by an enemy.

The problem is that the only rights we have as human beings come from God. The right to defend ourselves does not extend to taking innocent life. The truth is that the fetus is not an “enemy”, but an innocent life. When a woman faces such a challenge, she has the ultimate opportunity for sanctification. She is given the same gift that Christ had, whether she will choose the greater love in laying down her life for another.

IMO, she no more has to lay there an let the fetus cause her death than a mother whose adult son is in a murderous rage against her has to sit there and let him beat her to death. Both have the right to defend themselves, and to fight to the death if that’s what it takes.

Well, this is a flaw in reasoning. The son with the murderous rage is able to make decisions. The fetus is not. The fetus is under the protection and care of the mother, where the adult son no longer is. She is no longer responsible for his health and safety.

Though the Church says it disagrees with me, it allows ectopic pregnancies to be aborted. I say it’s the same principle, yet the Church talks in circles around it, claiming that the main goal is to remove the “diseased” tube, not the growing baby. But if they could remove the growing baby and leave the tube in tact, they would. Why remove tissue when you don’t have to? I’m sure that this will be possible some day. I wonder what the Church would say in that situation. It’s obviously a case of life or death, but would the Church insist on removing the tube also, to protect herself from endorsing abortion in any case?

Because motive is everything. The taking of an innocent human life is always and everywhere wrong. Yes, the Church would insist on avoiding abortion in every case.

Anyway, back to the question. What does disagreeing with the Church mean? If someone disagrees with a teaching but follows the rules anyway, what does it mean?

Now you have added a salient element. One can “disagree” or not understand, but choose to comply. This is obedient faith seeking understanding. Such a person can pray that God will help them to understand that which does not yet make sense. God will richly bless such obedience, for more blessed are they that do not “see” and yet follow.

I disagree with ridiculously slow speed limits on main roads by colleges (40 MPH through residential areas to 20 MPH in front of the college), but I obey the law. What does that mean?

That means that you will spend less money on tickets resulting from arrogance.

This corresponds to Kolberg’s conventional stage of moral development. We do most things not because of the higher good, but because we are supposed to do them. We like to avoid consequences.

 

[Agatina]

Kalt,
You are so misinformed and you are basing your opinion about abortion & the Church on misinformation.
A woman’s life is not in danger “from the fetus”. That’s silly.
Every so often there are complications of a pregnancy. My daughter had such a complication 25 yrs. ago. She was in danger of bleeding to death because the cord had attached in an area that it could have pulled loose and caused a bleed. Her doctor wanted her closer to the hospital so she & her family moved in with me for about 3 months. She had four bleeds. She spent time in the hospital. We prayed a lot! Finally our grandson was born healthy & mom went back to healthy. (If I rememeber correctly the condition she had is called “Placenta Previa”).
The fetus was never causing the danger she was in. But being pregnant was the cause of the danger. If she had aborted the danger would have been over. Her doctor said he could bring her through & he did.
If she had had a more serious bleed during the pregnancy she would have been rushed to the hospital and then as they tried to save her (with blood transfusions, etc) if the baby had been lost it would have not been an abortion.
I’m frustated. I can’t explain this the way I want to.
One more try. It’s ok to try to protect the mother’s life, of course. It is the intent to kill the baby that is a sin. If the intent is to help the mother and while helping the mother the baby is lost then it is not a sin.
Lord Jesus, please protect all your little ones born & pre-born from our ignorance. Please educate everyone as to the personhood of all from the moment of conception to natural death. Thank you for Kalt who asks therefore taking your teachings serious.
Posted in love & a hunger for His Truth,
Agatina

 

[guanophore]

Abortion cannot be performed, supported, or paid for under any circumstances.

If you persist in your erranous belief that abortion is okay under certain circumstances, even after a confessor corrects you numerous times, than you will be guilty of heresy, which is a mortal sin.

I don’t think this is true. Having an erroneous belief is not necessarily a mortal sin. Mortal sin implies understanding, which most people do not have. Not only that, having an erroneous belief, but choosing not to act upon it is an act of faith, and does not reflect a sinful heart.

Heresy, furthermore, cannot be charged against one who has never embraced the truth. When a person rejects a Church teaching after never having understood or espoused it then they are usually poorly catechized. This is not heresy, but the result of a malformed or uninformed conscience.

Heresy requires deliberation, which willfully rejects after knowing and embracing the truth.

Furthermore, heresy usually leads to schism, so you would be putting yourself in danger of another mortal sin.

Heresy does lead to schism, and apostasy, but one can disagree or be disobedient to the Church teaching on these matters without committing either of the other sins. Scandal also is a sin, and people calling themselves Catholic who reject the Catholic teachings also results in scandal. We see this typically with public figures. I have even read Protetstant posters on this board calling for excommunication of so called Catholics who willfully and publicly defy the Catholic teaching.

Sin leads to sin. First you say you’ll just disagree, than you’ll persist in your belief despite being corrected, than you’ll be called a heretic, than in anger and confusion you’ll leave the Catholic Church because you think it’s wrong and you’re right. It is the usual way of how things go.

I agree that sin leads to sin, but when a person decides to obey, even without “agreement” this is a sign that one is attempting to follow in faith.

I agree, though, that many leave the Church. I think it is because of arrogance, though, more than anything else. People do tend to think that their own “common sense” and reason is more valuable and accurate than the Church.

The Church dose not ask for blind faith but for submission to the truth. She bases her teaching on abortion on science and reason. It is science that says human life begins at conception, and it is reason that says prematured killing of a human person with malice afterthought is murder, and murder is never allowed. Human life begins at conception and human personhood begins at human life.

Yes. But I think submission to the commandment, even if the heart is not quite in the right place, still “counts”. Remember the parable of the disobedient son. One said “I will not go” (to harvest the field), then later realized and went out. The other said “I go at once” (to the field) but did not go. Which one, queries our Lord, did the will of the Father?

 

[Eucharisted]

I don’t think this is true. Having an erroneous belief is not necessarily a mortal sin. Mortal sin implies understanding, which most people do not have. Not only that, having an erroneous belief, but choosing not to act upon it is an act of faith, and does not reflect a sinful heart.

Heresy, furthermore, cannot be charged against one who has never embraced the truth. When a person rejects a Church teaching after never having understood or espoused it then they are usually poorly catechized. This is not heresy, but the result of a malformed or uninformed conscience.

Heresy requires deliberation, which willfully rejects after knowing and embracing the truth.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5200027&postcount=8

Heresy does lead to schism, and apostasy, but one can disagree or be disobedient to the Church teaching on these matters without committing either of the other sins. Scandal also is a sin, and people calling themselves Catholic who reject the Catholic teachings also results in scandal. We see this typically with public figures. I have even read Protetstant posters on this board calling for excommunication of so called Catholics who willfully and publicly defy the Catholic teaching.

Disobedience is a mortal sin. Just like heresy.

 

[guanophore]

Disobedience is a mortal sin. Just like heresy.

Not necessarily. Although I would concede that it probably is most of the time, some disobedience occurs in ignorance, and does not meet the criteria for mortal sin. To the one whom much is given, much is required. Those who don’t know any better, yet still do wrong, are not as culpable as those who do.

If that belief is a heresy, which is a mortal sin. A heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same. In laymen terms: Heresy is when a Christian denies a dogma or doctrine of the Church, or is likewise a doubt of some dogma or doctrine which a Christian holds in spite of reason, arguments, or persuation. For example, if a Christian believes Mary was conceived in sin, than he has committed heresy, for he denies the Immaculate Conception of Mary. But mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent, so, if a Christian dose not know about the Immaculate Conception, or, if a Christian denies the Immaculate Conception without complete consent, such as under pain of death, then it is not a mortal sin but a venial sin. Hence, a Christian won’t go to Hell for a belief but for a mortal sin.

Well, that is just it. Most people who embrace artificial reproduction activity (and prevention) do not do so “in spite of reaosn, arguements or pursuasion”. Most of them have never even read or studied the Church teaching, had a discussion with someone knowledgeable, or been subject to pursuasion. They have fallen into the secular mindset.

Of course, I agree, that such disobedence can certainly be heretical, but it has beenmy experience that most people who disobey have no clue. They think the Church is being patriarchal and archaic.

I bet only 1 in 50, if that, have even read theology of the Body.

 

[1ke]

Though the Church says it disagrees with me,

You have that backwards. The Church does not “disagree” with anyone when it comes to teaching doctrines. The Church teaches the Truth. That is all she can do.

It is you who are in error when you dissent from a doctrine of the Church.

Therefore, it is your job to continue to pray, study, and possibly confess (depending upon whether you have acted on this dissent, taught others to dissent by your example, etc) until you have come to understand and embrace Church teaching.

it allows ectopic pregnancies to be aborted. I say it’s the same principle, yet the Church talks in circles around it, claiming that the main goal is to remove the “diseased” tube, not the growing baby. But if they could remove the growing baby and leave the tube in tact, they would. Why remove tissue when you don’t have to? I’m sure that this will be possible some day. I wonder what the Church would say in that situation. It’s obviously a case of life or death, but would the Church insist on removing the tube also, to protect herself from endorsing abortion in any case?

Your analysis of the Church’s teaching on abortion, and the Principle of Double Effect, demonstrate my point. It is not the Church that is wrong, but you who do not fully grasp its teaching yet. Keep studying.

Anyway, back to the question. What does disagreeing with the Church mean? If someone disagrees with a teaching but follows the rules anyway, what does it mean?

It means that at a minimum you have an internal struggle that you must continue to strive to resolve. If you do not act on these areas, do not proclaim your dissent in public (an anonymous messgae board hardly is public dissent), don’t try to teach it to others, and make a genuine attempt to continue to form your conscience it means you are like the rest of us: still growing and trying to understand, not doing anything sinful but instead honestly questioning, searching, and learning.

If you cross over into active dissent-- teaching to others, teaching it to your children, vocalizing it and causing scandal, internalizing it in an **obstinate **way (refusing to continue to try to find where you err) then you may be in a situation of sinful actions and should discuss the situation with your spiritual adivsor.

We all grow and learn at different paces and in different ways. I hope you’ll continue to study and that one day it will make more sense to you.

 

[kalt]

Abortion cannot be performed, supported, or paid for under any circumstances.

If you persist in your erranous belief that abortion is okay under certain circumstances, even after a confessor corrects you numerous times, than you will be guilty of heresy, which is a mortal sin. Furthermore, heresy usually leads to schism, so you would be putting yourself in danger of another mortal sin. Sin leads to sin. First you say you’ll just disagree, than you’ll persist in your belief despite being corrected, than you’ll be called a heretic, than in anger and confusion you’ll leave the Catholic Church because you think it’s wrong and you’re right. It is the usual way of how things go.

The Church dose not ask for blind faith but for submission to the truth. She bases her teaching on abortion on science and reason. It is science that says human life begins at conception, and it is reason that says prematured killing of a human person with malice afterthought is murder, and murder is never allowed. Human life begins at conception and human personhood begins at human life.

But ending an ectopic pregnancy is an abortion. The Church just chooses not to acknowledge that fact. If it were wrong to kill a fetus under any circumstance, then ectopic pregnancies should be carried until their natural end. If you can’t abort a fetus to save your life when you have cancer, why can you do it when it’s an ectopic pregnancy’s baby you’re aborting?

And, while we’re at it, NFP is birth control by another name and method.

 

[kalt]

It can mean a lot of things. Most of the time, it means that the person is ignorant of the Church teaching. This ignorance is often combined with a poorly formed conscience, because one cannot make good moral decisions when they are ignorant of the Church teaching. Along with these two factors, there is often pride, selfishness, and disobedience at work in the soul, where one is willfully choosing to “keep the Church out of my bedroom”. This is basically the same as saying God, who made me, should have no say in how I conduct my procreative affairs.

The problem is that the only rights we have as human beings come from God. The right to defend ourselves does not extend to taking innocent life. The truth is that the fetus is not an “enemy”, but an innocent life. When a woman faces such a challenge, she has the ultimate opportunity for sanctification. She is given the same gift that Christ had, whether she will choose the greater love in laying down her life for another.

Well, this is a flaw in reasoning. The son with the murderous rage is able to make decisions. The fetus is not. The fetus is under the protection and care of the mother, where the adult son no longer is. She is no longer responsible for his health and safety.

Because motive is everything. The taking of an innocent human life is always and everywhere wrong. Yes, the Church would insist on avoiding abortion in every case.

Now you have added a salient element. One can “disagree” or not understand, but choose to comply. This is obedient faith seeking understanding. Such a person can pray that God will help them to understand that which does not yet make sense. God will richly bless such obedience, for more blessed are they that do not “see” and yet follow.

That means that you will spend less money on tickets resulting from arrogance.

This corresponds to Kolberg’s conventional stage of moral development. We do most things not because of the higher good, but because we are supposed to do them. We like to avoid consequences.

But you can’t honestly say that ending an ectopic pregnancy is anything but aborting the baby. The baby is a threat to the mother’s life, wilfull or not. And it’s not a threat because the mother has cancer and wants a treatment she can’t have while pregnant. It’s a danger because it’s there.

There’s no doubt in my mind that the CC approves of aborting babies in this case precisely because it’s a threat to the mother’s life. It seems that the church believes that you can’t abort a baby to save you life if the threat to your life isn’t the baby itself, but you can when it’s the baby that is causing the problem.

A retarted person playing with a gun, not knowing that it is loaded or that he really can kill someone is a threat to your life. The fact that he is an innocent person doesn’t change the fact that you can, even though he’s innocent, defend your self and fight to the death if you have to, to save your own life.

What of the situation in Iraq? Say someone sends a toddler with a bomb strapped to him into an American camp? Isn’t it the soldier’s right to detonate that bomb from a distance to save his own life? Isn’t the toddler innocent?

You don’t have the right to kill innocent people who aren’t a threat to you, of course. But you do have the right to defend yourself against an enemy, which is anyone who is an immediate threat to your life.

Do you have any ideas on how the Church will rule on Ectopic pregnancies when they find a way to abort the baby and save the tube? What do you think they will say about ectopic pregnancies then? Do you think that they will say that the person can’t end the pregnancy through abortion? Can they justify saying that they can abort the fetus so long as they remove some part of the tube with it, so it can be classified as a theraputic procedure on the woman’s body and that the baby just happened to be collateral damage?

 

[kalt]

Kalt,
You are so misinformed and you are basing your opinion about abortion & the Church on misinformation.
A woman’s life is not in danger “from the fetus”. That’s silly.
Every so often there are complications of a pregnancy. My daughter had such a complication 25 yrs. ago. She was in danger of bleeding to death because the cord had attached in an area that it could have pulled loose and caused a bleed. Her doctor wanted her closer to the hospital so she & her family moved in with me for about 3 months. She had four bleeds. She spent time in the hospital. We prayed a lot! Finally our grandson was born healthy & mom went back to healthy. (If I rememeber correctly the condition she had is called “Placenta Previa”).
The fetus was never causing the danger she was in. But being pregnant was the cause of the danger. If she had aborted the danger would have been over. Her doctor said he could bring her through & he did.
If she had had a more serious bleed during the pregnancy she would have been rushed to the hospital and then as they tried to save her (with blood transfusions, etc) if the baby had been lost it would have not been an abortion.
I’m frustated. I can’t explain this the way I want to.
One more try. It’s ok to try to protect the mother’s life, of course. It is the intent to kill the baby that is a sin. If the intent is to help the mother and while helping the mother the baby is lost then it is not a sin.
Lord Jesus, please protect all your little ones born & pre-born from our ignorance. Please educate everyone as to the personhood of all from the moment of conception to natural death. Thank you for Kalt who asks therefore taking your teachings serious.
Posted in love & a hunger for His Truth,
Agatina

I liked your post until the end. The last “prayer” was so full of arrogance that I wonder if God was rolling his eyes.

 

[kalt]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5200027&postcount=8

Disobedience is a mortal sin. Just like heresy.

But what if the teaching is wrong? The Church teaches that abortion is wrong, but it makes an exception for ectopic pregnancies. I don’t think the Church has made an official teaching on ectopic pregnancies, I think the teaching is about abortion in general. Isn’t it possible that the Church is not seeing this for what it really is, abortion?

W\I have a question. What about removing the uterus when a woman is pregnant. Say a pregnant woman finds out that she has cancer, and the doctor thinks that removing the uterus is the best treatment. Does the church approve of the surgery in a case like that?

 

[kalt]

This was posted on this board, because I was hoping non-Catholics would answer, too. What does disagreeing with a teaching of your church mean? What if you disagree but obey the rule?

 

[guanophore]

But ending an ectopic pregnancy is an abortion. The Church just chooses not to acknowledge that fact. If it were wrong to kill a fetus under any circumstance, then ectopic pregnancies should be carried until their natural end. If you can’t abort a fetus to save your life when you have cancer, why can you do it when it’s an ectopic pregnancy’s baby you’re aborting?

No, an abortion is a deliberate and focused attempt to kill an unborn child. Such an intention can never be the goal of a medical intervention of any kind. Granted, there are some procedures that can, and do, terminate the life of the child, but this is not the goal.

And, while we’re at it, NFP is birth control by another name and method.

No, birth “control” refers to artificial (usually chemical) methods used to interfere with the normal reproductive process. NFP is working with normal and God given rhythms in order to space children.

What you may not realize is that the vast majority of artificial contraceptives actually destroy the embryo. NFP does not do this.

 

[guanophore]

But you can’t honestly say that ending an ectopic pregnancy is anything but aborting the baby.

You are missing the element of intention. It is true that medical science is presently a bit short of being able to move the pregnancy to the area of the body that is safe for both mother and baby. Before we had the science we have today, the mother and the baby both died, most of the time. Perhaps, in the future, technology will be able to preserve them both. In the meantime, it is a grave moral evil to take the life of an innocent.

The baby is a threat to the mother’s life, wilfull or not.

No. The baby is not threatening anyone. The pregnancy is a grave health risk because of the location. This is not the baby’s fault. Threat involves intentionality. The mother has a high risk pregnancy.

And it's not a threat because the mother has cancer and wants a treatment she can't have while pregnant. It's a danger because it's there.

I am sorry, I think I don’t get your point here. Cancer presents a grave health risk. Treatments for cancer present a grave risk to the life of the unborn child (they are usually fatal).

There’s no doubt in my mind that the CC approves of aborting babies in this case precisely because it’s a threat to the mother’s life.

Then your mind has still not grasped the teaching of the Church.

It seems that the church believes that you can’t abort a baby to save you life if the threat to your life isn’t the baby itself, but you can when it’s the baby that is causing the problem.

There are no instances when the baby “causes” the problem.

A retarted person playing with a gun, not knowing that it is loaded or that he really can kill someone is a threat to your life. The fact that he is an innocent person doesn’t change the fact that you can, even though he’s innocent, defend your self and fight to the death if you have to, to save your own life.

A person with a gun presents a different kind of risk to safety. The unborn baby is not the source of the problem. Besides, where in your mind do you justify that it is ok to take an innocent life to preserve your own? Do you not see that this contradicts the teaching of Christ?

What of the situation in Iraq? Say someone sends a toddler with a bomb strapped to him into an American camp? Isn’t it the soldier’s right to detonate that bomb from a distance to save his own life? Isn’t the toddler innocent?

Many innocent lives are lost in war. However, the body of the mother is not to be made into a war zone. Her womb should be the safest place it the world for that child.

You don’t have the right to kill innocent people who aren’t a threat to you, of course. But you do have the right to defend yourself against an enemy, which is anyone who is an immediate threat to your life.

kalt, your conscience has been seared as with a hot iron. There is no unborn baby that is an “enemy” to those who have already been born. This thinking reflects the attitude of the culture of death in which we life. I suggest that you spend some time on the Priests for Life site, and pray that God will give you the attitude that He has toward unborn infants.

Do you have any ideas on how the Church will rule on Ectopic pregnancies when they find a way to abort the baby and save the tube? What do you think they will say about ectopic pregnancies then?

The teaching of the Church has been the same since before She was born. Abortion is always and everywhere a grave moral evil.

Do you think that they will say that the person can’t end the pregnancy through abortion?

Absolutely.

Can they justify saying that they can abort the fetus so long as they remove some part of the tube with it, so it can be classified as a theraputic procedure on the woman’s body and that the baby just happened to be collateral damage?

The Church has never, and will never, justify killing of the innocent, especially abortion.

There are some procedures that risk the life of the mother, and the child, and sometimes prevent future conception, but none of these is the goal.

 

[LilyM]

An important difference with an ectopic pregnancy is that BOTH mother AND child will certainly (100% guaranteed) die if that fallopian tube is not removed. This is not true in a normal pregnancy. This is not even true in many pregnancies where the mother is seriously ill. In cases where it IS true, double effect would probably apply as it does with ectopic pregnancies. Church teaching doesn’t rule out other circumstances where it may apply.

But the fact is a truly ethical doctor would do differently if they could in these cases. They would save the child (and the mother as well, of course) if they could, in any instance where one or both can be saved. Which includes cases where the mother’s death is inevitable but the child’s is not. There are very few cases where a complication of pregnancy cannot be treated (and the mother’s life saved) in any other way than by terminating the life of the child.

 

[pr35120]

what people forget that that the bible doesnt say anything about the technology,we have now.about abortion, i dont like it…but its funny , that us men are argueing about it.its just so easy for us to say things about it, because we dont have to go through it.if a baby can kill the mother,should we let her die. you’d proabably say yes.is’nt that the same as murdering a human being,so which one is better than the other.we need to get off our high horse,we act like we’re all innocent in the things we do.we try hard to live the life we need to live, but dont act like your 100% pure.things happen,we got to look at the whole situation.we act like that is a very easy situation for women.i would hate to make that decision.i just think is just funny.that us men ,that is messing up the true meaning of the bible and the world,are still trying to act like we know best.

 

[LilyM]

what people forget that that the bible doesnt say anything about the technology,we have now.about abortion, i dont like it…but its funny , that us men are argueing about it.its just so easy for us to say things about it, because we dont have to go through it.if a baby can kill the mother,should we let her die. you’d proabably say yes.is’nt that the same as murdering a human being,so which one is better than the other.we need to get off our high horse,we act like we’re all innocent in the things we do.we try hard to live the life we need to live, but dont act like your 100% pure.things happen,we got to look at the whole situation.we act like that is a very easy situation for women.i would hate to make that decision.i just think is just funny.that us men ,that is messing up the true meaning of the bible and the world,are still trying to act like we know best.

Ask most any parent if they’d willingly take a bullet to save their child’s life - in fact ask most adults if they’d give up their life for that of a child, most of them would say ‘yes’. An adult has had a chance to live productively, and contribute to the world. A child (born or unborn) deserves that chance too, in my books.

I’m not pretending it’s easy by any means. Of course it isn’t. Of course in LOTS of situations doing the right thing is incredibly difficult. But if you think it’s just men who are anti-abortion, then by no means is that the case. A lot of women, including women who have children, medical staff who have performed abortions, and women who have had abortions themselves - in other words people who know what they’re talking about - feel exactly the same!

 

[Agatina]

Hi Kalt,
I like your mind & I like your honesty. In those ending prayers I was trying to “be nice” just in case I’d come down too hard.
I just let my thoughts fire off to begin with & then I worried about hurting feelings etc.,and wanted to end on a nicer note.
So though I’m not sure if I was arrogant I wasn’t totally myself and I like it that you picked up on that.
Love in Christ (really),
Agatina

 

[kalt]

what people forget that that the bible doesnt say anything about the technology,we have now.about abortion, i dont like it…but its funny , that us men are argueing about it.its just so easy for us to say things about it, because we dont have to go through it.if a baby can kill the mother,should we let her die. you’d proabably say yes.is’nt that the same as murdering a human being,so which one is better than the other.we need to get off our high horse,we act like we’re all innocent in the things we do.we try hard to live the life we need to live, but dont act like your 100% pure.things happen,we got to look at the whole situation.we act like that is a very easy situation for women.i would hate to make that decision.i just think is just funny.that us men ,that is messing up the true meaning of the bible and the world,are still trying to act like we know best.

What I don’t get is the rationalization on the part of the Church and women who are against abortion but approve of ending ectopic pregnancies with a surgery that is abortion. They say that they don’t approve of ending the pregnancy if the mother has cancer and wants to get treatment. And they don’t approve of abortion when they baby has some problem that will kill it, like anencephaly (sp?). But they do approve of abortion when it’s an ectopic pregnancy. It’s like they say that they approve of abortion, so long as the death of the mother and baby are inevitable.

If you disapprove of abortion because it’s murder, what right do you have to murder and innocent person at all? The only difference, and I pointed this out in an earlier post, is that it’s the baby that’s causing the problem. The mother with cancer will die without treatment. The baby with anencephally will die anyway.

So you don’t save the mother’s life over the baby’s. And you don’t abort a baby just because it will die anyway. So why abort a baby in an ectopic pregnancy. Isn’t that baby just as innocent at the baby of the mother with cancer, and as innocent as the baby with anencephally.

Why does the mother’s life only come into play when the baby will die anyway.

Mother has cancer - the mother will die without treatment
Anencephally - the baby will die anyway
Ectopic pregnancy - the mother will die without treatment, the baby will die anyway

Do you see the problem here? An ectopic pregnancy is not different from the other situations, except that the growing baby is what’s endangering the mother’s life. The tube isn’t diseased. The baby is not diseased.

So, only in the case when the baby is normal and the mother’s life is at risk because of the baby can the mother have an abortion.

I don’t disagree with this position. I just wish the Church were honest about it.

And what will the Church say, do you think, when an abortion can be performed in an ectopic pregnancy that removes the baby but leaves the tube intact? Will the mother be forced to choose between ignoring the Church on abortion and dying when there is an ectopic pregnancy. (It seems that the loophole is removal of maternal tissue. So long as they remove the tissue along with the baby, the Church calls it something other than abortion.)

This makes me wonder. If a woman finds out that she has uterine cancer when she is 6 months pregnant, and the doc. says that a removing it immediately is the only hope for survival, would the church approve of the surgery?