what is your belief about pro-life?

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Right, that’s either totally misunderstanding the situation or just being fatalistic. Neither are acceptable to me.
Trust me for a minute, and accept there are situations where it is futile to try and save both? Does that sound reasonable? We can’t pretend these situations don’t arise.

I put my trust in God! His will be done. I am not saying that very tough moral dilemmas don’t crop up, they do. I am not say that it is always easy to do the morally right thing, because it isn’t.

Let us say that a woman is pregnant, and the doctor says that you won’t survive this. What should one do? First of all, there is no way that a doctor can be that sure of the outcome. Even when all current medical knowledge - which is far, far, far from absolute and infallible - indicates such, it is not certain. Second, how could one - unless he has the omniscence and rights of God - decide between one life and another. If you choose to sacrifice without a fight the life a the child - what if that child would have grown up to be the next Mozart, or the next Pope, or what if he/she just would have been one heck of a person to know. How can you justify depriving the world of such an oppurtunity? If you choose to just kill off the woman and extract the child - what if she was meant to bear more children, and one of those was meant for greatness?

The fact is that know one has the knowledge, let alone the right to just write off a human person and sacrifice them. Only God can decide such things. If He wills that person to live, and we do our part by applying such medical care as we can, that person shall live. It is His call, not ours.

 

[jack_hawkins]

Like I say, fatalism is not acceptable to me - which is what you are proposing. Leave aside your qualms about prognosis, which are based on lack of knowledge of the possible scenarios. What you have left is fatalism. Would you say CPR is inappropriate when someone has a cardiac arrest? To be consistent you should say yes.
To say doing nothing will mean God’s will is done is to be passive and not Biblical. It reminds me of the anecdote about the person caught in a flood who asked for God’s assistance and refused help from various sources. Sometimes we have to do something ourselves.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Like I say, fatalism is not acceptable to me - which is what you are proposing. Leave aside your qualms about prognosis, which are based on lack of knowledge of the possible scenarios. What you have left is fatalism. Would you say CPR is inappropriate when someone has a cardiac arrest? To be consistent you should say yes.
To say doing nothing will mean God’s will is done is to be passive and not Biblical. It reminds me of the anecdote about the person caught in a flood who asked for God’s assistance and refused help from various sources. Sometimes we have to do something ourselves.

When did I ever say that we should do absolutely nothing? I said, and I quote:

The fact is that know one has the knowledge, let alone the right to just write off a human person and sacrifice them. Only God can decide such things. If He wills that person to live, and we do our part by applying such medical care as we can, that person shall live. It is His call, not ours.

It is incumbent upon us to do what we can using true medicine. If a person has a cardiac arrest, yes apply CPR - although those electric paddles would probably work better.

 

[john_ennis]

what does that have to do with the situation at hand? absolutely nothing

It is the crux. Is your philosophy that it’s okay to kill someone who’s going to die anyway, if it saves another? You’ve stated plainly that it is.

The example I gave caused you to shy away from considering the implications of your own philosophy.

It is Catholic teaching that it’s never right to deliberately do evil, even to bring about a greater good. The question of whether to deliberately kill an unborn baby (even if she’s going to die anyway) to save her mother, is a slam-dunk for Catholics.

You shouldn’t be so flabbergasted that we actually follow this well-known teaching.

Peace.
John

 

[john_ennis]

It is the crux. Is your philosophy that it’s okay to kill someone who’s going to die anyway, if it saves another? You’ve stated plainly that it is.

The example I gave (I should’ve clarified that the hypothetical child is in the very city to be destroyed) caused you to shy away from considering the implications of your own philosophy.

It is Catholic teaching that it’s never right to deliberately do evil, even to bring about a greater good. The question of whether to deliberately kill an unborn baby (even if she’s going to die anyway) to save her mother, is a slam-dunk for Catholics.

You shouldn’t be so flabbergasted that we actually follow this well-known teaching.

Peace.
John

 

[elvisman]

Abortion should only be used in the very rare cases where both the life of the mother and the child would be lost if pregnancy continued.

Here’s what the experts say about “necessary” abortions:

Dr. Joseph P. Donelly, former Medical Director of Margaret Hague Hospital, New Jersey, said: “Abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother…Those who advocate abortion to save the life of the mother are either ignorant or insincere.”

**Dr. Roy S. Heffernan, speaking to the ‘Congress of the American College of Surgeons’, said: “Anyone who performs a therapeutic abortion (i.e. to save the mother’s life) is either ignorant of modern methods of treating the complications of pregnancy or is unwilling to take time to use them.” **

C.J. Williams said: “Under no circumstances whatsoever must surgeons assume the place of God and destroy life contrary to the Divine Law - even in such cases where the life of the mother is seriously endangered by the travail of birth, because the doctor’s only and sworn responsibility is to strive to preserve the lives of mother and baby and not to become the executor of one to save the other. They have no mandate to do such a thing. The medical community is strictly limited by God as to its authority, and answerable directly to Him for the abuse of that responsibility.”

 

[Researcher]

I would really like to know how many woman would die fi aboration was completely banned. I have a hard time with other medical options avialable today that there would be any.

Abortion is the human sacrafice of a fetus, end of story. Many claim it is for the health of the mother but in reality it is the human sacrafice for recreational sex.

The death penalty does not keep anyone from committing horable crimes.

Contraception turns the spouce into a sexual object and erodes true love and kicks God out of the relationship.

If one is to be a child of God there will be no place for contraception, abortion, or the death penalty.

 

[Chancellare]

You would let both die instead of save one? Doesn’t sound very pro-life to me. This is what I meant in my previous post.
If a pregnancy threatens the mother’s life, then morally it is the right thing to do to save her life rather than let two lives be lost. It’s all very well to say both lives should be saved but in the real world that is not always possible. So going back to the scenario, which is realistic I should add, you would let two lives be lost instead of just one?

The phrase “to give birth will kill both your wife and your son” is a vague hypothetical medical scenario in real life. Assuming that it is ectopic or other cases of abnormal pregnancy, the medical procedure to ensure the survival of the mother and the living fetus is now so advanced that the dilemma of the surgeon to kill any of them is close to zero, unless you specifically tell him that you prefer to lose the fetus no matter what.

But since you are trying to argue that it is ok to kill the fetus in order to save a human life, you will always find the best scenario to prove that it is ok to do so.

Sorry if I may sound being uncharitable which is not intended.

 

[jack_hawkins]

The phrase “to give birth will kill both your wife and your son” is a vague hypothetical medical scenario in real life. Assuming that it is ectopic or other cases of abnormal pregnancy, the medical procedure to ensure the survival of the mother and the living fetus is now so advanced that the dilemma of the surgeon to kill any of them is close to zero, unless you specifically tell him that you prefer to lose the fetus no matter what.

But since you are trying to argue that it is ok to kill the fetus in order to save a human life, you will always find the best scenario to prove that it is ok to do so.

Sorry if I may sound being uncharitable which is not intended.

It’s not being uncharitable, it’s putting your head in the sand. And I wasn’t referring to giving birth actually but continuing the pregnancy. It certainly *isn’t * a vague hypothetical medical scenario, and I am not sure why you say that. You are finding a reason to not confront a genuine scenario with incorrect medical information.

I have found this attitude before, and I find it a symptom of weak faith in my opinion. Do you want me to present you specific medical scenarios to show you this isn’t vague and hypothetical? Then we discuss the medical side and demonstrate that the foetus/pregnancy can be the (with present technology/knowledge) the cause of disease for which the only rememdy is removal of the cause?

PS I hope that is a typo, “assuming it is not ectopic pregnancy” makes more sense and also acknowledges my argument as valid BTW:thumbsup:

 

[jack_hawkins]

It is the crux. Is your philosophy that it’s okay to kill someone who’s going to die anyway, if it saves another? You’ve stated plainly that it is.

The example I gave caused you to shy away from considering the implications of your own philosophy.

It is Catholic teaching that it’s never right to deliberately do evil, even to bring about a greater good. The question of whether to deliberately kill an unborn baby (even if she’s going to die anyway) to save her mother, is a slam-dunk for Catholics.

You shouldn’t be so flabbergasted that we actually follow this well-known teaching.

Peace.
John

What a massive straw man argument!
I have stated plainly that the two situations are not equivalent, and you persevere in basically lying but telling me what I’ve said when I haven’t said that.
Can a foetus before a certain stage survive without the mother as a life support system?
YES or NO?
Then we can move on logically.

 

[jack_hawkins]

Here’s what the experts say about “necessary” abortions:

Dr. Joseph P. Donelly, former Medical Director of Margaret Hague Hospital, New Jersey, said: “Abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother…Those who advocate abortion to save the life of the mother are either ignorant or insincere.”

Dr. Roy S. Heffernan, speaking to the ‘Congress of the American College of Surgeons’, said: “Anyone who performs a therapeutic abortion (i.e. to save the mother’s life) is either ignorant of modern methods of treating the complications of pregnancy or is unwilling to take time to use them.”

C.J. Williams said: “Under no circumstances whatsoever must surgeons assume the place of God and destroy life contrary to the Divine Law - even in such cases where the life of the mother is seriously endangered by the travail of birth, because the doctor’s only and sworn responsibility is to strive to preserve the lives of mother and baby and not to become the executor of one to save the other. They have no mandate to do such a thing. The medical community is strictly limited by God as to its authority, and answerable directly to Him for the abuse of that responsibility.”

The “experts” eh?
So now I can cite other experts, who actually work in the field of foetal medicine (do any of these?) who say different.
Could you produce citations so that these statements and the qualifications of these experts can be checked? Heffernan RS gets no hits at all on PubMed - so he’s no “expert”! What have the American Congres of Surgeons to do with obstetrics anyway? Not very much! CJ Williams is on PubMed, whether or not it is the same one we don’t know.
How about I tell you I have spoken to one of the foremost medical gynaecologists on the UK?

 

[john_ennis]

What a massive straw man argument!
I have stated plainly that the two situations are not equivalent, and you persevere in basically lying but telling me what I’ve said when I haven’t said that.
Can a foetus before a certain stage survive without the mother as a life support system?
YES or NO?
Then we can move on logically.

The situations are equivalent in the most crucial way: if the person is *going to die anyway, *you hold that it’s right to actively kill that person, if so doing can save another.

Sorry if I didn’t make it clear that my hypothetical situation had that aspect to it as well.

Catholics hold that the active killing of another (BTW, the answer to your question is NO, of course) is never right, irrespective of whether he’s going to die anyway.

Your anger, and calling people liars, isn’t helpful. This is about right and wrong, not you and whoever you’re conversing with.

Peace.
John

 

[jack_hawkins]

The situations are equivalent in the most crucial way: if the person is *going to die anyway, *you hold that it’s right to actively kill that person, if so doing can save another.

Sorry if I didn’t make it clear that my hypothetical situation had that aspect to it as well.

Catholics hold that the active killing of another (BTW, the answer to your question is NO, of course) is never right, irrespective of whether he’s going to die anyway.

Your anger, and calling people liars, isn’t helpful. This is about right and wrong, not you and whoever you’re conversing with.

Peace.
John

There’s nothing wrong with righteous anger. I totally agree this is about right and wrong.
There is still a vital difference between the situations - the foetus relies on the mother for life. If the foetus is viable then naturally delivery is an option but if it isn’t then inducing labour is effectively abortion. In actual fact death of the foetus is a side-effect of separating the mother from the cause of her disease.
Killing in self-defence is morally acceptable, agreed???

 

[Chancellare]

It’s not being uncharitable, it’s putting your head in the sand. And I wasn’t referring to giving birth actually but continuing the pregnancy.
Are you disowning your previous statement or changing what you wanted to say?

It certainly *isn’t * a vague hypothetical medical scenario, and I am not sure why you say that. You are finding a reason to not confront a genuine scenario with incorrect medical information.

Saving BOTH the fetus and the mother is not confronting “a genuine scenario”?

I have found this attitude before, and I find it a symptom of weak faith in my opinion. Do you want me to present you specific medical scenarios to show you this isn’t vague and hypothetical? Then we discuss the medical side and demonstrate that the foetus/pregnancy can be the (with present technology/knowledge) the cause of disease for which the only rememdy is removal of the cause?

So now the fetus is the cause of the disease and therefore should be removed?

The reasoning
“refusing to provide condoms to stop AIDS is like refusing police officers bullet-proof jakcets”
explains it all:

If “Condoms” = “bullet proof jackets for police officers”
Then “fornication” must be = “to serve and protect”

 

[jack_hawkins]

The reasoning
“refusing to provide condoms to stop AIDS is like refusing police officers bullet-proof jakcets”
explains it all:

If “Condoms” = “bullet proof jackets for police officers”
Then “fornication” must be = “to serve and protect”

Huh? It explains nothing
what a leap of presumption
and what a massive non sequitur - condoms = fornication?
HUH?

 

[jack_hawkins]

Originally Posted by jack hawkins
*It’s not being uncharitable, it’s putting your head in the sand. And I wasn’t referring to giving birth actually but continuing the pregnancy.
Are you disowning your previous statement or changing what you wanted to say?*HUH? Try reading what I said? It was you introduced the concept - I quote ‘The phrase “to give birth will kill both your wife and your son”.’
*certainly isn’t a vague hypothetical medical scenario, and I am not sure why you say that. You are finding a reason to not confront a genuine scenario with incorrect medical information.

Saving BOTH the fetus and the mother is not confronting “a genuine scenario”?*No, not with the scenario I present.

*I have found this attitude before, and I find it a symptom of weak faith in my opinion. Do you want me to present you specific medical scenarios to show you this isn’t vague and hypothetical? Then we discuss the medical side and demonstrate that the foetus/pregnancy can be the (with present technology/knowledge) the cause of disease for which the only remedy is removal of the cause?

So now the fetus is the cause of the disease and therefore should be removed?*Yes that is my exact point. Do you understand now?

 

[Chancellare]

Huh? It explains nothing
what a leap of presumption

Then this shows that syllogism is not for everyone.

 

[elvisman]

There’s nothing wrong with righteous anger. I totally agree this is about right and wrong.
There is still a vital difference between the situations - the foetus relies on the mother for life. If the foetus is viable then naturally delivery is an option but if it isn’t then inducing labour is effectively abortion. In actual fact death of the foetus is a side-effect of separating the mother from the cause of her disease.
Killing in self-defence is morally acceptable, agreed???

Jack –
This is not “righteous anger”. To use your own words, “this is about right and wrong”.
I sincerely hope you believe this because you CANNOT rationalize what is right or wrong.
I see by your profile that you are an RCIA catechumen. You really need to consider all of your secular reasonings before entering the Church.
I found your signature line, “refusing to provide condoms to stop AIDS is like refusing police officers bullet-proof jackets” quite disturbing as well.
As a catechumen, you must know that this is in stark opposition to the teachings of the Catholic Church. Again, according to your profile which says that you are a physician, you would know that condoms are not reliable protection against aids. Not to mention the fact that the church prohibits artificial contraception – under penalty of mortal sin.
In fact, until the Episcopal Lambeth Conference in 1930, EVERY Christian Church – Catholic and Protestant – was vehemently opposed to artificial contraception. Although some Protestant denominations are coming back to the truth and speaking against artificial contraception, the Catholic Church alone bears the brunt of the so-called “righteous anger” of the liberal masses on the subject.
Please consider all of these things before entering the Church and receiving our Lord in the Holy Eucharist.

 

[Jayda]

As a Catholic, I am 100% pro-life - ie: I don’t believe in abortion, birth control, and other means that stop life?

I know some Protestants think the same, but what do your church and you, as a non-Catholic Christians, say about this?

If you are pro-choice? Do you support life? could you prove that?

I just wanted to learn your point of views on this matter.
Thanks!

hola,

i think consider myself pro life, i am against abortion, contraceptives defined by Humae Vitae, the death penalty and war, and i am for social welfare, universal health care, abstinence, strengthening the integrity of the family and animal rights.

Dios te bendiga

 

[jack_hawkins]

I sincerely hope you believe this because you CANNOT rationalize what is right or wrong.

Huh? Of course you can - it can be demonstrated in the scriptures in fact. What about St Jerome?

you would know that condoms are not reliable protection against aids.

OK - try again. As a physician I know condoms prevent the transmission of HIV/AIDS. That’s the scientific truth, unpalatable as it might be.

really need to consider all of your secular reasonings

what secular reasoning?