When only one can live

[Sister_Amy]

You cannot attack the fetus. If the mother is treated and the indirect result is the death of the fetus, then it can be tolerated. But not a direct attack on the fetus. For example, if the mother receives chemo which is meant for cancer and not an abortifacient (I mean it is but who uses chemo to abort? Obviously the intention for chemo is not to abort).

I can’t imagine a birth scenario that will cause death that can be saved by abortion but not by c-section.

Thanks–great answer.

 

[Alix1912]

I still ask…Why are you trying to find that one rarer than rare situation? Why all the hypothetical situations that practically cannot exist in the real world? What is the end goal of your questioning?

 

[Sufjon]

I can’t imagine a birth scenario that will cause death that can be saved by abortion but not by c-section.

You guys might make me laugh, except for the fact that some poor woman might take this sort of talk seriously. There are numerous scenarios where continuing with a pregnancy long enough to perform a C-Section gravely endangers the life of the woman. Many of these are detailed in the Congressional Record (4520, April 5th, 2000) and still more can be cited easily. I hope that we can take into consideration the full gravity of leveraging religious influence and pressure on a woman to to an extent that would cause her the terror of laying down her life. While it is admirable to have the courage to die for someone else, it is not something that can be mandated by law and should not be imposed on real women in a real world by old men who are insulated from such realities and have no chance of being put in that situation themselves. If a child’s life is more important than the life of a grown woman, then I would like to see the rationale for that. If that is the case, then why do we not have a doctrine that requires religious zealots to sacrifice their own living hearts every time a child in their community needs a heart transplant?

Sister Amy: If you have a friend in that situation, her life was given to her by God to live. How she lives it is between her and Him. She doesn’t need a bunch of old men as council or as arbitrators.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[agent_grey]

Yes, that would be a serious reason to avoid pregnancy so *birth control *would be appropriate. Contraception, however, would not be permitted. It never is.

Either you or the church that taught you is unaware that birth controls final defence against pregnancy is infact abortion.

Using birth control is like playing the casino. It is very well possible that the gamble of using birth control will result in the murder of an unborn.

 

[Loboto-Me]

Either you or the church that taught you is unaware that birth controls final defence against pregnancy is infact abortion.

Using birth control is like playing the casino. It is very well possible that the gamble of using birth control will result in the murder of an unborn.

I don’t think you read Corki’s post properly. I believe that he was trying to say that Birth Control, and Contraception are two different things.

Natural family planning IS controlling birth, contraception is artificial.

I do believe you are right as well that contraception’s final defence against pregnancy is often abortion.

 

[Sister_Amy]

I’m just curious, which is your particular branch of Islam and where does it stand on the issue?

What are the branches of Islam? I never heard of Islam having branches.

But as for the stand Islam takes on abortion: islamqa.com/en/ref/42321

 

[Sister_Amy]

I still ask…Why are you trying to find that one rarer than rare situation? Why all the hypothetical situations that practically cannot exist in the real world? What is the end goal of your questioning?

I’m being led to the conclusion that the Catholic church is so vehemently anti-abortion that it is blinded regarding the mother.

I don’t support abortion at all, but I think some have gone to an extreme in their opposition.

 

[ConstantineTG]

You guys might make me laugh, except for the fact that some poor woman might take this sort of talk seriously. There are numerous scenarios where continuing with a pregnancy long enough to perform a C-Section gravely endangers the life of the woman. Many of these are detailed in the Congressional Record (4520, April 5th, 2000) and still more can be cited easily. I hope that we can take into consideration the full gravity of leveraging religious influence and pressure on a woman to to an extent that would cause her the terror of laying down her life. While it is admirable to have the courage to die for someone else, it is not something that can be mandated by law and should not be imposed on real women in a real world by old men who are insulated from such realities and have no chance of being put in that situation themselves. If a child’s life is more important than the life of a grown woman, then I would like to see the rationale for that. If that is the case, then why do we not have a doctrine that requires religious zealots to sacrifice their own living hearts every time a child in their community needs a heart transplant?

Sister Amy: If you have a friend in that situation, her life was given to her by God to live. How she lives it is between her and Him. She doesn’t need a bunch of old men as council or as arbitrators.

Your friend
Sufjon

You make me laugh because you didn’t even bother to understand what I said. I said BIRTH scenario. Which means the child is big and can be delivered. I don’t know why the child can’t just be delivered and have to be aborted. A birth scenario is different from the pregnancy period. Besides, unless your aborting a tiny fetus, abortion is a surgical procedure and would cause loss of blood. How is it is different from a c-section?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’m being led to the conclusion that the Catholic church is so vehemently anti-abortion that it is blinded regarding the mother.

I don’t support abortion at all, but I think some have gone to an extreme in their opposition.

The Church isn’t blided by the scenario of the mom. But many are blinded to the scenario of the child. The Church sees both lives equally important. Those who opt for abortion see that the life of the mom is more important than the life of the child. Both lives are of equal value.

 

[GaryTaylor]

In a situation with the baby in the first trimester, then the baby will be aborted to save the Mothers life. “If” the mothers life is in danger. Otherwise you have two deaths. The baby is not living at the first trimester without the mother. So whats the point?

This has nothing to do with Legal Abortion, you do realize this? This is emergency medical now. One has nothing to do with the other and there still wouldn’t need be Planned Parenthoods around the country like McDonalds setting up abortions, for those who chose using abortion as birth control.

 

[ConstantineTG]

In a situation with the baby in the first trimester, then the baby will be aborted to save the Mothers life. “If” the mothers life is in danger. Otherwise you have two deaths. The baby is not living at the first trimester without the mother. So whats the point?

This has nothing to do with Legal Abortion, you do realize this? This is emergency medical now. One has nothing to do with the other and there still wouldn’t need be Planned Parenthoods around the country like McDonalds setting up abortions, for those who chose using abortion as birth control.

Abortion in any instance is not allowed. The mom has to be treated with the right treatment. If the treatment results in the death of the child, then it is an unfortunate but also unintended effect. By performing and abortion, there is a direct intent to kill the child.

 

[Rence]

So is a woman allowed or not allowed to get a hysterectomy?

The Church allows a woman to get a hysterectomy if the uterus is diseasd/cancerous/damaged due to trauma. But they do not allow for a woman to have a hysterectomy to sterilize her. The primary purpose must be to treat a condition related to the uterus. The primary purpose cannot be to sterilize.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Abortion in any instance is not allowed. The mom has to be treated with the right treatment. If the treatment results in the death of the child, then it is an unfortunate but also unintended effect. By performing and abortion, there is a direct intent to kill the child.

I hear what your saying. But were still talking seperate instances. I’m saying the mothers life is in immediate ER trauma because of the baby, vital signs crashing the whole nine… And the right treatment is to abort the baby with no other alternative?

I don’t know, does it happen? I could find out tommorrow my nephews a Doctor and also Catholic College educated.

Definately some perfect storm senerio, I’m not even sure is possible.

 

[Alix1912]

What are the branches of Islam? I never heard of Islam having branches.QUOTE] Ummm. Aren’t the Shiites and the Sunni’s just two examples of branches of Islam? Just a side note…
GaryTaylor;7544196:

In a situation with the baby in the first trimester, then the baby will be aborted to save the Mothers life. “If” the mothers life is in danger. Otherwise you have two deaths. The baby is not living at the first trimester without the mother. So whats the point?

It is extremely rare for a first trimester complication to arrise that doesn’t itself result in a natural miscarriage or death of the baby (ie tubal pregnancy). Most issues arrise late in the pregnancy when the baby can survive on it’s own with medical intervention.

The Church allows a woman to get a hysterectomy if the uterus is diseasd/cancerous/damaged due to trauma. But they do not allow for a woman to have a hysterectomy to sterilize her. The primary purpose must be to treat a condition related to the uterus. The primary purpose cannot be to sterilize.

Again as I have stated above…no good doctor is going to perform a hysterectomy solely for sterilization purposes. There has to be something wrong with the uterus.

 

[Alix1912]

I hear what your saying. But were still talking seperate instances. I’m saying the mothers life is in immediate ER trauma because of the baby, vital signs crashing the whole nine… And the right treatment is to abort the baby with no other alternative?

I don’t know, does it happen? I could find out tommorrow my nephews a Doctor and also Catholic College educated.

Definately some perfect storm senerio, I’m not even sure is possible.

I think this would be a 1 in like a billion scenario. And it is likely they baby has suffered trama as well. Again we cannot make rules or doctrine on the 1 in a billion scenario.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I hear what your saying. But were still talking seperate instances. I’m saying the mothers life is in immediate ER trauma because of the baby, vital signs crashing the whole nine… And the right treatment is to abort the baby with no other alternative?

I don’t know, does it happen? I could find out tommorrow my nephews a Doctor and also Catholic College educated.

Definately some perfect storm senerio, I’m not even sure is possible.

I don’t think there is such a scenario. I’ve seen this hypothetical scenario thrown out in a lot of abortion conversations, but have yet to come across an actual scenario. In many cases the child itself is dying or already dead. If the child is dead, then there is no abortion.

If you find such an actual scenario, please do share. It will shed some light in the debate.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Church allows a woman to get a hysterectomy if the uterus is diseasd/cancerous/damaged due to trauma. But they do not allow for a woman to have a hysterectomy to sterilize her. The primary purpose must be to treat a condition related to the uterus. The primary purpose cannot be to sterilize.

Yes, intention is always important. A man cannot have a vasectomy, but he can have his testes removed if he has testicular cancer. The intention must always be for treatment of another disease and not sterilization to prevent pregnancy.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I think this would be a 1 in like a billion scenario. And it is likely they baby has suffered trama as well. Again we cannot make rules or doctrine on the 1 in a billion scenario.

Thats right, and I’d be the first to admit, even trying to create a senerio, I honestly don’t know what they do.

 

[Rence]

Again as I have stated above…no good doctor is going to perform a hysterectomy solely for sterilization purposes. There has to be something wrong with the uterus.

I wasn’t answering any questions about what a doctor would or wouldn’t do. I was answering Sister Amy’s question about what is allowed and not allowed regarding hysterectomies.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Thats right, and I’d be the first to admit, even trying to create a senerio, I honestly don’t know what they do.

Every diocese would have an expert on such moral issues who can be consulted on the matter.