Where I struggle with abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter YourNameHere
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes you are right. And they go on to say it’s not a question that has been decided by the church. So I’m no theologian. I

The other thing I’d ask is that in the cases of a “mother with a fatal condition” (and abortion laws include ‘mental isiues’ which is subjective hogwash imo)what condition would require killing the baby? St Gianna was canonized because of her appeal to “save the baby.” That case in itself is contradictory to this idea.
 
Last edited:
Everything seems to be what is good for the baby.
What about the person who was raped?
What about those in her family?
She is expected to have the baby and to raise the baby. And her family is supposed to support the child?
Yes, I get it, the baby is innocent. But is was the mother and so are her family members.
All conceived beings have a right to life, but their rights do not supercede the rights of others.
When a couple have a baby that is an act of love, and that couple and their family are responsible for loving and raising that child.
Rape is an act of violence
Thought a pregnancy that results may be the same thing, it is not the same thing as two people in love having a baby.
Why not just allow for adoption?
 
berniemcken said:
strong text

Um no it’s not permissible according to the church’s teaching. What religion are you? Or is that Pope TK421’s teaching?
Click to expand...
It’s the teaching of the Catholic Church. A decision that inadvertently results in the death of the child to save the mother is permissible.

I am unimpressed with your rudeness.
 
Last edited:
Where did I say that? I did NOT say anywhere in my post that abortion is licit to save the life of the mother. I do not believe that it is.

I think you are confusing me with the person to whom I replied, TK421, who was also the initial poster to whom you replied.

I said that maybe that person, TK421, was referring to situations where abortion occurred as an indirect side effect of a medical treatment to save the life of the mother. You then said that only applied to a tubal pregnancy. I said it was not limited to tubal pregnancy, you posted a document that I read and said that it did not apply only to tubal pregnancy, you agreed, I said OK we agree, then you come out with this accusation that I said abortion was licit?

Please kindly go back through the thread and see what I actually wrote and do NOT accuse me of saying abortion is licit. I have never believed that in my entire life!
 
Last edited:
YourNameHere said:
Everything seems to be what is good for the baby.
What about the person who was raped?
What about those in her family?
She is expected to have the baby and to raise the baby. And her family is supposed to support the child?
Yes, I get it, the baby is innocent. But is was the mother and so are her family members.
All conceived beings have a right to life, but their rights do not supercede the rights of others.
When a couple have a baby that is an act of love, and that couple and their family are responsible for loving and raising that child.
Rape is an act of violence
Thought a pregnancy that results may be the same thing, it is not the same thing as two people in love having a baby.
Why not just allow for adoption?
Click to expand...
If you don’t have a right to life, then there are no rights at all and you can’t defend any rights at all. You have no right to kill a child to avoid poverty.

For a Catholic, there is no right to deny the Cross. You will suffer in life, that’s a given. Woe to the man who denies the cross in order to make his life easy. Suffer with Christ by doing right and your burden will be light. Suffer without him and run from suffering and the burden is hell.
 
Any any abortion performed to save the life of the Mother is intrinsically evil. So WE agree.
 
Catechism:

2271* Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae ,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation :

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights."81

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I just said I agreed with you on the tubal pregnancy issue that you and I were discussing (the ONLY issue I thought we were discussing) and you came back at me above claiming we did NOT agree and claiming I said abortion was licit, and also making some personal comments/ attacks. I have flagged it for the moderator to sort out.

I am leaving the thread now, as this conversation has become impossible to follow. Good day.
 
Last edited:
This is not a hot topic. The issue is well settled and has longstanding precedent. I am not indulging in walltexting.
 
Last edited:
My understanding is that you said that the church taught the abortion is permitted when the mother’s life is at risk in cases other than tubal pregnancies… I can’t find the post but that is what I read. Correct if wrong but that’s what I thought you were defending!
 
The medical ethics document you yourself posted clearly applied to cases other than tubal pregnancies.
Also, regardless of what you think I said, your personal insults to me in the post above that I flagged violate TOS.

I’m done with this thread. Like I said, it’s become like “Who’s On First” - impossible to follow what you are saying or to have a reasonable discussion. Bye.
 
Last edited:
Abortion is a mortal sin, plain and simple. But don’t feel like you’re alone, I know many Catholics who say “I won’t have an abortion but support the women’s right to her own body”. The disguise for saying I support abortion. That too is a sin, plain and simple!
 
Last edited:
Well I apologize. I didn’t mean it to digress and I really sincerely thought that’s what you meant. I forgive you for being patronizing to me a few months ago and I wasn’t trying to mischaracterize you. I seriously thought you were including regular pregnancy in your idea of “ending a pregnancy to save the life of the mother.”
 
berniemcken said:
The end doesn’t justify the means. Ever. No matter what emotional, relativistic reasining you apply. A life is a life—an innocent human being deserves the right to live no matter how she came to be…
Click to expand...
Slow down here friend. Babies are as much a human as any walking around. So we agree here. Now let’s review some related points outside abortion.
  1. If a woman is to die to give her child life, would you be comfortable jumping on a bomb to save others? Would you be comfortable ordering someone to do so? Would you expect this to be church teaching?
  2. The US has laws that allow someone to kill another simply because that person “felt threatened”. Certainly the rape scenario is far worse as violation. The US sends armies enforce its will, even if the motive are good innocent people get killed simply because they were in the wrong place, however it’s OK to dehumanizine the as collateral damage…as if they are destroyed property.
berniemcken said:
Who’s your higher power? Yourself?
Click to expand...
No, I’m not my own God. I only know there are rarely simplistic answers to life. I’m humbled enough to admit that we are broken humans who have no real ability to realize the Kingdom of God on Earth because we are intrinsically selfish or have honest limits on what we can do about it.
 
Last edited:
FWIW I have said “direct abortion” versus the indirect effect of death. I think that’s where this entire conversatiom derailed. Direct abortion. Direct abortion in every circumstance is evil.
 
Nothing you say changes the fact that everyone has a right to life, from conception until natural death.

I’ll ask what I asked earlier… what medical conditions would require a direct abortion and not a cesarean to save the life of the mother?
 
One example I have heard used is a cancerous or otherwise profoundly diseased uterus in pregnancy.

The uterus could be removed in order to take the diseased organ out of the body if this will save the life of the woman even though the fetus is not yet viable outside the womb and would die in the process.
 
Through this act of unspeakable violence, the pregnant woman has the chance to do one of the most noble acts in the world. To carry the pregnancy to term and then to place that child with a family who is longing for a baby. Placing a child for adoption is beauty blossoming out of the violence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top