C
CrimsonThorn
Guest
No can do, sorry. Sometimes fetuses miraculously live even when a doctor has deemed them not viable. So this is only your opinion in which you REGARD fetuses not viable.
- Status
M
MichaelNamb
Guest
I believe what they mean is that induction at 17 weeks means the child would certainly die. A fetus has never survived that young out of the womb. Therefor, knowing that induction would result in a 0% chance of survival, it would be indistinguishable from abortion because it would simply be an act of terminating a pregnancy knowing it would lead to the death of a child.
As medical technology continues to advance, this certainly may change.
M
MichaelNamb
Guest
I think you’ve lost me. I’m certainly not arguing against terminating a pregnancy in such a way that attempts are made to save the fetus, however unlikely - for instance, through induced labor or a C-section. I am only against forcing the mother to use her body to sustain the fetus if she is threatened by said pregnancy.
My point is that a child at least for some time** is dependent upon the mother’s body for survival. This is a verifiable fact, and it is also a verifiable fact that in some rare instances this relationship can threaten the life and health of the mother.
This is different from Hitler’s inaccurate perception that Jews were parasites dependent on Germans, and their existence threatened the German people.
C
CrimsonThorn
Guest
Not says me, says Objective Truth
The internet is an extention of communication, we know God gives us the authority to communicate.
Chemotherapy is an extension treating the sick, we kmow He gives us authority to treat and care for the sick.
Abortion is an extension of MURDER, in which God has never given authority to murder. In fact its one of the Ten Commandments!
Hope that helps.
J
juandimaunahan
Guest
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion
Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to viability
thats what i keep telling you man.
moving to another place = killing the unviable fetus = abortion
M
MichaelNamb
Guest
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)Not says me, says Objective Truth
The internet is an extention of communication, we know God gives us the authority to communicate.
Chemotherapy is an extension treating the sick, we kmow He gives us authority to treat and care for the sick.
Abortion is an extension of MURDER, in which God has never given authority to murder. In fact its one of the Ten Commandments!
Hope that helps.
If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)
A priest’s daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)
The Bible is full on instances of God saying when it is okay to kill people.
“Murder” is a legal term. It means killing someone in a way that is against the law, especially with malicious intent. Murder is only what society defines as it. For instance, one society might categorize a killing as murder, another society might define the same killing as manslaughter, or negligence.
Do you believe that it should be illegal for a human to use necessary deadly force against a human who is attacking them, even if the person attacking them is suffering from an injury or pathology that makes them delusional, meaning they are attacking out of illness, not malice or immorality? Do you believe God is against using deadly force to protect yourself in such a situation?
Do you realize that the basis for the ten commandments first appeared in the Egyptian Book of the Dead, long, long before Moses was alleged to have lived?
In fact, from extensive reading of the Bible and Egyptian mythology, it seems that pretty much all the main stories from the Bible are just retelling of earlier Egyptian myths. Your worship of Jesus is really just based of the story and worship of Osiris.
Interestingly, when Moses was supposed to have lived is one of the most recorded periods of Egyptian history, because Rameses was one of (if not the) longest lived pharoahs. He was extremely prolific, and we have a huge amount of historical records from the time when he lived. Not just from Egyptians either. They were such an influential and powerful empire that historians outside of Egypt wrote much about them as well. In all the written and archaeological history from that time period, there is not one mention nor one bit of evidence for Moses, the plagues, or the Exoudus. In fact, there is not one bit of evidence that suggests that Jews were ever enslaved (at least on a wide, institutionalized level) in Egypt.
However, there is an ancient Egyptian myth about a baby who, to escape a mass slaughter, was put in a basket and floated down the river in a basket of reeds, where he was found by Pharoah’s wife, and adopted as a Prince of Egypt.
The writers of Exodus took this ancient myth, and the commandments from the Egyptian book of the dead, and tweaked them to create the Moses myth.
L
littlechicken
Guest
What exactly is the dilemna that you are having? I am not understanding where you are coming from on this. Please clarify. Are you saying that since the child is not ‘viable’, it is okay to end his/her life ? Because, though the child is innocently doing so, he/she is harming the life of the mother? And the mother’s life is more relevant? Please clarify.
J
Jimmygill88
Guest
I really really need to understand this. I know the story. I also think that I understand that the removal of a Fallopian tube because of an ectopic pregnancy isn’t considered an abortion because the objective aim is to save a woman’s life rather than kill a child. What I do not understand is this case. As the poor woman was fully dilated at 17 weeks could labour not have been induced. Loosing amniotic fluids and full dilation would seem to indicate labour had started. If medics had induced with the intention of merely assisting nature would that not have been permissible? I’m a very ‘liberal’ Catholic on many issues. However abortion always horrifies me. But this case has disturbed me greatly. I hope that someone can point me in the direction of a definitive Church teaching on this, rather than sharing an opinion (as much as I value the opinions of posters on here). I’m very very perturbed by this
M
MichaelNamb
Guest
I am saying it is okay to end their life if the mother is in danger as a result of the pregnancy, not necessarily simply for the convenience of the mother. Of course, if this can be done in such a way as to allow for the possibility of saving the child, however remote (such as inducing labor for a fetus that is younger than any fetus that has ever survived delivery), that would be the best method. I certainly do not advocate needlessly killing a fetus to save the mother when a method can be utilized that could possibly save them.
But I do not believe that, if there is an inavoidable choice between saving a child likely to live or saving a mother, the law should compell the mother to sacrifice herself. She should be allowed to abort the fetus in order to preserve her life, the same way I would be allowed to kill a brain injured person trying to kill me through no fault of their own.
Some have argued that God has never permitted man to kill (which is false, even if you are a Bible believer, because God often ordered or gave people permission to kill). However, I doubt such people would argue that self defense laws should be abolished and that we should not be able to defend our own lives against others trying to kill us - even if those others are attacking us due to brain injury or pathology and not malice.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
Ghosty
Jim
My daughter had an ultrasound and it showed the fetus not developing properly. Essentially, his little bones were breaking as they grew. The caused his chest cavity to stop growing not making room for his heart and lungs. So, they recommended terminating the pregnancy, through inducing labor. That’s when I contacted Priest for Life and they said inducing labor would be illicit. Her life was not at risk at that point, but it became so after the baby’s heart stopped beating. I guess having a dead fetus, should trigger labor, but it didn’t and removal was necessary.
Thanks
Jim
T
thewanderer
Guest
Then this is simply a matter of equivocation.
I have clearly shown through the principle of double effect that removing an infant at that age is not always immoral, in other words, when the Church calls abortion an intrinsic evil it is not using the same definition of abortion as this one you found on wikipedia, which is why I say again that you have, in fact, completely failed to understand the principle of double-effect.
T
thewanderer
Guest
I guess thats my point though, under the principal of double-effect this is still not problematic. It is only the direct and intentional killing of the child which is intrinsically evil. Many people do not make this distinction between acts which directly or intentionally kill a child from those which only cause the death of the child as a side effect.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
thewanderer
If it’s a spontaneous abortion such as in a miscarriage, it is not immoral.
However, if the fetus is killed directly, it is an a direct abortion and immoral.
Removing a fetus from the womb before viability, is a direct abortion, because the effect is the direct killing of the fetus. This is according to Church teaching and the double effect principle.
Jim
If removal of the fetus is what causes it’s death, it is immoral according to the Church. It’s the direct killing of the fetus, regardless.
The Church defines abortion as the termination of a pregnancy, for whatever reason.
If it’s a spontaneous abortion such as in a miscarriage, it is not immoral.
However, if the fetus is killed directly, it is an a direct abortion and immoral.
Removing a fetus from the womb before viability, is a direct abortion, because the effect is the direct killing of the fetus. This is according to Church teaching and the double effect principle.
Jim
G
Ghosty
Guest
Again, I’m sorry for your loss.
This explains the situation much more clearly, and I happen to agree with the Priest for Life in this case. The distinction is that in your daughter’s case the delivery of the child would have been solely for the purpose of getting the child out of the picture sooner; this would absolutely be murder and unacceptable. There was no pressing health need to risk the child’s life (as short as it would be), and certainly no reason to murder it.
In the hypothetical I’m talking about (and the case in Ireland) the mother is already in labor, a miscarriage is in progress, the amniotic sac is ruptured and therefore the womb is compromised. The child will certainly die shortly, the mother is exposed to a serious risk of life threatening infection and other complications, and barring other medical complications the best thing is for the labor to end ASAP and the woman’s body to close back up. For this to happen the child needs to be delivered, and though the child has practically no chance of survival outside the womb (there’s always a first) they also have zero chance of survival in the womb, and so long as the child is in there the risk of infection grows by the minute. Getting the child out and trying to treat them, while also treating the mother with antibiotics and pain medication, is possibly the best course as it would improve the chances of survival for the mother and wouldn’t lessen them for the child (and the methods used to help the ultra-premie might lead to medical breakthroughs in treating such complications).
To use an analogy, in your daughter’s tragic case you had a terminally sick child on a ventilator, and the doctors were recommending turning the machines off and moving on. In my hypothetical you have a sick child on a ventilator in a burning building with a blizzard going on outside; taking the child of the machine and out into the cold will almost certainly result in their death, but you’re taking them out of the building to save them from the fire, not smother them in the snow.
Peace and God bless!
P
pepipop
Guest
wsm.ie/c/dub-never-again-march-savita-saturday-4pm-dublin?page=5
Unfortunately, as expected the pro-choicers are using this tragic death for their own agenda.
facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=3915013084184&set=oa.248842415243036&type=1&theater
Very brave nun but no doubt will only add more fuel to the fire, at this time.
Unfortunately, as expected the pro-choicers are using this tragic death for their own agenda.
facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=3915013084184&set=oa.248842415243036&type=1&theater
Very brave nun but no doubt will only add more fuel to the fire, at this time.
L
littlechicken
Guest
Then you agree with Catholic doctrine. What is the argument? This is the same conclusion, except, to determine the conscience of the parties involved. Which must be taken as their word.
To save the life of the mother, the removal of the baby is permissable, though it would ultimately lead to the child’s death.
To leave the child in the womb would certainly cause the child to die (one could argue that NOT removing the child to a ‘safer’ environment would be to murder him/her), so it is a certainty either way, and there should be no conflict as to what needs to be done.
M
MichaelNamb
Guest
It seems that there is a big split with this amongst pro life groups in Ireland. I have seen several of their statements released to the public. Some agree with you - that an induction that is not intended to kill the child (even if that will almost certainly be the result) is not abortion. Some are arguing that because it is virtually certain that induction will result in death, that the fetus will be non viable (their term of choice, not mine), an induction is the same as abortion. It seems the doctors in the hospital had this latter opinion.I guess thats my point though, under the principal of double-effect this is still not problematic. It is only the direct and intentional killing of the child which is intrinsically evil. Many people do not make this distinction between acts which directly or intentionally kill a child from those which only cause the death of the child as a side effect.
For me, I do think there is a distinction, because even though I would be okay with abortion if that were the only option, I would certainly say that induction should be used if that is an option instead of an abortion, as this at least gives the child a chance (however remote) at life. I agree with you that there is a difference between induction likely to result in death, and an outright abortion.
L
littlechicken
Guest
The difference being, an abortion, even in late term, requires the ‘ending’ of the childs life, BEFORE the child exits the birth canal. The intentional ending that is, not an occidental, or unintended event.
C
CrimsonThorn
Guest
I think we can both agree that you are not a theologian and you do not know how to interpret scripture within proper context
God never has allowed murder.
As for the Egyptian stuff: lies. The movie Zeitgeist also says a lot of these things, but this movie also blatantly lies.
There is historical proof of Moses, Christ, etc with or without Egypt. There is no historical proof or eye witness accounts for stories told in Egyptian mythology.
You are starting to derail the thread about the Ten Commandments but they are truly the laws of God, as confirmed by His Divine Son.
We have the Catechism, Magisterium, Holy Spirit, and 2,000 years of tradition that tells us what is right. What tells you? The media? Yourself?
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
And this is what many theologians are asking the Church to review.
The intention isn’t to kill the fetus, which is going to die or is dying along with the mother , if they do nothing.
The intent is to try and save both, but when only the mother can be saved, her life must be saved.
I think doctors agree with this and it seems that the Church needs to come up with a clear definition or we’re going to see the issue again and again.
Jim
- Status