Nun Automatically Excommunicated For Approving Abortion

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

So, anyone come up with an example of a procedure that would have saved both mother and child yet?

Yes, removing the baby without killing it.

There concern was with childbirth, which was a long way off. So they murdered the baby. They could have let it continue to grow and remove it at a more survivable time in development.

 

[LightHorseman]

Yes, removing the baby without killing it.

There concern was with childbirth, which was a long way off. So they murdered the baby. They could have let it continue to grow and remove it at a more survivable time in development.

a. Not murdered if the killing was legal.

b. Was removing the foetus without killing it a possibility? Was maintaining the pregnancy a viable option?

 

[Davidnic]

The intended purpose was to save the mother, the only one who even had a chance of survival. The Catholic church would rather turn a woman away for to die than to save her life at the expense of an unborn child who will never have an opportunity to live, abortion or not. I hope that McBride can find some solace in the fact that she saved as many lives as she could so selflessly, especially knowing that she would probably be excommunicated by people who can't see past such a flawed perception of the choice that was made.

I don't mean this to insult Catholicism, but things change and doctrine has even been known to change. I'm deeply saddened by the way that this woman is being treated, and I wish people understood that this was not an elective abortion in the same sense that a woman goes to Planned Parenthood to receive.

But you can not intend to save a life by taking an innocent one. The baby is not an unjust aggressor so they are innocent.

The point is that there are other methods other than a direct abortion that could have been used...anything with an chance to save both would be acceptable...no matter how remote that chance. But in the direct abortion there is no chance to save both and one life is given less dignity than the other.

 

[Davidnic]

So, anyone come up with an example of a procedure that would have saved both mother and child yet?

If you give us all the details of the medical situation sure. Or do you want a variety of medical situations and abortion alternatives at that stage of pregnancy? In almost all cases I have ever read about, when the full details are revealed there is usually a medical procedure that could have been done or something that could have lowered or equalized the risk. Since the Bishop has access to the Catholic hospital's ethics board to get more details than us I will err on the end that there was something. Someone is, of course, free to assume otherwise. But cases where there is absolutely no alternative are very rare. I can dig up references to validate that last sentence later if you like. But right not I just got in from my overnight job and am going to bed.

 

[Unashamed Jesus Freak]

I'm grateful to the Catholic Church for taking such a firm stand against abortion. I only wish more Protestant churches would follow their example.

 

[Rhamiel]

I'm grateful to the Catholic Church for taking such a firm stand against abortion. I only wish more Protestant churches would follow their example.

thank you

 

[2WhomShallWeGo]

This really makes no sense to me. Either the woman was going to die by continuing her pregnancy or she would not,

It is not ending a "pregnancy" it is ending a life.

according to the hospital there were no other options. Continuing the pregnancy would result in the death of both, and so ending the pregnancy would result in one life being saved.

Let me make this sentence clearer it should read:
according to the hospital there were no other options. allowing the child to live would result in the death of both, and so killing the child would result in one life being saved at by directly killing another.

I believe in a lot of things within Catholicism, but this is definitely not one of them.

the faith is not a cafeteria. you can't pick and choose dogmas. You are essentially telling us you are not catholic.

I have no doubt that McBride felt conflicted and considered all the options, what Catholic wouldn't?

I have serious doubts that she didn't consider all because I know there do exist procedures to save mothers in situations like this. Secondly the fact that she refers to the child as not a child but a pregnancy tells us all what we need to know about the slant of her convictions on this matter.

 

[2WhomShallWeGo]

According to everything it was an automatic thing, not like she said, "Oh btw, since I did this I guess I should be excommunicated."

Certain types of excommunications happen as a result of actions without anything being done by the bishop. Nobody need to wave their hands to excommunicate her. The nun in question did everything necissary. She is excommunicated. The bishop is just stating a fact.

 

[2WhomShallWeGo]

I do think its worth noting, however, that commiting adultery doesn't warrant spontaneous excomunication. I don't think even murder does, does it? (and for the record, I mean actual murder, as it is defined in the dictionary, not "murder" that people like to pretend abortion is)

Yes there is a specific type of murder that does. killing ones child does aka abortion.

 

[TheOtherHockeyMom]

spread some butter on her- she is toast

Wow, I don't condone what she did, but joking about someone's eternal fate after excommunication seems like a horrible thing to do.

 

[dinonum]

Will someone please share the other procedures that could have been done?

 

[2WhomShallWeGo]

Wow, I don't condone what she did, but joking about someone's eternal fate after excommunication seems like a horrible thing to do.

hmmm I didn't think he meant toast in that way, but now i think maybe he did.

I know, I wasn't thinking of her eventually becoming physically crispy and having her flesh melted away but I guess that is a likely possibility that will happen if she doesn't give this charade up. Makes you stop and think.
and that's not even the worst

<shiver...>

 

[2WhomShallWeGo]

You know it is worth noting that even if they couldn't extract the child. That they keep refering to him/her as a pregnancy. It seems likely to me that they she is in fact pro-abortion. If this is the case (and it certainly looks like it)then undoubtedly she is willing to kill the child no matter what the circumstances maybe.

 

[BAFRIEND]

Wow, I don't condone what she did, but joking about someone's eternal fate after excommunication seems like a horrible thing to do.

oh, but i was not joking

 

[Davidnic]

Will someone please share the other procedures that could have been done?

Depends on the condition involved. In many cases either something can be done to attempt to save both or to mitigate the risks.

After some looking in this case she had Pulmonary Hypertension a potentially fatal condition somewhere between 30-50%. In this case some things can be tried. One is a epoprostenol infusion. This is a fairly new procedure that has shown great promise and success.

Early recognition of PPH drops the mortality rate from 50% to 30%. The epoprostenol therapy before, during and after a C-section drops it further.

For a good overview of the condition plus multiple article sources on it see: Here

The issue is that often doctors will recommend termination before other options are attempted. So in addition we have the previously mentioned fact that the child was treated as the disease and the intent was not to help both but to kill one. Also the Sister attempted to justify the abortion as fitting with the Principle of Double effect and Catholic Dogma. That was not true since evil can never be done as the intent in order to do good.

We would view this the same as someone saying...you have a 30% change of dying but you can live if you kill the person next to you. There is no difference in dignity or rights between the fetus or the grown adult.

Zygote, Fetus, infant, toddler, child, teenager, young adult, adult, middle aged or senior citizen...they are all equal as people. From the moment of conception there is a human nature present. A human does not start as something else and become human that is not the way science or theology works. Once conceived all that changes are physical characteristics such as biological development not the nature of the being as human and all the rights given by God.

That is why to a Catholic and as proclaimed in unchangeable teaching by the Church (earliest recorded in 100 AD and confirmed as definitive Magisterial teaching by JPII) it would be the same to perform an abortion to save a life as it would be to shoot the person next to you to save a life.

 

[benedictaoo]

b. Was removing the foetus without killing it a possibility? Was maintaining the pregnancy a viable option?

Yes, they were worried over her giving birth, a good chance, maybe she could not survive it- not a absolute given she would ipso facto die if she would deliver.

as a medial person- you should know that no one even knows if you will in fact DIE. You know it's risky- but there is no guarantee that you will die, a good chance maybe but not a absolute chance.

Just like there is a good chance you will have a typical delivery with no risk- if you don't have health risks or issues, but there is no absolute guarantee. you may in fact find a non risk mother die too.


They could have waited and then deliverd but she wanted to just abort and take that way out.

That is an abortion plain and simple.

It's like me, who I'm high risk and If I were to get pregnant again- I'd be worried, honest to God worried as heck but I could not justify an abortion because there is a good chance I might not survive. The truth is, I do not know if I can't survive it, I may.

But even if I knew for a fact I could not survive- I would go as far as I could and hope for the best. You can't just kill a baby. I would not kill a born baby in my arms to save my own life, so why would I kill a unborn child of mine?

 

[Gwendolyn]

Well, in my moral theology class we learned about the principle of double effect. If the intended effect is to save the mother, performing a procedure that may result in the death of the child (if the death of the child is not directly willed) falls under the 'double effect' principle.

Mother and child will die if pregnancy continues. We can save mother's life, and then only one person may die instead of two people certainly dying. We perform a procedure that is intended to save the mother, not directly wanting or hoping the child to die, but the child does die anyway. My theology text says that is an acceptable application of the principle.

 

[Davidnic]

Well, in my moral theology class we learned about the principle of double effect. If the intended effect is to save the mother, performing a procedure that may result in the death of the child (if the death of the child is not directly willed) falls under the 'double effect' principle.

Mother and child will die if pregnancy continues. We can save mother's life, and then only one person may die instead of two people certainly dying. We perform a procedure that is intended to save the mother, not directly wanting or hoping the child to die, but the child does die anyway. My theology text says that is an acceptable application of the principle.

That's what I learned in Moral Theology too.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

a. Not murdered if the killing was legal.

b. Was removing the foetus without killing it a possibility? Was maintaining the pregnancy a viable option?

Of course its a possibility. Doctors can do premature extractions, induce early birth, and C-sections. Premature children are then put into an incubator to help fed them nutrients. Either way, there is no active killing or dismemberment of the child, that's the important thing...

One is a epoprostenol infusion. This is a fairly new procedure that has shown great promise and success.

Early recognition of PPH drops the mortality rate from 50% to 30%. The epoprostenol therapy before, during and after a C-section drops it further.

For a good overview of the condition plus multiple article sources on it see

True, it is written

We report a successful maternal-fetal outcome with epoprostenol therapy during pregnancy, cesarean section, and postpartum in a patient with PPH. Epoprostenol therapy did not produce any physical or developmental abnormalities in the fetus. A favorable maternal-fetal outcome may occur with a multidisciplinary approach. We report a successful maternal-fetal outcome in a pregnant woman in whom PPH was diagnosed who was treated with IV epoprostenol before, during, and after undergoing cesarean section.

I wonder why this option was never brought up to the woman?

 

[benedictaoo]

Well, in my moral theology class we learned about the principle of double effect. If the intended effect is to save the mother, performing a procedure that may result in the death of the child (if the death of the child is not directly willed) falls under the 'double effect' principle.

Mother and child will die if pregnancy continues. We can save mother's life, and then only one person may die instead of two people certainly dying. We perform a procedure that is intended to save the mother, not directly wanting or hoping the child to die, but the child does die anyway. My theology text says that is an acceptable application of the principle.

But they aborted the baby as the treatment to save the mom. the baby dieing wasn't the side effect or the risk of the treatment- it was the treatment.

They intended to kill the baby- that is how the treated the mom, by killing the baby. Murder as the treatment.

Sounds like a regular old abortion to me...

It's not like, "we are going to try this procedure and it's a risky that the baby will not make it..." no, they said, lets kill the baby so the mother is no longer at risk.

From what I gathered, it was a case where, we have to kill the baby so we can treat mom. So we can try and save mom.