Nun Automatically Excommunicated For Approving Abortion

benedictaoo

Legend
Dec 1, 2007
34,418
7,261
✟72,332.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
David, you didn't have to use a hypothetical.

I just finished reading "The Terrible Hours," which was about the submarine Squalus, which sank in 250 feet of water off the coast of New England, in 1939.

Long story, but as the engine room began to rapidly fill up with water, the one engineer who managed to make it to the next hatch, held on as long as he could to allow other men who further back to make it. However, the water was filling so fast, that had he not closed and sealed the hatch, the control room would've filled and all the men aboard would've died. He had to make a fast decision, those men's lives, or the rest of the crew. He closed and sealed the door, and 26 men who were aft in the sub, drowned.

He lived with guilt all of his life, thinking that perhaps he had no right to save himself and the rest of the crew, while the action he took, killed the other 26 men.

The same is similar in this case. If the hospital doesn't abort the pre-viable fetus, the woman will die as a result of heart failure.

If the woman were your daughter, you tell me that you wouldn't see the logic in the hospital's decision.


Jim

But that's the worlds logic Jim, not Christ's.

Christ showed us that we lay our life down... He showed us the meaning in pain and suffering- the meaning of sacrifice and He showed us how to do that.

TRUTH is worth dying for.

Those who try to save their life- will lose it- those who are willing to not worry about this life, will save it.

Women who die for their children... they are called Saints.

You have a secular world view, not a Christian world view about this issue, I'm sorry to say.

The Church does not say we can kill babies to save our own skin, you are in error about this.

The bishop did not make a mistake... He is not ignorant of the Church's teachings. He called it correctly-- it's you who are in error.
 
Upvote 0

benedictaoo

Legend
Dec 1, 2007
34,418
7,261
✟72,332.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Side note Fantine...that is not a Church law; that is Dogma that is unchangeable under tenenda definitive. There is a vast difference. Church Law would be Canon Law and that can be changed. What you are referring to is not changeable because it is about the nature and matter of a Sacrament. So you are in error to refer to it as a Church Law that is changeable.

Thank you for pointing that out. subtle little incorrect things spoken here and there can be so misleading to lurkers who lurk.

It's not a law, well yeah it is, it's God's law which is eternal- certainly NOT changeable.

If the pope wanted to change this, he couldn't, he has no power what so ever to change God's laws.

He can change a church law, like no meat on Friday but he has zero power to change a Comandment of God.
 
Upvote 0

benedictaoo

Legend
Dec 1, 2007
34,418
7,261
✟72,332.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
BTW, the "Double Effect," principle isn't fallible doctrine, and when Aquinas wrote it as a guideline, he wrote in the context of self-defense against and agressor.

The arguments using the double effect, treat the fetus as the aggressor, which is never the case.

Apply the double effect principle to all medical situations, isn't going to work, unless you're willing to let the mother die. With today's modern medical knowledge, a doctor would be charged with murder for letting a mother die, when he could've saved her,
by aborting a pre-viable fetus who had no chance of survival.

Jim

leave the BABY, Jim, the BABY in there for 20 something weeks and it does have a chance to survive. This is were your argument falls part.
 
Upvote 0

Davidnic

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 3, 2006
33,112
11,337
✟788,337.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
I think we need to state something directly: The words Zygote, Fetus, Infant, Toddler, Child, Teenager, Adult, Middle age, Senior Citizen are stages of human development and at no point is the person not human. From the moment of conception a human nature is present. Living things do not become something other than what they are once their cellular life processes start. Viability is not a requirement for a human nature, it is a characteristic of a stage of human development. And lack of it does not make someone less human or disposable.

I am not saying you are saying otherwise Jim, just making sure that is directly stated.

So fetus or adult mother, both are persons and both are humans in the image of God.

That can never be stated enough.
 
Upvote 0

JimR-OCDS

God Cannot Be Grasped, Except Through Love
Oct 28, 2008
18,341
3,284
The Kingdom of Heaven
Visit site
✟185,132.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Jim,

In the case you cite his action was not to kill the men, but to perform an act that was neutral in its moral act...closing a door. The intent was to save the others on board. The act morally neutral.

In the case of an abortion the act is morally evil and can not be done so that good may come from it. So the situation you describe falls under double effect as able to be done. The act done to save lives was not...in itself morally evil. An abortion is.

If it was my daughter Jim, honestly...I would not see the logic in killing my grandchild or losing my child.

Even before we tried for children my wife and I addressed and planned for what we would do in this type of situation. It seemed best to know that before a crisis time.

I do not discount the horrible nature and toll of the questions were are debating. And I am not without a massive amount of compassion for those involved for several reasons.

The reason I am in this discussion is that a decision like this has had to be made in my family twice. Once with my mother and once with my grandmother. My mom chose to have us and although it meant her eventual death (although that death occurred ten years later and not immediate, it was a direct result) When my mothers younger sister was born the doctor came to my grandfather and said, "You have five minutes...do you want me to save your wife or your daughter?" He chose his wife.

So I have talked in depth on a personal family level with people who made the choices or were involved on both sides of this. And have seen the ramifications of both. In many ways it has been an issue present my entire life and when I studied moral theology it was an area of particular personal interest to me.

Now all that is neither here nor there in many ways, I only mentioned it for two reasons.

One (in response to your question), I wanted to explain where I am coming from when I say I have thought often of: "What if this happened to my wife or daughter?" And I do not see where killing anyone is necessary, but I am not going to personally judge the families in this, at the same time I will not validate an action that takes a life. But I am going to be disgusted (as I mentioned before) with ethics committees and the general medical attitude of "Risk management" in these situations that often treats the fetus as a lesser being and often misleads people and manipulates compassion into a decision.

And two, I wanted to explain why I take this kind of discussion of such personal importance. And, although we disagree, I want to thank you for having the discussion and raising your points in a civil manner (that can be rare on emotional issues). Although I am sure we will not bridge the gap between us on this, the conversation is worth having.


David, sorry to hear about your mother.

However, if the situation were different, your wife and you are told, not only will the pregnancy cost your wife her life, but the child has no chance of making it through to viability. What do you choose?

This is what the case we're discussing was about.

It wasn't a case where the fetus would survive. It couldn't because the mother couldn't survive the pregnancy to get to viability.

Jim
 
Upvote 0

JimR-OCDS

God Cannot Be Grasped, Except Through Love
Oct 28, 2008
18,341
3,284
The Kingdom of Heaven
Visit site
✟185,132.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Davidnic

I think we need to state something directly: The words Zygote, Fetus, Infant, Toddler, Child, Teenager, Adult, Middle age, Senior Citizen are stages of human development and at no point is the person not human. From the moment of conception a human nature is present. Living things do not become something other than what they are once their cellular life processes start. Viability is not a requirement for a human nature, it is a characteristic of a stage of human development. And lack of it does not make someone less human or disposable.

Absolutely agree!

However calling a zygote a baby, is an emotionally charge way of debating the issue and it lacks
intellectual credibility on the person who uses such terminology.

I am not saying you are saying otherwise Jim, just making sure that is directly stated.

So fetus or adult mother, both are persons and both are humans in the image of God.

Also agree. However, a fetus is at a different stage of development for a human being. When the fetus is pre-viable and there is a life or death decision to make concerning the mother and the fetus, the mother comes first, especially when she has no chance of carrying the fetus until it can be viable.

However, ensoulment is a different matter. We don't know when the soul enters the body. That being said, we need to error on the side of life.


Jim
 
Upvote 0

Davidnic

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 3, 2006
33,112
11,337
✟788,337.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
David, sorry to hear about your mother.

However, if the situation were different, your wife and you are told, not only will the pregnancy cost your wife her life, but the child has no chance of making it through to viability. What do you choose?

This is what the case we're discussing was about.

It wasn't a case where the fetus would survive. It couldn't because the mother couldn't survive the pregnancy to get to viability.

Jim

Thank you Jim, don't be sorry. My mother always felt it a blessing that she was given ten years with us the doctors thought impossible. She was at peace with her decision. A kind of impressive impossible peace. She was an amazing woman. Not perfect, but amazing.

As to the rest, we talked about that before we tried for a baby and in that situation she said she would not kill the baby no matter what. She would attempt to bring the baby to viability even if it did not work and she died. There have been too many times where doctors were wrong about these things and babies are carried to viability against doctors advice or they tell you the baby has a disease and when they are born they do not. Neither of us could agree with the direct killing of an innocent human being with the intent of saving someone.
 
Upvote 0

benedictaoo

Legend
Dec 1, 2007
34,418
7,261
✟72,332.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
David, sorry to hear about your mother.

However, if the situation were different, your wife and you are told, not only will the pregnancy cost your wife her life, but the child has no chance of making it through to viability. What do you choose?

This is what the case we're discussing was about.

It wasn't a case where the fetus would survive. It couldn't because the mother couldn't survive the pregnancy to get to viability.

Jim

and the point David as been making to you is there isn't a true case where not allowing the baby to remain and grow to a stage where it can be delivered is not an option.

You act like delivering a baby at 5 months instead of extracting it through dismemberment, gives the baby no chance and that's not true Jim. and it's not going to kill a women if she waits another 10 weeks.
 
Upvote 0

JimR-OCDS

God Cannot Be Grasped, Except Through Love
Oct 28, 2008
18,341
3,284
The Kingdom of Heaven
Visit site
✟185,132.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
benedictaoo

and the point David as been making to you is there isn't a true case where not allowing the baby to remain and grow to a stage where it can be delivered is not an option.

No, David hasn't shown that. The fact is, the case we're talking about is
one of them.


You act like delivering a baby at 5 months instead of extracting it through dismemberment, gives the baby no chance and that's not true Jim. and it's not going to kill a women if she waits another 10 weeks.

You're assuming that the doctors had the option of waiting until viability.

According to them, they did not otherwise they would have.

And BTW, I have seen a baby born at 20 weeks as a result of induced labor. They don't dismember it, and the mother delivered it in tact, although it was dead.

Jim
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

MKJ

Contributor
Jul 6, 2009
12,260
776
East
✟23,894.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
and the point David as been making to you is there isn't a true case where not allowing the baby to remain and grow to a stage where it can be delivered is not an option.

You act like delivering a baby at 5 months instead of extracting it through dismemberment, gives the baby no chance and that's not true Jim. and it's not going to kill a women if she waits another 10 weeks.

Well, we have already addressed ectopic pregnancy, which is exactly this kind of case.
 
Upvote 0

benedictaoo

Legend
Dec 1, 2007
34,418
7,261
✟72,332.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Well, we have already addressed ectopic pregnancy, which is exactly this kind of case.

No. ectopic pregnancy is not. The surgery for that is not to intentionally kill the child.

If you can remove the out of place baby and replant it, then yo do that.

But if you can not replant it- you are not directly willfully, purposeful trying to kill it- an abortion- you are!

The plan of action with an ectopic pregnancy is not to go in and kill the baby- it is to remove it from where it is and hopefully be able to replant it. It is to save the baby, not kill it. sadly- rarely does a baby survive that.

the intent is not to abort, but to remove it and if you could or can put it where it belongs, you do.

It is not a situation where the surgery is to kill the baby.

Abortion is always that.

The women had an abortion- NOT a surgery to save her life... claiming that is, would be a lie if someone were to say that.

You can not kill the baby as the way to save the mother. You can't do it... it's. just. not. right.
 
Upvote 0

benedictaoo

Legend
Dec 1, 2007
34,418
7,261
✟72,332.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
benedictaoo



No, David hasn't shown that. The fact is, the case we're talking about is
one of them.




You're assuming that the doctors had the option of waiting until viability.

According to them, they did not otherwise they would have.

And BTW, I have seen a baby born at 20 weeks as a result of induced labor. They don't dismember it, and the mother delivered it in tact, although it was dead.

Jim

That is a still birth... not an abortion... sigh... you are in error Jim and you are taking a pro abortion stand when the mother's life is at risk and this is NOT the Catholic Church's stand... something the Church teaches us is allowable.

I can understand dissenting from this issue because it is hard, I do not agree with it- but please do not mis lead and claim the Church allows abortions in certain cases, she does not, even when the mother's life is at risk- the Church does not which is why this nun was formally excommunicated by her bishop.

The proof that the Church does not allow this as a binding matter of our faith is the fact that this nun was excommunicated. That is the proof that proves you are in error Jim.
 
Upvote 0

Davidnic

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 3, 2006
33,112
11,337
✟788,337.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
More on the topic of is abortion ever necessary:
Dr. Paul A. Byrne, Director of Neonatology and Pediatrics at St. Charles Mercy Hospital in Toledo, Ohio, disputes the claim that an abortion is ever a procedure necessary to save the life of the mother, or carries less risk than birth.

Dr. Byrne said, "I don't know of any [situation where abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother].

"I know that a lot of people talk about these things, but I don't know of any. The principle always is preserve and protect the life of the mother and the baby."

Byrne has the distinction of being a pioneer in the field of neonatology, beginning his work in the field in 1963 and becoming a board-certified neonatologist in 1975. He invented one of the first oxygen masks for babies, an incubator monitor, and a blood-pressure tester for premature babies, which he and a colleague adapted from the finger blood pressure checkers used for astronauts.

Byrne emphasized that he was not commentating on what the woman's particular treatment should have been under the circumstances, given that she is not his patient.

"But given just pulmonary hypertension, the answer is no" to abortion, said Byrne.

Byrne emphasized that the unborn child at 11 weeks gestation would have a negligible impact on the woman's cardiovascular system. He said that pregnancy in the first and second trimesters would not expose a woman with even severe pulmonary hypertension - which puts stress on the heart and the longs - to any serious danger.

A pregnant mother's cardiovascular system does have "major increases," but they only happen "in the last three months of pregnancy," Byrne explained.

The point of fetal viability is estimated at anywhere between 21 - 24 weeks, he indicated, at which point a baby can artificially be delivered and have a good shot at surviving. In the meantime the mother's pulmonary hypertension could be treated, even by such simple things as eliminating salt from her diet, exercising, or losing weight.

"It's not going to be any extra stress on the mother that she can't stand," said Byrne. "Eventually you get to where the baby gets big enough that the baby can live outside the uterus and you don't have to do an abortion."

"I am only aware of good things happening by doing that. I am not aware of anything bad happening to the mother because the baby was allowed to live."

"The only reason to kill the baby at 11 weeks is because it is smaller," which makes the abortion easier to perform, he said, not because the mother's life is in immediate danger.

"I've done this work just about as long as neonatology has existed," said Byrne. "The key is we must protect and preserve life, and we have to do that from conception to the natural end."
 
  • Like
Reactions: BelindaP
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BelindaP

Senior Contributor
Sep 21, 2006
9,214
711
Indianapolis
✟20,888.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The doctor you are quoting is confusing regular hypertension with pulmonary hypertension, which is a completely different disorder. Pulmonary hypertension kills over half the people who develop it while pregnant. Here is a link to a more informed article than a quote from a doctor who clearly doesn't know what he's talking about.

SpringerLink - Journal Article
 
Upvote 0

MKJ

Contributor
Jul 6, 2009
12,260
776
East
✟23,894.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
No. ectopic pregnancy is not. The surgery for that is not to intentionally kill the child.

If you can remove the out of place baby and replant it, then yo do that.

But if you can not replant it- you are not directly willfully, purposeful trying to kill it- an abortion- you are!

The plan of action with an ectopic pregnancy is not to go in and kill the baby- it is to remove it from where it is and hopefully be able to replant it. It is to save the baby, not kill it. sadly- rarely does a baby survive that.

the intent is not to abort, but to remove it and if you could or can put it where it belongs, you do.

It is not a situation where the surgery is to kill the baby.

Abortion is always that.

The women had an abortion- NOT a surgery to save her life... claiming that is, would be a lie if someone were to say that.

You can not kill the baby as the way to save the mother. You can't do it... it's. just. not. right.


I think you are defining intent much too broadly here, and it will give you trouble with other parts of your argument.

Those removing the embryos in ectopic pregnancies do not intend to re-implant them. This is not possible. It is not "rare", it is never never. They might wish they could do it, but they can't. They don't really even intend to care for them in case they survive outside the womb, because there is simply no way to do so.

I agree with your general point, I think, but if you understand intent like this all kinds of things become permissible.
 
Upvote 0

benedictaoo

Legend
Dec 1, 2007
34,418
7,261
✟72,332.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
:confused:
Does that mean she is going to hell?

If she dies still rejecting the Holy Spirit's call to repent.

Only God will be able to judge her, we absolutely can not judge her. No way can we judge her... I want you to know that WE, none of us here, or anywhere in the world can judge her but God-- to know if she believes as she does out of ignorance that is not her fault or if God gave her the light to see and she just refused.

If she dies, knowing this is a sin but choosing to ignore that it is and looks God in the eye, so to speak and says, I was right, I would do it again... then yeah, she's toast.

But none of us know that- we can only give you a hypothetical.

The bishop formally excommunicated her to give her some awareness that she needs to repent and understand why she was wrong, it's so she don't go to hell, it is not a declaration she is.

Now I explained how this works to you in full- there should be no misunderstanding or coming back with anything that is not even remotely related to what I just said.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums