Nun Automatically Excommunicated For Approving Abortion

BelindaP said:

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

Click to expand...

and the other half live... the moral way to handle it is to go as far as you can with the pregnancy and deliver the bay and hope for the best for you both. No one said to go the whole nine months but to go as far as you can, treat the baby like it matters and let it be born, just don't treat is like a disease and suck it into a sink like it's medial waste.

Would you kill a born baby to save your life? We have to at least TRY to give the baby a chance, not hog all the chance all to ourselves...

Where did we ever get to this point where we actually think we can terminate a pregnancy, aka, kill a baby, suck it into a sink at 11 weeks, because our is life is at 50% risk?

Would any of us ever look at our children and say, My life is 50% at risk because of you, let me kill you so that 50% risk goes away. We would never do that- why is it okay to do it to a baby in the womb?

Zundrah said:

Do you think she will now reject the Catholic Church altogether?

Click to expand...

I don't know- it's would be her free willed choice. It would show her pride and rebellion ran much deeper then we all thought.

if you are implying that doing this drives her away, as if she is some innocent victim of the Church being mean to her... save it.

This is an act of mercy shown to her by the bishop and as a NUN, she has the knowledge that this is what it is.

If she gets an attitude and goes off to be with another sect who support abortion in these cases, then her sin runs much deeper... much deeper. that is called apostasy.

BelindaP said:

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

Click to expand...

He is an expert in the field the Director of Neonatology and Pediatrics at St. Charles Mercy Hospital. And his history and experience in the field is pretty impressive. He refers to PH specifically.

MKJ said:

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.

Click to expand...

In some cases where the baby is not in the tubes but in the stomach- you can save it and replant it or leave it alone and deliver it when it can live...

and please do not lose sight of this point- if we could save it, remove it and replant it- we would.

It is literally a case where we are not going in the tubes for the sole purpose to intentionally destroy a baby. They go in to remove it and it dies. It's not we go in to kill it so it will die.

The baby did not die because someone wanted it dead so they went in and killed it. It died because it was implanted in the tube and the doctor had to get it out and as a result of getting it out, it died.

Get the difference? Thank you.

ectopic pregnancies are not abortions, nor are the miscarriages. abortions are not ectopic pregnancies or miscarriages as we know it toady.


and my argument can't fall apart because the Catholic Church teaches us that abortion is never justifiable. and ectopic pregnancies surgery is NOT an abortion preformed to save the mother.

trying to act like is, that is being intellectual dishonest.

They might wish they could do it, but they can't

Click to expand...

.

and that makes it not an abortion- what the nun did was an abortion and an abortion is what? To kill a baby. A healthy baby who is in the womb, not the tubes.

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.

Click to expand...

which is why it is not an abortion to save the mother from maybe dieing.

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

Click to expand...

Abortion is not permissible and that is the whole point.

dealing with an ectopic pregnancies, is not an abortion.

benedictaoo said:

and the other half live... the moral way to handle it is to go as far as you can with the pregnancy and deliver the bay and hope for the best for you both. No one said to go the whole nine months but to go as far as you can, treat the baby like it matters and let it be born, just don't treat is like a disease and suck it into a sink like it's medial waste.

Would you kill a born baby to save your life? We have to at least TRY to give the baby a chance, not hog all the chance all to ourselves...

Where did we ever get to this point where we actually think we can terminate a pregnancy, aka, kill a baby, suck it into a sink at 11 weeks, because our is life is at 50% risk?

Would any of us ever look at our children and say, My life is 50% at risk because of you, let me kill you so that 50% risk goes away. We would never do that- why is it okay to do it to a baby in the womb?

Click to expand...

I don't want to debate here. But, I will say I was in that situation, and I asked them to save the baby over me. Thank God, the emergency C-section went OK and we are both here to tell the tale.

I don't know what I would do if the doctor told me that I would absolutely die if I didn't have an abortion. I praise God that I've never been in that position.

Oh, and ectopic pregnancies cannot be replanted. They are always discarded. If in the abdomen, they can sometimes be brought to term, but replanting them is not at all possible.

BelindaP said:

Oh, and ectopic pregnancies cannot be replanted. They are always discarded. If in the abdomen, they can sometimes be brought to term, but replanting them is not at all possible.

Click to expand...

There are some groundbreaking advances in human in vitro with replanting that are bearing great promise. It would be an acceptable alternative if such a procedure was attempted even if the chance of the child living was less than 1%.

BelindaP said:

Oh, and ectopic pregnancies cannot be replanted. They are always discarded. If in the abdomen, they can sometimes be brought to term, but replanting them is not at all possible.

Click to expand...

right but to have to remove it from the tube... is not an abortion or a miscarriage. It is tube pregnancy.

BelindaP said:

Oh, and ectopic pregnancies cannot be replanted. They are always discarded. If in the abdomen, they can sometimes be brought to term, but replanting them is not at all possible.

Click to expand...

miracles happen

An ectopic pregnancy, which occurs when a fertilized egg develops outside of the uterus, usually miscarries or is terminated by doctors because of the threat it can cause to the mother.
"That's why it's extremely important to identify these pregnancies early because they could lead to severe maternal injury - including death," Alvarez added.

Baby Durga weighed 6 pounds, 3 ounces, and both she and her mother are healthy, said Robyn Cahill, general manager of the Darwin Private Hospital.
Fox News May 30 2008

Click to expand...

BelindaP said:

I don't want to debate here. But, I will say I was in that situation, and I asked them to save the baby over me. Thank God, the emergency C-section went OK and we are both here to tell the tale.

Click to expand...

you did the right thing.. think about it if you had made the other choice.

I don't know what I would do if the doctor told me that I would absolutely die if I didn't have an abortion. I praise God that I've never been in that position.

Click to expand...

that's it though... there is never a situation where a doctor can say 110%- you will die. he don't know and God has been known to help us out when we need Him.

benedictaoo said:

right but to have to remove it from the tube... is not an abortion or a miscarriage. It is tube pregnancy.

Click to expand...

Right, with a tubal the you remove the tube and do what you can, no matter how little that can be, to save the child. But it is not an abortion the death is the untended consequence of the removal of the tube.

Davidnic said:

Right, with a tubal the you remove the tube and do what you can, no matter how little that can be, to save the child. But it is not an abortion the death is the untended consequence of the removal of the tube.

Click to expand...

and that is the point and why I do not know exactly why ectopic pregnancies was even brought up to try to make what happened in this case with the nun justifiable.

Look, we take the chance with our life simply because it's worth it- it is worth the risk to bring another life-- your child-- into the world.

benedictaoo said:

and that is the point and why I do not know exactly why ectopic pregnancies was even brought up to try to make what happened in this case with the nun justifiable.

Click to expand...

Ectopic pregnancies and Uterine Cancer are the two most common occurrences that are discussed in moral theology in this situation. They almost always come up in the discussion because there is such a body of work on them. So if someone looks up the issue, on the internet or in a textbook, they run into these two cases being discussed most frequently. But when a moral theologian brings them up they assume the audience (usually students, not thinking it will be internet pages) already understands the core of the principle so they can apply it beyond the two type of cases. So now we see these two over and over.

the ecoptic case i quoted above was ovarian ecoptic pregnancy btw- it went unnoticed until the c-section luckily for the child- otherwise a decision to kill child would most likely have been made and the doctors would be patting themselve on the back for killing her

BAFRIEND said:

the ecoptic case i quoted above was ovarian ecoptic pregnancy btw- it went unnoticed until the c-section luckily for the child- otherwise a decision to kill child would most likely have been made and the doctors would be patting themselve on the back for killing her

Click to expand...

yep.

JimR-OCDS said:

So let me ask you all, who agree with the Bishop's excommunication of this nun.

Should the hospital have waited for the mother's heart or lungs to stop functioning before they did anything?

Do you know how long you can go without a heart beat or breathing before you die?

Jim

Click to expand...

Look You are either a catholic aka you either agree with church teaching or not.
The church condemns murder if you don't understand this concept or are unwilling to abide by it, not simply find it hard or difficult, then you have no business calling yourself a catholic.

dinonum said:

Morally for many it seems that it is relevant.

Click to expand...

What may seem relevant is often not. As is the case here. Given church teachings.

Fantine said:

We are all second guessing a medical situation about which we don't have any real knowledge. Obviously the medical ethicists at the hospital felt the woman (and her eleven week old fetus) were in an immediate life or death situation in which neither would survive.

Obviously the medical ethicists working for the bishops, relying on secondhand information, didn't.

Similar to how the CHA and the USCCB, both relying on their experts, disagreed about the content of the health care bill.

It seemed to me that in the health care bill situation, the USCCB's team was grasping at straws to try to find something to disapprove of, and so I don't know exactly what I think about the bishops' ethicists...to me, they seem to be people who start with their thesis statement and then determine to prove it, whether or not there's any evidence.

I think the ethicists who actually work in health care and struggle with the issues without having predetermined conclusions are more credible.

Click to expand...

Actually we are simply stating church teachings about a specific form of murder. Given that all murder is wrong this is a pretyy easy thing to do.

Insubres said:

Why doesn't the church take the same position to war then? It is absolutely no different if you can't take a life to save another no matter what.

Click to expand...

Self defense doesn't involve the intention to kill another, although that is the general result and one needs a serious reason to fire on another person, (like them firing on you for isntance.)

However the churches teaching on abortion is known. It is also very clear.