Abortion hypothetical

[benedictaoo]

If its a human person, then why doesn't the Church baptise all babies miscarried in hospitals?

Hmmm?

Jim

Then what is it!!?? YOU tell me, if it is not a human, then what is it?

And when does it become human? at 5 months? 6 months?

You are so outside what the Catholic Church says and teaches, it is not even funny.

READ Davidnic's response to what you said about an 11 week old fetus not being a person.

There is a blessing for that if the parents intended Baptism. We had it done with our son after the miscarriage. We even have a blessed Baptismal Candle for him. So, yeah the fetus is a person. The Church clearly teaches that.

Jim, in all seriousness, I hope the Holy Spirit can move you to see this differently.

 

[benedictaoo]

and I knew a girl years ago who had a still birth, and a priest was there and did baptize the baby...

 

[benedictaoo]

The problem here is also equating fully developed adults as equal to a non-viable fetus. The Church isn't even certain that the fetus has a soul, whereas the adult does.

What!?

Where in the heck are you getting your theology from??!!

Jim-- you are very wrong, that's all I can say.

 

[benedictaoo]

Actually, I am personalizing it, I'm looking at the two lives not just one, and the fact that only the mother could be saved. You demand the doctors let her die, so who's lacking compasion here?

The doctors didn't want to terminate the pregnancy, but there was no other option left in order to save the mother's life.

You would've preferred that they let the mother die?

That's being pro-life?

Imagine if the doctors did allow the mother to die at St. Joseph's hospital in Arizona? That place would be something other than a hospital by now and they'd be serving time in jail.

Jim

and where did I say to let her die? I said do all you can short of abortion.

Deliver the baby and hope for the best.

You seem to find this unacceptable and the reason why... you do not see a unborn baby as a person with a soul created by God. Wow...

If I were discussing this with some other person... then I would not find this so indignant but I'm talking to a holy roller Catholic who is supposed to know what's what.

Point blank question Jim, do you support abortion? Do you believe a women is free to have one if she feels she needs to?

You can't be Catholic and be pro abortion, Jim.

 

[benedictaoo]

The difference is that David was able to live, despite the illness his mother had.

In the case being debated here, the mother was going to die if nothing was done, so the fetus would die with her.

OH and BTW, my wife gave birth to a baby in her 27th week of pregnancy, we went through the agony of a pregnancy gone wrong.

However, my son was viable, they were able to deliver him by C-section. That's the difference.

Jim

Dude, look... the difference is not aborting it and delivering it.

How can anyone choose to get rid of their baby 11 weeks in gestation by sucking it out, dismembering it and throwing it away?

It's not trash, it's your child.

You know, you have basically slapped in the face anyone who ever lost a baby at 11 weeks by saying it A) was not a person and B) it had no soul.

Wow...

You know what I think? These terrible experiences you had, colored your view on this. I feel you may be a bit bitter towards pregnancy, but I dunno.

Sad in any event.

 

[fated]

You may never directly end the baby's life.

Also, I assume we can baptize the questionably dead, but not the obviously dead. For the obviously dead we hope, that is, we have faith, that they can be granted a baptism of desire.

 

[benedictaoo]

Catholic Church Clear on When Human Life Begins
Most Rev. Glen John Provost, D.D.
Bishop of Lake Charles, Louisiana --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A serious responsibility of a bishop is to insure the purity of teaching in areas of faith and morals (cf. I Timothy 4:16). These teachings must be in conformity with the universal and historic teachings found in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition and defined by the teaching office of the Catholic Church. The beauty of Catholicism rests in part on its ability to be clear.

Recently there has been high-profile press given to arguments concerning when human life begins. I am concerned about clarity and any misrepresentation of consistent Catholic teaching. My remarks are made in response to numerous questions posed to me by good Catholics in our own Diocese of Lake Charles who are confused by glib citations of patristic authorities, such as St. Augustine, that life begins at some other time than conception.

In response, I would say:

1. St. Augustine, one of our most revered Fathers, lived and wrote almost 1,500 years ago; he did not see the world around him with a scientific perspective as we know it today; as with early writers of this and later periods, his concern was the nature of the immortal soul and the human being; he approached this question primarily from the perspective of theology and philosophy.

2. To answer a question such as when does life begin, science gives us a quite adequate answer; according to one prominent embryology text, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, by Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persuad (7th Edition; Publ. Saunders, p. 16), ‘‘Human development begins at fertilization when a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to produce a single cell, a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual’’; if he were alive today, St. Augustine would agree, because St. Augustine believed that there was no ‘‘disjunction’’ in what was known by faith and reason (cf. Catholic Encyclopedia, 1981 ed., vol. 5, p. 808, ‘‘St. Augustine’’ on ‘‘Faith and Reason’’ life begins at conception; no doubt St. Augustine would have marveled at a uterine ultrasound and what it reveals about a human in the womb;

3. The teaching that life in the womb is sacred has been consistently taught by the Church from the beginning and is reflected in the opposition of the Church for twenty centuries to abortion; please consult the oldest catechism instruction of the Church, outside the Sacred Scriptures, called the Didache or The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles from the First Century A.D.; it reads as follows: ‘‘Do not kill a fetus by abortion, or commit infanticide’’ (Didache, 2:2); also, noted patristic scholars are in agreement that St. Augustine probably knew the Didache and may have used it as a source in writing his own First Catechetical Instruction.

4. To say in some way that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church in centuries past taught otherwise than the Church’s consistent teaching on the sacredness of life in the womb or that they were not sure when life began is misleading and erroneous; for this reason, the official Catechism of the Catholic Church states: ‘‘Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.... Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable’’ (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2270-2271).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[benedictaoo]

Jim, you thinking that it's not a person and it has no soul is just your own personal belief.

Sorry.

Thinking that an 11 week old unborn baby's life is not sacred and to be seen has having the same value as anyone's because it can not survive outside the mother, is made up stuff and not Catholic teaching.

It is not even scientific teaching.

 

[benedictaoo]

You may never directly end the baby's life.

Also, I assume we can baptize the questionably dead, but not the obviously dead. For the obviously dead we hope, that is, we have faith, that they can be granted a baptism of desire.

I don't know if in my friends case the priest actually baptized it or just gave it a blessing, or what. My friend called it baptism, she just said that he signed the baby with the sign of the cross.

 

[fated]

I don't know if in my friends case the priest actually baptized it or just gave it a blessing, or what. My friend called it baptism, she just said that he signed the baby with the sign of the cross.

We really don't know much about when life ends. We know some signs obviously, but then we have people like father Groeschel who was dead in this way for 20 minutes, but is yet alive and quite intelligent. Perhaps what we are allowed to do is a conditional baptism. I could be mistaken.

 

[Davidnic]

The difference is that David was able to live, despite the illness his mother had.

Actually they told her to abort us because there was no way we would get to term and that if she delivered us the result would be her own death.

We were very premature, baptized in danger of death and rushed 2 1/2 hours to Philadelphia for special care. They told her we would die before we were a week old.

She was told we would not even live long enough in gestation to be viably extracted and was told attempting to carry us to that point would kill her.

They said they were sure of it.

And I do not recommend this but whenever someone told her to abort she punched them in the face.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

I was taught the mother can be treated in hopes that both survive. But there cannot be a deliberate killing of the infant.

In other words, medical care can proceed... a direct abortion cannot.

I was taught this too

I cannot speak for the Church, of course, but IMO, nobody has the right to tell anyone else what to decide, when faced with such a terrible dilemma. We can impose a strict morality on ourselves, but we do not have the right to impose it on anyone else to the extent that they end up dying as a result. That may not be murder, but it comes very close to manslaughter, I would say.

hmm as opposed to murdering a baby?

as for 'not imposing our views'.. that sounds nice at first, but to be logically consistent, you should also apply it to other things as well.. for example, murder of adults. Would you say "I think it's wrong to murder others, but I wouldn't impose that on someone else.. so if they have to do it, that's none of my business". If you wouldn't, why say the same about abortion? it is after all, murder of a human being.

The woman - according to the Church - must resolve to fix the ailment.
She may receive medication and or surgery as though she is not pregnant, but must not abort.
If the child dies due to the medical assistance out of necessity then it was in God's hands...
And she is not culpable.

She must not intend to end the child's life, but she must pursue her options to obtain her health.

yes.. I think the answer would be to try and heal the mother, but without intending to kill the child

 

[Davidnic]

If its a human person, then why doesn't the Church baptise all babies miscarried in hospitals?

Hmmm?

Jim

Because we do not baptize the dead as a matter of course. We just do not. Now, there are blessings and rites for a miscarriage or still born upon request and they may be offered.

But what is the point of baptizing the dead except to bring comfort to the living.

We sought the blessing for a child lost in miscarriage and had a Baptismal candle blessed to signify our desire to have raised him in the faith. But that was a manifestation of our desire. We also placed my own baptismal outfit in a memory box and it is now his and we attached a piece of it to Lily's baptismal dress to signify that he is just as much a member of our family in Christ as any child we will have who makes it to birth.

But all of that is more a manifestation of our faith an family unity and love for him. It is not to ensure his salvation or life in Christ. Christ will do that at this point in His mercy without Baptism.

So the Church does not Baptize dead people as a matter of reflex practice because Baptism, at that point, is not necessary. A parent may request a rite or blessing that mirrors baptism as a sign of their desire to have raised them in the faith, but it is not the same Sacramentally speaking.

The Church does not baptize and did not baptize Her martyrs who died lacking baptism. Does that mean they are not people?

Seriously...this "they are not people" argument is really off.

 

[benedictaoo]

Because we do not baptize the dead as a matter of course. We just do not. Now, there are blessings and rites for a miscarriage or still born upon request and they may be offered.

But what is the point of baptizing the dead except to bring comfort to the living.

We sought the blessing for a child lost in miscarriage and had a Baptismal candle blessed to signify our desire to have raised him in the faith. But that was a manifestation of our desire. We also placed my own baptismal outfit in a memory box and it is now his and we attached a piece of it to Lily's baptismal dress to signify that he is just as much a member of our family in Christ as any child we will have who makes it to birth.

But all of that is more a manifestation of our faith an family unity and love for him. It is not to ensure his salvation or life in Christ. Christ will do that at this point in His mercy without Baptism.

So the Church does not Baptize dead people as a matter of reflex practice because Baptism, at that point, is not necessary. A parent may request a rite or blessing that mirrors baptism as a sign of their desire to have raised them in the faith, but it is not the same Sacramentally speaking.

The Church does not baptize and did not baptize Her martyrs who died lacking baptism. Does that mean they are not people?

Seriously...this "they are not people" argument is really off.

That is very much similar to what a very orthodox "old school" priest said to me after my brother in law died, who did receive the last rites before his death.

He was not getting the traditional Catholic funeral rite and I was upset about that and the priest said, that after death, these thins are just for the family's comfort, and not for the deceased. These things have no effect on his salvation. Just to pray for his soul and what was important was the last rites which he did receive.

 

[benedictaoo]

‘‘Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.... Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable’’ (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2270-2271)

 

[Davidnic]

Fetuses are people, that is constant teaching and even has a dogmatic grade of certainty it is sententia ad fidem pertinens to two declared De Fide and De Fide due to fides catholica. Intrinsically connected to the Dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Incarnation.

That fetuses are people just as we are is to be given the Assent of Faith and not to be opposed.

Just clearing that up in case anyone thought differently.

Jim, not saying you think they are not people, I believe you are just trying to point out what you see as inconsistencies and points that are too fine. I disagree, I think there are clear distinctions.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

benedictaoo

Then what is it!!?? YOU tell me, if it is not a human, then what is it?

It is human in the first stage of human fetal development. However, the Church doesn't Baptise babies miscarried because a soul must be present at Baptism.

And when does it become human? at 5 months? 6 months?

I didn't say it isn't human life, it is. However, its not a fully developed human being.

You are so outside what the Catholic Church says and teaches, it is not even funny.

Actually, I'm closer than you care to realise. The debate on this issue incident continues between experts in the Church, I'm not alone in questioning whether the nun should've been excommunicated or not.

READ Davidnic's response to what you said about an 11 week old fetus not being a person.

I did, but it doesn't change the circumstance of what the mother and fetus were in. Both would die if nothing was done. The fetus could not live if the mother died so its a matter of how pro-life and how much common sense you're willing to apply.


Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

and I knew a girl years ago who had a still birth, and a priest was there and did baptize the baby...

Yeah, we baptized my grandson who was born dead at 20 weeks. We did, in case there was life that was undetectable and his soul was till present.

We also had a funeral, but not a Mass because he wasn't actually considered Catholic, according to the Church. Our pastor did say prayers at the grave site however.

So what?

It doesn't change the fact that the Church doesn't know when ensoulment takes place and in general only Baptises babies born alive.


Jim

 

[benedictaoo]

benedictaoo



It is human in the first stage of human fetal development. However, the Church doesn't Baptise babies miscarried because a soul must be present at Baptism.



I didn't say it isn't human life, it is. However, its not a fully developed human being.



Actually, I'm closer than you care to realise. The debate on this issue incident continues between experts in the Church, I'm not alone in questioning whether the nun should've been excommunicated or not.





I did, but it doesn't change the circumstance of what the mother and fetus were in. Both would die if nothing was done. The fetus could not live if the mother died so its a matter of how pro-life and how much common sense you're willing to apply.


Jim

Jim. Dude, the Church teaches nothing of the sorts.

The Church does not baptize the dead, we aren't Mormons, maybe you have us confused with Mormon theology.

It's NOT because they don't have a soul, the Church certainly does teach they do have souls... but it is because you have to be alive to receive the sacrament, Jim.

Wow... just wow. I can not believe this conversation- for real.

What you are trying to pass off as Catholic moral theology- is made up, It's not real.

 

[benedictaoo]

Yeah, we baptized my grandson who was born dead at 20 weeks. We did, in case there was life that was undetectable and his soul was till present.

We also had a funeral, but not a Mass because he wasn't actually considered Catholic, according to the Church. Our pastor did say prayers at the grave site however.

So what?

It doesn't change the fact that the Church doesn't know when ensoulment takes place and in general only Baptises babies born alive.


Jim

Jim. Jim. Jim. The point is, the Church does not teach and never has... that an 11 week in the womb baby does not have a soul and is not fully a person.

Do you see? Can you even see?

In order for abortion to be justified in your world view, the baby must be less then human or not have a soul.

That is the only way you can make it all fly in your world view.

If it is a person- you got a issue, if it does have a soul, you got a problem...

It truly is amazing to me how it always goes back to the same square one.

It is the pro abortion argument issue in a nut shell.

People want to play deaf, dumb and blind when it comes to when life begins (like it's above my pay grade... ) and when souls begin and its the ONLY way, (pretending we don't know when we ALL do), we can keep abortion on the law books.