Abortion hypothetical

[benedictaoo]

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.

Ah, I thought he said rather clearly, so there can be no confusion, he thinks a fetus is not really a person, what he thinks it is, I don't know but I understood it as a fetus is not equal to a all grown up person.

 

[Davidnic]

\
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

The Church teaches people have souls and fetuses are people. Dead people no longer have souls. That the soul left the body does not make the fetus less a person.

Fetus, child, teenager, adult, senior...all people. Dead. Dead person.

Where you are going with this Jim? I mean the Church teaches the soul is present from the moment of conception. There is no stated dogma proclaimed directly when ensoulment happens but that it is at conception is intrinsically connected to two dogmas and true by fact that they are true. It is not considered a matter of free opinion.

It can be stated with what is called "theological confidence"

 

[JimR-OCDS]

benedictaoo;

and where did I say to let her die?

If you've done all you can and terminating the pregnancy is all that is left to save her life, and this is the position the doctors at St Joseph's were in, then they would have to step back and let her die with the fetus.

Deliver the baby and hope for the best.

How do you know they didn't deliver the baby? Even if they induced labor, or did a C-section, that still is an abortion. I hope you understand that?

By medical definition, an abortion is termination of a pregnancy, for whatever reason.

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...

Let me be clear, I do see the unborn as a human life and due all respect.

However, in this case a decision had to be made, save the mother or let the mother die along with her fetus.

Again, would you sit there in that hospital room and watch the mother die, knowing she could be saved?

Point blank question Jim, do you support abortion?

I do not support a direct abortion. I question whether this is a direct abortion. The intent of the doctors was not to kill the child, but to save both mother and child. When the option ran out, they terminated the pregnancy which did kill the child, but it was not their intent.

Do you believe a women is free to have one if she feels she needs to?

No.

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

I'm not pro-abortion, I'm pro-life. The mother's life is as important as the fetus, but I don't see how allowing both to die can be anything other than supporting dogma over life itself.

Jim

 

[Davidnic]

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.

That the doctor said both would die and the baby could not come to term.

Doctors say many things. I know more than a few situations where they diagnosed people's kids with deformities, the people had abortions and...no deformity.

I know where they diagnose downs and no downs.

And where they tell the mother she can not possibly bring to term...totally sure...and she does.

There is a point were you say...can I kill someone so I can live, even if they are going to die tomorrow?

Morally, no we can not. Even if our life is at stake. We can choose to do so and I do not envy anyone the choice and God can sort things out...He's good at that being all knowing, just and merciful.

But the Church teaches what She does. Some things are facts, difficult to accept as they may be.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Davidnic

The Church teaches people have souls and fetuses are people. Dead people no longer have souls. That the soul left the body does not make the fetus less a person.

The Church does not teach when a soul enters the human being, for she doesn't know. Is it a conception? Well, what happens when six days after conception there is twining? Was there two souls at conception or just one?

Where you are going with this Jim? I mean the Church teaches the soul is present from the moment of conception.

No she doesn't teach this as far as I know. I've tried to find it but could not.

There is no stated dogma proclaimed directly when ensoulment happens

Exactly my point.

but that it is at conception is intrinsically connected to two dogmas and true by fact that they are true. It is not considered a matter of free opinion.

The Church is on the side of life, period. She doesn't care when ensoulment takes place, but supports the sanctity of life from conception on.

I agree with this.

But did the doctors and nun really abandon that teaching?
They don't think they did and from what I know about the case,
I tend to agree with them.

Does this make me pro-abortion as I've been accused of?

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Davidnic

That the doctor said both would die and the baby could not come to term.

It wasn't just one doctor, but doctors. Don't know how many, but they didn't opperate in a vacum. They even went to the ethics panel for advice.

Doctors say many things. I know more than a few situations where they diagnosed people's kids with deformities, the people had abortions and...no deformity.

Old school. Today with ultra sounds and MRI's, they're know exactly what they're dealing with when the see a deformed fetus. I've been there to see it.

I know where they diagnose downs and no downs.

Again, old school medicince, this indeed happened, but in today's world when the technology is available, they're not wrong.


And where they tell the mother she can not possibly bring to term...totally sure...and she does.

David, 30 years ago, when my wife got pregnant and she only had 2/3rds of her cervix, the doctors advice was not to terminate the pregancy, they never even mentioned it, but to do what was necessary to get my son to full term.

He didn't make it, but was born at 27 weeks and had life long complications as a result.

Today, I have no doubt that with what the technology and what they learned he would've made it to term.

In the case at St. Joseph's hospital, I have no doubt that they were doing everything they could to save the fetus.

Its sad that they had to act as they did, no one wanted this for an outcome.


Jim

 

[Davidnic]

but I don't see how allowing both to die can be anything other than supporting dogma over life itself.

Dogma is not something dead and letter of the law. It is the way we understand what is true and right. So it is incorrect to talk about it as if it were dismissible in this case or secondary. Dogma is love and truth, you can not choose dogma over love because dogma will always (if correctly implemented) support actual love. Dogma and life and love and true compassion do not conflict since Dogma is our understanding of what is True. They can only conflict in our misunderstanding.

Your statement can be viewed as an appeal to emotion that frames dogma as something heartless and the more compassionate choice is to have the abortion.

What was done was killing someone who would die anyway to save a life. That is not right. A person can sacrifice themselves in that case, but we can not make the choice for them.

The moral choice is to try to bring the child to a viable state no matter what the doctors say or to opt for something that is not a direct abortion where the foreseen but unwanted consequence is the death of the child as long as you do everything you can to save that life.

But it is not compassion to kill an innocent, no matter who it saves.

I am not saying anyone is damned or bad in the situation and I am not God.

But we know what we know and that is we can not murder an innocent, no matter what the intent for good. And direct killing of an innocent is murder.

 

[benedictaoo]

benedictaoo;




If you've done all you can and terminating the pregnancy is all that is left to save her life, and this is the position the doctors at St Joseph's were in, then they would have to step back and let her die with the fetus.






How do you know they didn't deliver the baby? Even if they induced labor, or did a C-section, that still is an abortion. I hope you understand that?

By medical definition, an abortion is termination of a pregnancy, for whatever reason.



Let me be clear, I do see the unborn as a human life and due all respect.

However, in this case a decision had to be made, save the mother or let the mother die along with her fetus.

Again, would you sit there in that hospital room and watch the mother die, knowing she could be saved?



I do not support a direct abortion. I question whether this is a direct abortion. The intent of the doctors was not to kill the child, but to save both mother and child. When the option ran out, they terminated the pregnancy which did kill the child, but it was not their intent.




No.



I'm not pro-abortion, I'm pro-life. The mother's life is as important as the fetus, but I don't see how allowing both to die can be anything other than supporting dogma over life itself.

Jim

Okay... you just change the rules of the game when you need it to fit your premises.

A) she was not induced, or c sectioned (we had this conversation before) THOSE are not abortions, those are deliveries.

You think that any sick child, still born child or premature child that does not live is an abortion- what is up with that?

B) she had an abortion. that is why the nun was given the ax.

You can't just make up stuff Jim. Nothing you are saying is factual, it's all stuff that, I don't now where you came up with it.

Where did you come up with this stuff? Who taught you these things.

These is no dispute, the nun was excommunicated because an abortion- not a delivery or a c section, was performed.

 

[Davidnic]

Old school. Today with ultra sounds and MRI's, they're know exactly what they're dealing with when the see a deformed fetus. I've been there to see it.

Happens to this day Jim. You can look it up.

Again, old school medicince, this indeed happened, but in today's world when the technology is available, they're not wrong.

Actually they are wrong all the time. They told us Lily had downs. And there are several people I talked to when that happened in support groups and places who told me many stories about how that test works, even with ultrasound back up. And it is about 40% accurate. A known fact. Modern day. 18 months ago. There are two people on this forum who were told their kid had downs and they did not when they were born. So no, not old school.

David, 30 years ago, when my wife got pregnant and she only had 2/3rds of her cervix, the doctors advice was not to terminate the pregancy, they never even mentioned it, but to do what was necessary to get my son to full term.

He didn't make it, but was born at 27 weeks and had life long complications as a result.

Today, I have no doubt that with what the technology and what they learned he would've made it to term.

In the case at St. Joseph's hospital, I have no doubt that they were doing everything they could to save the fetus.

Its sad that they had to act as they did, no one wanted this for an outcome.

I agree no one wanted this outcome. I still say we can not make the choice to take an innocent life, no matter who it saves. We can choose to sacrifice ourselves in the attempt to save another but we can not make that choice for another.

 

[Davidnic]

Does this make me pro-abortion as I've been accused of?

I don't think you are, that is why I stated that in my one post that I know you are addressing what you see as inconsistencies and too fine a point. I can see how some of your posts would have been very confusing and led someone to believe you were saying fetuses were not people and were less important than you. Buy I have had this discussion with you on this before and know that that had to be a misunderstanding when I read it. Though we still disagree on things here.

I am saying yes the Church does teach life begins at conception with a soul. By intrinsic connection. The wording of the dogma of the IC guarantees that. So does the wording of the Dogma of the Incarnation and how the Church has taught it.

 

[benedictaoo]

Davidnic



The Church does not teach when a soul enters the human being, for she doesn't know. Is it a conception? Well, what happens when six days after conception there is twining? Was there two souls at conception or just one?





No she doesn't teach this as far as I know. I've tried to find it but could not.



Exactly my point.



The Church is on the side of life, period. She doesn't care when ensoulment takes place, but supports the sanctity of life from conception on.

I agree with this.

But did the doctors and nun really abandon that teaching?
They don't think they did and from what I know about the case,
I tend to agree with them.

Does this make me pro-abortion as I've been accused of?

Jim

Oh my gosh..... Jim????

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’’;

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);

 

[JimR-OCDS]

benedictaoo

Okay... you just change the rules of the game when you need it to fit your premises.

A) she was not induced, or c sectioned (we had this conversation before) THOSE are not abortions, those are deliveries.

No, I didn't change he rules, I've used the medical definition for abortion, as I always have.

Definition of Abortion

Abortion: In medicine, an abortion is the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus. It is the loss of a pregnancy and does not refer to why that pregnancy was lost.
A spontaneous abortion is the same as a miscarriage. The miscarriage of 3 or more consecutive pregnancies is termed habitual abortion.

Abortion definition - Medical Dictionary definitions of popular medical terms easily defined on MedTerms

You think that any sick child, still born child or premature child that does not live is an abortion- what is up with that?

No, and abortion is the early termination of a pregnancy, for whatever reasons. See above.

B) she had an abortion. that is why the nun was given the ax.

She had a "direct abortion," which the nun was removed from the ethics panel. The nun considered it an "indirect abortion," which is licit, but was informed by the Bishop that she was wrong.

You can't just make up stuff Jim. Nothing you are saying is factual, it's all stuff that, I don' now where you came up with it.

I haven't made anything up. We don't know how the baby was delivered. Even if she was induced, its still abortion. See above.

Where did you come up with this stuff? Who taught you these things.

I use defined terms as the medical dictionary. How did you not know what an abortion really was?

These is no dispute, the nun was excommunicated because an abortion- not a delivery or a c section, was performed.

The nun incurred an excommunication, latae sententiae.

This level of abortion is not public and is removed through the confessional.


It only became known because the media found out about the abortion at the Catholic Hospital and went to the Bishop on it. He didn't publicly excommunicate the nun, but said that she had incurred an excommunication latae sententiae.


Jim

 

[Davidnic]

benedictaoo;
If you've done all you can and terminating the pregnancy is all that is left to save her life

"Terminating the pregnancy" is a euphemism. It is killing the fetus to save her life.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Oh my gosh..... Jim????

You're not quoting anything that I'm in disagreement here.

I know that the Church teaches that human life begins at conception. I'm not arguing against this.

I stated, that the Church doesn't know when ensoulment takes place and why a dead fetus or miscarried embryo, isn't given Baptism.

Jim

 

[Davidnic]

I haven't made anything up. We don't know how the baby was delivered. Even if she was induced, its still abortion. See above.

No jim it is not. I don't give two figs for the medical definition. The Church is what we are talking about and the Church does not define miscarriage as abortion or an induced birth in an attempt to save the lives of both.

To the Church it is the direct and intentioned killing of an unborn. Not just any end to a pregnancy.

No other definition matters at all. Since we are talking about how the Church views abortions and what is and is not an abortion..it is the definition of the Church we use.

And in that miscarriage and induction to save a life (as opposed to protoglandin induction that is meant to decapitate the fetus) is not an abortion.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Davidnic

No jim it is not.

Yes it is and I got the answer from Priest for Life. If the action you take is the cause of the fetus death, its an abortion.

I don't give two figs for the medical definition. The Church is what we are talking about and the Church does not define miscarriage as abortion or an induced birth in an attempt to save the lives of both.

Hospitals and doctors deal with medical terms and an induced labor on a pre-viable fetus, is an abortion. The fetus dies in the process of labor or soon after delivery.

To the Church it is the direct and intentioned killing of an unborn. Not just any end to a pregnancy.

If the pregnancy isn't causing the problem, there'd be no need to end it. But that's what happened and by ending the pregnancy the fetus died, that is an abortion.

No other definition matters at all. Since we are talking about how the Church views abortions and what is and is not an abortion..it is the definition of the Church we use.

Me too. The Church defines and abortion as the direct killing of the fetus, regardless how it was done. Inducing labor to terminate the pregnancy is considered a direct abortion, by the Church. Again, I went to priest for life when my daughter was in her pregnancy crisis. This is the answer they gave me.

And in that miscarriage and induction to save a life (as opposed to protoglandin induction that is meant to decapitate the fetus) is not an abortion.

A miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion, which is not illicit in the Church. No one had control over it.

Induction which causes the death of the fetus, is in fact, an abortion according to both medical and Church definition.

Jim

 

[BAFRIEND]

gee jim, you argues both ways dont you

in the salvation army thead and in the mcbride threads from months ago you expanded on your beliefs beyond these borders

 

[benedictaoo]

I stated, that the Church doesn't know when ensoulment takes place and why a dead fetus or miscarried embryo, isn't given Baptism.

Jim

But that's not why!!??

It is because we do not baptize a dead person, no matter what life stage its at.

The baby is already with the Lord, what would even be the point?

 

[benedictaoo]

benedictaoo



No, I didn't change he rules, I've used the medical definition for abortion, as I always have.






No, and abortion is the early termination of a pregnancy, for whatever reasons. See above.



She had a "direct abortion," which the nun was removed from the ethics panel. The nun considered it an "indirect abortion," which is licit, but was informed by the Bishop that she was wrong.




I haven't made anything up. We don't know how the baby was delivered. Even if she was induced, its still abortion. See above.



I use defined terms as the medical dictionary. How did you not know what an abortion really was?



The nun incurred an excommunication, latae sententiae.

This level of abortion is not public and is removed through the confessional.


It only became known because the media found out about the abortion at the Catholic Hospital and went to the Bishop on it. He didn't publicly excommunicate the nun, but said that she had incurred an excommunication latae sententiae.


Jim

Wow. Just wow.

You sure know how to jump through some serious hoops there to make it work for you.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

benedictaoo

But that's not why!!??

It is because we do not baptize a dead person, no matter what life stage its at.

And we don't baptize a dead person because the soul is not present and Baptism requires faith.

The baby is already with the Lord, what would even be the point?

I don't know if the unborn's soul is with the Lord in a miscarriage, do you?

Does the Church teach that a miscarried embryo, the soul is in heaven?

Take your time finding the answer to that one.

Jim