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.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
\
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
and where did I say to let her die?
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
but I don't see how allowing both to die can be anything other than supporting dogma over life itself.
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
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.
Again, old school medicince, this indeed happened, but in today's world when the technology is available, they're not wrong.
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.
Does this make me pro-abortion as I've been accused of?
Oh my gosh..... Jim????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
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);
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.
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?
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' 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.
benedictaoo;
If you've done all you can and terminating the pregnancy is all that is left to save her life
Oh my gosh..... Jim????
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.
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
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
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?