I meant that such actions would have nothing to do with the Christian faith, in that the such actions are incompatible with it.Well, I understood something; you have a perception of what I understood that may be true or false...
I thought I was in the Eastern Orthodoxy subforum. *looks up* The Ancient Way, yep I am in the Orthodox subforum, so that makes you the guest in house not me. That means you should probably take your initial post and this one to the debate forum or to your home forum. You didn't really think I was going to treat your question as a sincere inquiry after you already implied we would be okay with denying Christ to avoid martyrdom did you?
If for some reason you actually thought I would treat your questions as sincere inquiry instead of hostility then okay. Your comparing a living baby, outside of the womb to an ecotopic pregnancy tells me more about your sanity than it shows how unChristian our Church is for allowing abortion in cases of ecotopic pregnancies. And yes your implying we would be okay with murdering a baby crying or denying Christ does smack of saying the EOC isn't following Christ.
Oh, me duh.I meant that such actions would have nothing to do with the Christian faith, in that the such actions are incompatible with it.
Jeez, Kerdy, lighten up.
No I didn't say the difference was the baby being born and outside the womb. I stated your scenario is not the same as ectopic pregnancy. Nor is the scenario of denouncing Christ the same thing as ectopic pregnancy.
You know if you think both your scenarios are the same thing as killing the baby in an ectopic pregnancy, you should really read a little more on the medical situation. You cannot save the baby in an ectopic pregnancy. All that one is doing by standing around picking their nose while they wait for the the embryo to rupture the fallopian tube before removing the baby is murdering the mother through negligence.
The Orthodox church just chooses to admit in these situations you are ending the pregnancy, but the baby was never going to develop and survive to the point being born to begin with. The baby would have ended killing the mother. So it is a situation of choosing the lesser of two evils. This does not mean in all situations it is okay. It is as rus stated, something that does happen rarely but people try to use it to argue for abortion in all situations.
But it's not as simple as just choosing the lesser of two evils. It's choosing to bring about the less evil set of consequences by intentionally committing an act that is, by itself, essentially evil, as denying Christ and murdering babies (whether born or unborn) are essentially (morally) evil acts, simply by themselves. This is the common thread that ties all three scenarios together, and I had been under the impression that the Orthodox Church concurs with it.
IVF is absurd and unnatural. I think the Catholic Church's position on IVF is the right one. I find it fascinating how one of my co-workers, who has divorced three times and gravitates to creepy thug men, wanted to be a mother, but figured she couldn't meet the right guy, so she got loaded up with a baby boy. She has a real "I don't give a ____ what people think about my choice. Screw 'em!" and yet she is the first one to blast homosexuality and the "immoral world we live in" all over Facebook and in the staff room. I often wonder what the difference is between this coworker getting impregnated without a man, and a lesbian who does the same thing? sigh....
I realize that IVF is also for married couples. Despite the fact that it seems like a boon to a couple who can't get pregnant, perhaps sterility and being barren is a call from God to adopt? I think the proponents fail to look at the bioethics on this issue, which are plentifully bad, and they fail to see the scary byproducts---frozen embryos in a type of limbo, unethical doctors inserting THEIR OWN sperm into the embryos (yes, we all know that has happened), the idea that couples have the RIGHT to have children rather than a healthy desire to remain open to the gift of them by God's graces, 'fertility' in the womb isn't the call of us all---'fertility' in our openness to adoption is another aspect of family-building. Ultimately, the marital act is to be the epicenter of new life in the couple's cooperation with God, not a laboratory that sounds more like something out of a Bradbury novel than God's will for us....
And have you heard of sin by omission?
Who said anything about sitting down and watching her die? Is there absolutely nothing else that can be done to save her besides intentionally and deliberately killing the unborn child?Because it's essentially what you're doing when you're sitting down and watching the mother die from a ruptured ectopic pregnancy instead of treating her....
I thought I was in the Eastern Orthodoxy subforum. *looks up* The Ancient Way, yep I am in the Orthodox subforum, so that makes you the guest in house not me. That means you should probably take your initial post and this one to the debate forum or to your home forum. You didn't really think I was going to treat your question as a sincere inquiry after you already implied we would be okay with denying Christ to avoid martyrdom did you?
If for some reason you actually thought I would treat your questions as sincere inquiry instead of hostility then okay. Your comparing a living baby, outside of the womb to an ectopic pregnancy tells me more about your sanity than it shows how unChristian our Church is for allowing abortion in cases of ectopic pregnancies. And yes your implying we would be okay with murdering a baby crying or denying Christ does smack of saying the EOC isn't following Christ.
Well said, though it will fall on deaf ears I'm afraid!
I have heard of it, and I believe it exists. But is knowledgeable failure to pursue a course of action that will result in people living who would otherwise die by itself sufficient to constitute sin by omission?
Who said anything about sitting down and watching her die? Is there absolutely nothing else that can be done to save her besides intentionally and deliberately killing the unborn child?
Have you ever heard of the principle of double effect? Is there not any way that it might be applied to save the mother?
Have you ever seen that episode of Golden Girls were Blanche's daughter reveals she is going to use a sperm donor to get pregnant? Rose and Dorothy's reaction is pretty much mine. EWWW! just EWWW!
This right here is what actually has had me searching for Orthodox views on medical bioethics. I was surprised when I came across the few priests in favor of it under the circumstances of wife's egg, husband's sperm and wife carrying the baby. My thoughts pretty much agree with what you posted so when I saw those opinions I started searching and you would believe I can find very few Orthodox books dealing with medical ethics but quite a few dealing with environmental issues. That surprised me because as I am sure you know as a former Catholic too, there are a whole shelves dealing with with medical ethics from a Catholic perspective.
Despite the fact that it seems like a boon to a couple who can't get pregnant, perhaps sterility and being barren is a call from God to adopt?
NO! There is nothing, nothing at all that can be done to save the baby in these circumstances! I already said that. So yes you would have to do nothing but watch the mother die based on what you want.
From your link: " The principle of double effect is frequently cited in cases of pregnancy and abortion. A doctor who believes abortion is always morally wrong may still remove the uterus or fallopian tubes of a pregnant woman, knowing the procedure will cause the death of the embryo or fetus, in cases in which the woman is certain to die without the procedure (examples cited include aggressive uterine cancer and ectopic pregnancy). In these cases, the intended effect is to save the woman's life, not to terminate the pregnancy, and the effect of not performing the procedure would result in the greater evil of both the death of the mother and the fetus.[4][5]"
I leave the rest to someone else to deal with. You started off with agreeing with truthseeker, who is saying the same thing all of us who are Orthodox are saying and yet you keep arguing against the baby being removed in such a situation. I can only conclude this means you are either are trying to argue and debate or you don't truly understand the medical science being presented.
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?