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.
So, anyone come up with an example of a procedure that would have saved both mother and child yet?
a. Not murdered if the killing was legal.Yes, removing the baby without killing it.
There concern was with childbirth, which was a long way off. So they murdered the baby. They could have let it continue to grow and remove it at a more survivable time in development.
The intended purpose was to save the mother, the only one who even had a chance of survival. The Catholic church would rather turn a woman away for to die than to save her life at the expense of an unborn child who will never have an opportunity to live, abortion or not. I hope that McBride can find some solace in the fact that she saved as many lives as she could so selflessly, especially knowing that she would probably be excommunicated by people who can't see past such a flawed perception of the choice that was made.
I don't mean this to insult Catholicism, but things change and doctrine has even been known to change. I'm deeply saddened by the way that this woman is being treated, and I wish people understood that this was not an elective abortion in the same sense that a woman goes to Planned Parenthood to receive.
So, anyone come up with an example of a procedure that would have saved both mother and child yet?
It is not ending a "pregnancy" it is ending a life.This really makes no sense to me. Either the woman was going to die by continuing her pregnancy or she would not,
according to the hospital there were no other options. Continuing the pregnancy would result in the death of both, and so ending the pregnancy would result in one life being saved.
I believe in a lot of things within Catholicism, but this is definitely not one of them.
I have serious doubts that she didn't consider all because I know there do exist procedures to save mothers in situations like this. Secondly the fact that she refers to the child as not a child but a pregnancy tells us all what we need to know about the slant of her convictions on this matter.I have no doubt that McBride felt conflicted and considered all the options, what Catholic wouldn't?
According to everything it was an automatic thing, not like she said, "Oh btw, since I did this I guess I should be excommunicated."
I do think its worth noting, however, that commiting adultery doesn't warrant spontaneous excomunication. I don't think even murder does, does it? (and for the record, I mean actual murder, as it is defined in the dictionary, not "murder" that people like to pretend abortion is)
Wow, I don't condone what she did, but joking about someone's eternal fate after excommunication seems like a horrible thing to do.spread some butter on her- she is toast
Wow, I don't condone what she did, but joking about someone's eternal fate after excommunication seems like a horrible thing to do.
Will someone please share the other procedures that could have been done?
b. Was removing the foetus without killing it a possibility? Was maintaining the pregnancy a viable option?
Well, in my moral theology class we learned about the principle of double effect. If the intended effect is to save the mother, performing a procedure that may result in the death of the child (if the death of the child is not directly willed) falls under the 'double effect' principle.
Mother and child will die if pregnancy continues. We can save mother's life, and then only one person may die instead of two people certainly dying. We perform a procedure that is intended to save the mother, not directly wanting or hoping the child to die, but the child does die anyway. My theology text says that is an acceptable application of the principle.
a. Not murdered if the killing was legal.
b. Was removing the foetus without killing it a possibility? Was maintaining the pregnancy a viable option?
True, it is writtenOne is a epoprostenol infusion. This is a fairly new procedure that has shown great promise and success.
Early recognition of PPH drops the mortality rate from 50% to 30%. The epoprostenol therapy before, during and after a C-section drops it further.
For a good overview of the condition plus multiple article sources on it see
But they aborted the baby as the treatment to save the mom. the baby dieing wasn't the side effect or the risk of the treatment- it was the treatment.Well, in my moral theology class we learned about the principle of double effect. If the intended effect is to save the mother, performing a procedure that may result in the death of the child (if the death of the child is not directly willed) falls under the 'double effect' principle.
Mother and child will die if pregnancy continues. We can save mother's life, and then only one person may die instead of two people certainly dying. We perform a procedure that is intended to save the mother, not directly wanting or hoping the child to die, but the child does die anyway. My theology text says that is an acceptable application of the principle.
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?