No communion for Obama supporters

[dekeguy]

Originally Posted by ;1745858

I'm sorry, but I'm not exactly sure what the example means. Are you referencing a procedure meant to save the mother that resulted in the loss of the child? Or, in the midst of a procedure intended to save the mother, it is found that aborting the fetus is necessary to keep her alive? Because the former wouldn't technically be an "abortion"--just an accident, right?

============

As I understand it (and remember I am not a Theologian) the key is the intention. If the intention is to save life [the mother] and incidentally the child is lost, even if the loss is inevitable, but the intention is not to destroy life then this would be morally acceptable. So, if governed by the proper intention both situations would be tragic but morally sound. Again I must apply the caveat that my opinion does not carry Theological teaching authority. Domine non sum dignus.

If there are any RC Theologians reading this please chime in and make sure my understanding of the issue is sound.
Many thanks,
Peter

[ForeverRoses]

Originally Posted by dekeguy

============

As I understand it (and remember I am not a Theologian) the key is the intention. If the intention is to save life [the mother] and incidentally the child is lost, even if the loss is inevitable, but the intention is not to destroy life then this would be morally acceptable. So, if governed by the proper intention both situations would be tragic but morally sound. Again I must apply the caveat that my opinion does not carry Theological teaching authority. Domine non sum dignus.

If there are any RC Theologians reading this please chime in and make sure my understanding of the issue is sound.
Many thanks,
Peter

I'm not a theologian, however I do know a bit about Catholic NFP teachings. You are correct-btw, it is all about intent.

To give a real-life example- If a woman has an ectopic pregancy (where the fertilized egg has implanted in the fallopian tube rather than the uterus), then this is a life threatening condition. The way to save the woman's life is to remove the fallopian tube- however to remove it will kill the developing baby. But since the objective is to save the life NOT kill the baby, it is acceptable.

Another example would be amniocentisis. In a small percentage of cases, an amnio can lead to a miscarriage (spontanious abortion). The objective of the amnio IS NOT abortion- in fact most amnios are performed to help diagnose health conditions with the baby- some which can be corrected in utero.

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by dekeguy

As I understand it (and remember I am not a Theologian) the key is the intention. If the intention is to save life [the mother] and incidentally the child is lost, even if the loss is inevitable, but the intention is not to destroy life then this would be morally acceptable. So, if governed by the proper intention both situations would be tragic but morally sound.

Originally Posted by ForeverRoses

To give a real-life example- If a woman has an ectopic pregancy (where the fertilized egg has implanted in the fallopian tube rather than the uterus), then this is a life threatening condition. The way to save the woman's life is to remove the fallopian tube- however to remove it will kill the developing baby. But since the objective is to save the life NOT kill the baby, it is acceptable.

Thanks, I think I get it now. I always wondered about that scenario (if the pregnancy must be "sacrificed" [in a way] for the life of the mother). Focusing on intention puts everything into much clearer perspective. I don't mean as far as "which is morally right," but as far as a basis for personal choices.

[SWTXBelle]

I thought I had read that condom use is a no-no, even if the intention is to prevent disease and not pregnancy. Any one have insight into this?

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

I thought I had read that condom use is a no-no, even if the intention is to prevent disease and not pregnancy. Any one have insight into this?

Well, if you were both virgins when you got married and neither of you strayed, what diseases would you be preventing? I believe that's the logic. The only form of birth control allowed is the rhythm method. I suppose if you contracted something like hepatitis or HIV in some other manner and needed to protect your spouse from that, a priest would okay that. Or, if you had a medical condition that a pregnancy would exacerbate, birth control would be ok. But, I liked the way my first priest said it with "You need to pray and discern with God if you feel that you shouldn't bring a child into the world" (basically, it's between you and God)

[ForeverRoses]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

I thought I had read that condom use is a no-no, even if the intention is to prevent disease and not pregnancy. Any one have insight into this?

Using a condom is a no-no. However in NFP if sperm needs to be collected, Then a condom can be used. HOWEVER (I am not making this up), the condom actually has holes in it so some amount can reach the intended target (therefore not preventing a pregnancy)