Nun excommunicated for allowing abortion to save the life of a mother

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Beryana

Why is it that the mothers that give up their lives to save those of their unborn babies are looked down upon for their sacrifces?

Personally, I look down upon such martyrdom-suicide because I consider the mother's life more important than the baby's life.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Oh, I wouldn't dare, but there is no way to justify allowing a mother of four to die because the nonviable fetus in her uterus that is killing her can't be removed because it's a mortal sin.

I really don't care what the church's teachings on the matter are in reality, I just care that they should not be able to withhold a life saving procedure from a woman who is in their care when she has no choice whether or not she can be in their care. It is all well and good for them to deny care to women when there is another option for them across town, but when that woman is held hostage in their facility by her medical condition, the church is dealing her a death sentence by refusing to allow her medical team and family to treat her how they see fit.

Was the fetus nonviable for any other reason in this case, other than it would die because it killed the mother? My understanding of the original case was that there wasn't anything wrong with fetus or pregnancy. Did I miss something?

I mention this for reasons other than my reading skills, but because that's why the OP case can't really be compared to the ectopic pregnancy stuff in terms of double effect.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Was the fetus nonviable for any other reason in this case, other than it would die because it killed the mother? My understanding of the original case was that there wasn't anything wrong with fetus or pregnancy. Did I miss something?

I mention this for reasons other than my reading skills, but because that's why the OP case can't really be compared to the ectopic pregnancy stuff in terms of double effect.

QFP.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Was the fetus nonviable for any other reason in this case, other than it would die because it killed the mother? My understanding of the original case was that there wasn't anything wrong with fetus or pregnancy. Did I miss something?

Well, the mother was only 11 weeks along - outside of those of us who are pro-abortion, is that generally considered non-viable?

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by agzg

Well, the mother was only 11 weeks along - outside of those of us who are pro-abortion, is that generally considered non-viable?

Not a doctor but I doubt it. Isn't pregnancy usually about 40 weeks give or take?

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by agzg

Well, the mother was only 11 weeks along - outside of those of us who are pro-abortion, is that generally considered non-viable?

Ohhh, I read it as a comment about the pregnancy not being able to progress normally, rather than nonviable outside the womb right then.

Maybe my post really is about my reading skills.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Was the fetus nonviable for any other reason in this case, other than it would die because it killed the mother? My understanding of the original case was that there wasn't anything wrong with fetus or pregnancy. Did I miss something?

I mention this for reasons other than my reading skills, but because that's why the OP case can't really be compared to the ectopic pregnancy stuff in terms of double effect.

That's where this case would be the same as an ectopic. Ectopic pregnancies have nothing wrong with the fetus. They are just located outside of the uterus. There are actually a lot of cases in the literature where ectopic fetuses are carried to term and survive as normal babies. The only thing "wrong" with these fetuses is that they kill the mothers.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

The only thing "wrong" with these fetuses is that they kill the mothers.

There's nothing funny about this topic, but this statement made me think of "It's Alive."

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

That's where this case would be the same as an ectopic. Ectopic pregnancies have nothing wrong with the fetus. They are just located outside of the uterus. There are actually a lot of cases in the literature where ectopic fetuses are carried to term and survive as normal babies. The only thing "wrong" with these fetuses is that they kill the mothers.

I thought that most ectopic pregnancies couldn't progress because they'd get to a point in development where they wouldn't be able to get the nutrients and such that they needed because they wouldn't actually have a placenta, etc.

By "a lot of cases" what percentage are we really talking about?

I don't mean to come across as confrontational so much as really surprised by the medical information. If it's really the case that most ectopic pregnancies are sustainable, why wouldn't there be more interest in just trying to move them to the uterus, rather than just removing them.

I'm thinking of the cases in which people really want to be pregnant and are devastated by having to have the pregnancy removed or even Catholic heath institutions who would probably love to have options to save both.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

People generally know the bolded when they fly in to post references instead of actually engaging others.

Could you feel my sarcasm?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Could you feel my sarcasm?

You're no fun.

This thread reminds me of the "Catholicism is a cult" and "it's not real Christianity" discussions people used to have. That's not what anyone's saying in here but it really boils down to where people get their info and how they interpret it.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by dekeguy

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

As to the differences between the OT and NT God, I always figured that God reveals Himself to us as we are capable of understanding Him. He doesn't change, we just get a little better at understanding Him.

I wouldn't argue that, however there's a pretty big personality shift from A to B throughout. Although if you take the word Elohim literally it is
plural. That could explain a lot...

As to eternal torment, our late Pope John Paul II had a very interesting take on eternal damnation. He said, "Because our holy mother the church tells us so we must believe that there is a hell. We are not, however, required to believe that there is anyone in it."
A very profound observation to my thinking.
When I was in Theology class as an undergraduate my old Jesuit professor said that there was rather a lot he was looking forward to learning when he faced his judgment. However, he thought that since hell is defined as the complete absense of God and since God is omnipresent it logically follows that when you die it is either heaven or oblivion. If you make the cut you are in, if not you simply cease to be.
He went on to say that he was sure that God would not condemn a soul unless that soul was ESSENTIALLY negative. He then asked us if we could envision someone who could have absolutely no positive aspects whatsoever. He felt that such a person would have to be completely insane and therefore not culpable. In other words, its pretty hard to tick off God sufficiently to merit oblivion.

*nod* Both interesting thoughts, unfortunately not ones that I've found often talked about outside the classroom, not even JPII's statement. Although the Church mostly avoids the hellfire and brimstone stance during Mass, they do still load the guilt on you in school and such.


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

Actually, there was a movement back in the 19th Century where Cardinal Mercier of Brussels led a movement to have Mary proclaimed as co-redemptor along with Christ. This was pretty close to out and out heresy so you can guess what happened when the Pope called him for consultations. Can you spell "Whoops, sorry, let me back off of that real fast"?


Please post your thoughts or PM me if you wish. I'd like to hear and discuss this with you.

Ha, not surprising. On one hand Mary's role is really huge throughout the NT (as is Mary Magdalene's actually). But, in what I think is a matter of outside culture that has been continued on through tradition, the emphasis on her virginity to the exclusion of pretty much all other features about her has become, well... excessive. Despite what I've always seen as gospel contradictions of that fact, though I admit to not reading them even in Latin much less the original. As if, despite giving birth, virginity is the only way that a woman could be so honored.

And then throughout time there's been increasing amounts of degradation and persecution of women with Mary being the one exception. So while it's great that she's honored, the rest of us get the shaft. (Ok that's almost a pun but not intended to be.) My understanding is there used to be more acceptance of women within the church, before there were priests there were male and female deacons, but there isn't equality and I'm never going to accept the Church's decision on that.

Originally Posted by MysticCat

But what you said is "we're not really terminating a pregnancy." That's the part that I think is a mischaracterization. There's a difference between "we're doing this to save the mother's life/our goal is not to terminate a pregnancy" and "we're not really terminating a pregnancy."



Although interesting how the real end of the world stuff in Revelation -- the last few chapters -- draws heavily from Isaiah.

I want a burrito.

Meanwhile, I'm reminded of the midrash (rabbinic teaching) telling of God's adminition to those celebrating when pharoah and his army were washed away by the Red Sea: "My children are drowning in the sea and you want to sing before me?"

And dekeguy, you posts -- which I always find interesting -- really would be a lot easier to follow if you were using the quote function.

Good midrash Also you cannot have my burrito it has been nomnomnom'd away.

Originally Posted by Beryana

I am a Lay Dominican - so a lay member of the Order of Preachers

So you should have interesting thoughts on my response to your insinuation that I was accusing the Vatican of a vast conspiracy ala Dan Brown. Yet you choose not to post them.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Beryana

And you are saying there was absolutely no way the mother and baby could have both lived? The proper way to handle these issues is to attempt to save BOTH lives. Why is it that the mothers that give up their lives to save those of their unborn babies are looked down upon for their sacrifces? Mothers that have forgone cancer treatments as those treatments would have killed their babies.

The basic premise of the Catholic teaching on abortion is the sanctity of ALL human life and that someone has to fight for those that have no means to fight for themselves. You can view Catholic social teachings however you want - they aren't going to be changing anytime soon. Just because something is legal does not make it morally or ethically right.

If both lives could have been saved do you think this nun would have risked excommunication? She would have died and so would her unborn child. I would not look down on a mother who chose to avoid treatment because of her fetus, though I might disagree with her. I look down on a hospital telling her she has no choice but to die, never mind that if she does so does the fetus.

Just because the Catholic Church says it doesn't make it morally or ethically right either, it just means that they believe it is morally or ethically right.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

You're no fun.

This thread reminds me of the "Catholicism is a cult" and "it's not real Christianity" discussions people used to have. That's not what anyone's saying in here but it really boils down to where people get their info and how they interpret it.

We're polytheist Mary-worshiping cannibalistic dirty papists. Or so the word on the street goes.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Personally, I look down upon such martyrdom-suicide because I consider the mother's life more important than the baby's life.

And that wasn't even the choice here, baby had no chance without mom.

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Ah...that's a different problem. Medical ethics isn't practiced well by all physicians, and we don't get a book of rules to follow. There are specific laws governing tubal ligations (TLs) in each state regarding the age of the mother, consent forms, timing before labor when consent must be given for TLs to be legal. That being said, many medical procedures definitely have the doctor's own value system imposed on them. Some Catholic OB-GYNs won't even prescribe birth control pills. BUT...if you consult the medical ethics panel, they'll side with what is the standard, not what the individual doctor's personal beliefs might be. Also, TL has side effects as well. It is a surgery with all the risks of anesthesia and invasive procedures. Women with TLs have complaints of worsening pelvic pain and PMS about 3 months after surgery. No one knows why, but it's well documented.

Aye I came across a description of drawbacks of TL, obviously there are side effects, it's surgery! But women should be able to make that decision the same way they choose birth control knowing that there are risks involved. Also now there's Essure which is less risky, I believe. Are the restrictions for a vasectomy as strict?

[Beryana]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

So you should have interesting thoughts on my response to your insinuation that I was accusing the Vatican of a vast conspiracy ala Dan Brown. Yet you choose not to post them.

Ummm...because I didn't see your conspiracy theories and think Dan Brown is simply a very bad writer (and yes, I have read some of his works).

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Beryana

And you are attempting to slap an oversimplified understanding of a social teaching on a complex social teaching. If you would like to read up on the social teaching please feel free to read Humane Vitae, Theology of the Body, or even just the Catechism of the Catholic Church (paragraphs 2270-2275).

She DISAGREES with the social teaching and is arguing, fairly in my opinion, that pretending that X procedure is just a "whoops fetus died" and not an abortive procedure is little more than a mind game.

Provide some discussion rather than looking down on other people.

Don't assume that some of us are not familiar with the material or the discussions since then.