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

[AOII Angel]

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.

The mother was dying in the ICU from right heart failure due to increased blood volume from her pregnancy. From what I read in the article, if they couldn't move her, she was probably on a ventilator and pressors and close to deaths door. No, both lives couldn't be saved. Mothers aren't looked down upon for sacrificing themselves for their children, but they shouldn't be forced to sacrifice themselves for their fetus when they have 4 LIVE children to raise!

[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.

[dekeguy]

Originally Posted by Beryana

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

Ah ha! Then you would be very conversant with Thomism!

Since you are a lay member of the OPs may I presume you know the significance of "Oro pro Societas"?

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

If it was all based on state laws, how come doctor shopping works within the same city even? There are doctors out there who impose their values on patients, particularly in a "but you'll want kids later" situation. It's possible that this is at least partially motivated by fear of a lawsuit later, I don't know.

And all other forms of birth control come with their own side effects. Shouldn't an informed adult be allowed to choose? One time cost vs. ongoing costs are important as well. (Argument not really directed at you, just tossing it out there)

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.

[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.

[Beryana]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

I'm assuming she disagrees with the social teaching because she is in the medical profession (radiologist and her husband is an endocrinologist), she is non-Catholic and so doesn't not REALLY know the Catholic social teachings. I'm simply providing non-media sources to read up on what the Catholic Church actually teaches as well as the basis for those social teachings on the sanctity of human life. I can also assume that she does not work for a Catholic hospital so her views on what a Catholic hospital allows and does not allow based on said social teachings is truly a moot point. . . .

What would you like me to discuss? That abortion is always wrong as it is the killing of a human life (a belief I held even when I was away from the Catholic Church). I agree the sister (nuns are cloistered and would not be the administrator of a hospital. . . .) should be excommunicated (in addition to the doctors, nurses and the mother - anyone involved in the procurement of the abortion/any abortion as they are no longer in communion with the Catholic Church).

I only cited sources so people can read up on what the Catholic Church actually teaches if they are not familiar with the ACTUAL teachings. If people involved in the discussions are familiar with the actual teachings, fabulous. Sadly I have to assume people, even though raised Catholic and practicing Catholicism, are not familiar because the majority of people have no clue what the Catholic Church actually teaches and why- even those who have gone through years of Catholic education.

[AOII Angel]

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."

I almost forgot about you, Mr. Cat. No, that's not what I said. Yes, we're really terminating a pregnancy in all the cases described. No, we're not always saving the mother's life acutely in all the cases, though, in the case of a ruptured ectopic pregnancy and the woman in the OP, the termination does save the life of the mother.

To Beryana, do you advocate women dying with their ectopic pregnancies as well? These are normal fetuses, too. They just happen to be in abnormal places.

[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 AOII Angel

The mother was dying in the ICU from right heart failure due to increased blood volume from her pregnancy. From what I read in the article, if they couldn't move her, she was probably on a ventilator and pressors and close to deaths door. No, both lives couldn't be saved. Mothers aren't looked down upon for sacrificing themselves for their children, but they shouldn't be forced to sacrifice themselves for their fetus when they have 4 LIVE children to raise!

If she were on a ventilator, close to death, etc she could not have given informed consent. Maybe it WAS her wish to save the life of her child. Where was her husband in all this? Did he make the decision to kill his child? Is she raising the children all by herself? Anytime a parent dies it is a tragedy - be it car crash or other accident, medical condition, etc. But you are saying the child does not have a right to actual live, that the mother is more important because there are 4 other children. What if this had happened outside the 'legal window' to have an abortion?

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Beryana

I'm assuming she disagrees with the social teaching because she is in the medical profession (radiologist and her husband is an endocrinologist), she is non-Catholic and so doesn't not REALLY know the Catholic social teachings. I'm simply providing non-media sources to read up on what the Catholic Church actually teaches as well as the basis for those social teachings on the sanctity of human life. I can also assume that she does not work for a Catholic hospital so her views on what a Catholic hospital allows and does not allow based on said social teachings is truly a moot point. . . .

What would you like me to discuss? That abortion is always wrong as it is the killing of a human life (a belief I held even when I was away from the Catholic Church). I agree the sister (nuns are cloistered and would not be the administrator of a hospital. . . .) should be excommunicated (in addition to the doctors, nurses and the mother - anyone involved in the procurement of the abortion/any abortion as they are no longer in communion with the Catholic Church).

I only cited sources so people can read up on what the Catholic Church actually teaches if they are not familiar with the ACTUAL teachings. If people involved in the discussions are familiar with the actual teachings, fabulous. Sadly I have to assume people, even though raised Catholic and practicing Catholicism, are not familiar because the majority of people have no clue what the Catholic Church actually teaches and why- even those who have gone through years of Catholic education.

Just because they work in a catholic hospital or are being treated in a catholic hospital does not mean that these people are catholics. That is why I am arguing that they should not be forced to abide by Catholic social mores in an emergency situation.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Beryana

If she were on a ventilator, close to death, etc she could not have given informed consent. Maybe it WAS her wish to save the life of her child. Where was her husband in all this? Did he make the decision to kill his child? Is she raising the children all by herself? Anytime a parent dies it is a tragedy - be it car crash or other accident, medical condition, etc. But you are saying the child does not have a right to actual live, that the mother is more important because there are 4 other children. What if this had happened outside the 'legal window' to have an abortion?

They would have delivered the child early and put him/her in the NICU. See, I do have an answer for everything.

Are you saying that the father has no say in this? I can assure you that no physician would proceed with an abortion without a consent from the patient or family without going through the proper channels of the ethics committee. For all you know, she could have consented to the abortion before she degraded far enough to need intubation. The whole point is she was critically ill and unable to be moved to another facility. I have over ten years of medical experience (not just radiology since I also did two years of General Surgery), and when patients are too sick to be moved, they are on death's door.

[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

I'm assuming she disagrees with the social teaching because she is in the medical profession (radiologist and her husband is an endocrinologist), she is non-Catholic and so doesn't not REALLY know the Catholic social teachings. I'm simply providing non-media sources to read up on what the Catholic Church actually teaches as well as the basis for those social teachings on the sanctity of human life. I can also assume that she does not work for a Catholic hospital so her views on what a Catholic hospital allows and does not allow based on said social teachings is truly a moot point. . . .

Yet we discuss them on this website. You posting "non-media sources" does not actually teach anyone anything. Stop acting like the media is the evil bad guys who hate the Church.

Your implication that she might just agree with them if she read up on it is misplaced.

What would you like me to discuss? That abortion is always wrong as it is the killing of a human life (a belief I held even when I was away from the Catholic Church). I agree the sister (nuns are cloistered and would not be the administrator of a hospital. . . .) should be excommunicated (in addition to the doctors, nurses and the mother - anyone involved in the procurement of the abortion/any abortion as they are no longer in communion with the Catholic Church).

Technically yes, but colloquially nun is used for all religious Catholic sisters.

No one's ever said the doctors, nurses or mother were Catholic.

I only cited sources so people can read up on what the Catholic Church actually teaches if they are not familiar with the ACTUAL teachings. If people involved in the discussions are familiar with the actual teachings, fabulous. Sadly I have to assume people, even though raised Catholic and practicing Catholicism, are not familiar because the majority of people have no clue what the Catholic Church actually teaches and why- even those who have gone through years of Catholic education.

I think you should probably stop assuming and try to talk to the posters here as if they're on the same level as you. Feel free to cite sources but just saying "Read X,Y and Z and then you're understand" is providing a reading list, not citing a source for a claim or statement.

[Beryana]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Just because they work in a catholic hospital or are being treated in a catholic hospital does not mean that these people are catholics. That is why I am arguing that they should not be forced to abide by Catholic social mores in an emergency situation.

If you work at a truly Catholic hospital, not just one in name only, YES, you do abide by Catholic social teachings. If you aren't willing to, then why work there?

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Beryana

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).

Wow, something we can agree on. The latest one was crap.