What about a stillbirth-if the child is dead in the womb-then an abortion IS necessary.
Or if the death of the mother is a certainty?
stillbirth implies birth, so no abortion is needed. I think you are referring to a known death in the womb, which is not abortion, as you are not ending life, just removing a baby who has died.
Vatican reconsiders…
Waiting for the reply to Guin’s second question.
What about the recent scenario of a nine-year old raped? She was in serious jeopardy if she were to proceed with said pregnancy?
(ETA: I missed Kanicbird’s answer to my first question. Waiting for the answer to the second).
I did type it, but it didn’t go through.
Again IMHO abortion is never desirable. Is it better for a woman to die delivering her child into the world then the living hell of having ordered the death of her own child? God’s greatest act of Love is dieing for another.
IMHO For the 9 yr old, the way God designed us is that we are to rejoice in our children, this includes in the womb. It is us being taught by the world that pregnancy is a unfair burden on women, when it is if anything a ‘unfair’ blessing that women can experience, if they just let go of the lies of the world. That pregnancy was not expected and the method was wrong, but the result of a child is a blessing. It would do far more harm IMHO to then have that child killed and removed from the 9 yr mother, further traumatizing her.
Spiritually I believe that abortion is equivalent to a stranger coming into the bedroom of a mother and infant, the mother forced to watch, but can not act, as the stranger causes great pain to her infant that she cherishes and adores (spiritually women have to cherish and adores their child in the womb, it is a great blessing, physically however she may despise the child), the infant looks to the mother not understanding why this is happening, looking for help, wondering why she is just looking, but not being able to communicate anything. Finally the stranger drags the infant like a wounded animal out the door of the bedroom into the cold and closes the door. The mother is left with a empty feeling that, never knowing what happened to her child who she Loves, and spiritually is somewhere wounded greatly, without the forgiveness of God that pain can never go away.
That is the pain that women who undergo abortion must face every day, and must learn to hide that pain from themselves, but hiding it just makes them cover up who they really are, and they are subject to have that pain revealed whenever trigger words, or images come up, causing them to live in bondage, and people can actually control them through their covering up that pain. This is the so called choice that pro-choice offers.
Since I know several women who have had abortions, I think it’s pretty clear that it’s not a fate worse than death for these women. I know this is anecdotal. I guess, for data, you could do some research that shows whether the suicide rate for women who have had abortions is greater than, say, 50%. I’m pretty confident this is not the case.
Since God’s greatest act of Love is dying for another, I wonder why you’re still posting. Shouldn’t you be donating all of your healthy organs, all of them, to those in need? That’s no less than what was being asked of this 9 year old by the Catholic Church (although they seem to be back-pedaling a bit now).
A nine year old rape victim isn’t a woman, Kanicbird. To say it’s better for her to DIE because she’s pregnant, so that the children she may bear (if they survive) will live, after what she went through-I don’t think it’s exaggerating to call such an idea demonic.
Maybe this is an appeal to emotion, but this is a-nine-year-old, who was raped by her own stepfather. Forgive me if I think her life should matter more than any potential fetuses.
As for an “unfair burden”, hello? Is this thing on? You bloody well bet it’s an “unfair burden!”
kanic, you’re declaring–quite presumptuously–that every woman who has an abortion goes through a “living hell” over it. This simply isn’t true, at least not in all cases.
Try to understand this: A girl or woman who is pregnant as the result of rape or incest may not want to go through with the pregnancy. She might not get any warm fuzzy feelings or view the fetus as her beloved child since it reminds her only of the terror and trauma of what she went through. I wouldn’t blame her for not wanting to give birth. I can’t see how the fetus’s life should trump hers–and that goes for women whose health is endangered by a pregnancy as well (Guin has covered this already).
Now, let’s give poor kanicbird a chance to respond, folks.
Please tell us about the torment you still feel to this day about that abortion you went through, kanicbird.
Damn right.
And how about “Daddy”, who caused it all? What has “holy mother church” done about or to him? Not a damn thing as far as I know.
Well, at least now I know, they don’t give a shit about right vs wrong, or justice.
Okay, first off, let me state that I am NOT one of those who think men are not entitled to have OPINIONS on abortion. HOWEVER…
…Kanicbird, you are not a woman. You will never have to face this choice. You have NO RIGHT to sit there and speak for every single woman, and say that they are “spiritually is somewhere wounded greatly”. When it was pointed out to you by women who HAD abortions that they did not feel this way, you rather arrogantly asserted that women did feel this way, deep down in their hearts, though they hid it from themselves. That is NOT the “truth”, as you have NO FUCKING WAY OF KNOWING THAT. YOU ARE NOT A WOMAN. Again, DO NOT SPEAK FOR WOMEN!!! Quit presuming to speak for us, all right?
YOU will never ever have to face this choice. You’re entitled to your opinions, but to sit there and say, that a nine year old girl who was raped by her step-father should have to die rather than have an abortion-that’s sickening, and morally repugnant.
And I have this crazy idea, I dunno, (I’m probably going to be piled on for this) but I think rape is a far, far greater sin than abortion. I know, insane, isn’t it?
[sub]Sorry for the appeal to emotion folks, but even though I, personally, haven’t faced any of this, I’m sitting here just shaking.[/sub]
Can’t believe I am putting in my 2 cents here but…(referring to the title of the thread)
…maybe it was already mentioned and I missed it but not all Christians are Catholic and not all Christians are pro-life (heck, not even all Catholics are even though they are supposed to be).
Most Christians I know would support the abortion (and pray for the girl).
Vent: I am so sick of people thinking that because I believe in God and Christ that I am obviously pro-life, anti-gay and batshit insane. Thanks. I feel better now.
Actually, the Church rescended the excommunications, being that the girl’s life was in danger, (she, herself, was not excommunicated-it was her mother and the doctor), and said that the bishop who did so was in error, or something to that effect.
To be fair, the Church DOES allow for abortions to save the life of the mother. I think it’s dressed up as, if in the process of trying to treat her, an abortion occurs, it’s permissible. Or something like that.
Archbishop Rino Fisichella:
the excommunication not only of the medical team but also of the girl’s mother had been a mistake. “Before thinking about an excommunication it was necessary and urgent to save an innocent life”, he said. The excommunication had been decided on and publicised “too hastily”. …
Last week the National Conference of Brazilian Bishops admitted that the excommunications of the mother and doctors of the girl had been wrong.
So to those who say “obey everything all the time”, to those who say “The church is clear on this”, to those who say things to the effect that “unbelievers don’t belong”
How do you square this? The “authorities” :rolleyes: and the “experts” :rolleyes: the Princes Of The Church (bishops) can’t even agree among themselves. One excommunicates. Another says he shouldn’t have. Which is the heretic? Which is the idiot?
They can’t figure out what is right or wrong. So, SOME of us will just decide for ourselves.
As a Jewish agnostic, I am certainly not an expert on Roman Catholic canon law. But in reality, in Latin America, where laws on the subject are heavily influenced by Roman Catholicism, interpretations vary
about what endangers the life of the mother and in what circumstances an abortion is necessary in order to save the mother’s life.
The whole thing is enough to make you sick, isn’t it? (I think Barry Goldwater once pointed out that the problem with outlawing abortion is that it doesn’t stop it-it just makes it dangerous.)
Jesus. And THAT article, ladies and gentlmen, is why I am pro-choice.
(I’m just repeating what I was told, mind you)
He was right.
For emphasis, from p. 8 of the linked article:
"A policy that criminalizes all abortions has a flip side. It appears to mandate that the full force of the medical team must tend toward saving the fetus under any circumstances. This notion can lead to some dangerous practices. Consider an ectopic pregnancy, a condition that occurs when a microscopic fertilized egg moves down the fallopian tube — which is no bigger around than a pencil — and gets stuck there (or sometimes in the abdomen). Unattended, the stuck fetus grows until the organ containing it ruptures. A simple operation can remove the fetus before the organ bursts. After a rupture, though, the situation can turn into a medical emergency.
According to Sara Valdés, the director of the Hospital de Maternidad, women coming to her hospital with ectopic pregnancies cannot be operated on until fetal death or a rupture of the fallopian tube. “That is our policy,” Valdés told me. She was plainly in torment about the subject. “That is the law,” she said. “The D.A.'s office told us that this was the law.” Valdés estimated that her hospital treated more than a hundred ectopic pregnancies each year. She described the hospital’s practice. “Once we determine that they have an ectopic pregnancy, we make sure they stay in the hospital,” she said. The women are sent to the dispensary, where they receive a daily ultrasound to check the fetus. “If it’s dead, we can operate,” she said. “Before that, we can’t.” If there is a persistent fetal heartbeat, then they have to wait for the fallopian tube to rupture. If they are able to persuade the patient to stay, though, doctors can operate the minute any signs of early rupturing are detected. Even a few drops of blood seeping from a fallopian tube will “irritate the abdominal wall and cause pain,” Valdés explained. By operating at the earliest signs of a potential rupture, she said, her doctors are able to minimize the risk to the woman.
One doctor, who asked to remain anonymous because of the risk of prosecution, explained that there are creative solutions to the problem of ectopic pregnancies: “Sometimes when an ectopic pregnancy comes in, the attendant will say, ‘Send this patient to the best ultrasound doctor.’ And I’ll say, ‘No, send her to the least-experienced ultrasound doctor.’ He’ll say, ‘I can’t find a heartbeat here.’ Then we can operate.”
So in some circumstances, medical personnel are forced to risk the pregnant woman’s death in order to obey a zero-tolerance abortion law. Fabulous.
I have a better word.
Obscene.