I went ahead and checked the rulebook, and it seems that it is o.k. to answer factual questions in this forum.
Clever idea. Check the news for the last 10 years. RICO ? Hell, nothing applies. The stories make big headlines, the victims come forth, the truth is told, and hey ho guess what?
The babyfucking just keeps rolling right along. Agreed- it rolls along with an entire huge immensely wealthy and powerful machine behind it.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
Again, **let’s please be accurate **in why we despise these policies. The zygote/fetus isn’t **more **important than the person hosting it; it’s simply exactly as important. In the same way that if both of us were dying, but I could be saved by a transplant of one of your organs, I couldn’t chose to kill you to harvest it.
Not to mention that this thread itself seems to be the proper place for lectures on this thing called “canon law”.
I’d think that “cannon law” applies considerably more to Shot From Guns than the rest of us.
What?
Are anti abortionists, who eat eggs for breakfast, sort of akin to vegetarians that wear leather?
No, a chicken egg has no “potential” to become human life (note, btw that “potentially could become” is another way to say “is not”). But anti-abortionists who do not hold funerals for each of their used tampons are.
Again you claim this falsehood as a premise. And once again your own example proves my point.
If you were dying, you not only can’t kill me for my organs, you can’t even require me to give blood, something that doesn’t really cost me anything. Nor can you demand an extra organ (e.g., kidney or a piece of liver), bone marrow, tissue, or anything else. And I certainly can’t be required to damage my body or my health or risk my life in order to save yours.
I do not have to support your life with my body, period, end of discussion.
And yet that zygote/fetus does have the right (according to anti-abortionists, including the Church) to demand support from a woman’s body. A woman is REQUIRED to submit to the permanent changes to her body (much less the rest of her life) that pregnancy causes. The woman’s health risks DO NOT MATTER, all that is important is the contents of her womb. It is, by Church standards, perfectly acceptable to risk a woman’s life on the off-chance that a baby may get to survive. It is, by their standards, perfectly acceptable to permanently damage a woman’s health in order to “protect innocent life”.
That is NOT “exactly as important”, no matter how many times you say it. The zygote/fetus/etc is MORE IMPORTANT than the woman, it is treated preferentially to the woman in every single case.
If your house is on fire, and you can save either your wife or a fertilized egg of hers sitting in a sealed test tube, which one do you rescue?
I have to figure tie goes to the runner. In this case, the woman.
Worse, in the case in the OP, the church position is that the woman needs to die in order to avoid having anyone take an active role in the death of the zygote as well. It actually requires causing two deaths instead of one!
While that’s true, of course. I never hear one say “I had scrambled chickens for breakfast.”
Eggs. They’re just eggs. No one calls them ‘potential’ chickens, and if they did we’d all think they were idiots for doing so. Because they’re eggs right up until they hatch and become chickens.
That has already been shown to be false. A woman, protecting her health, is within her rights if the death of the fetus is an indirect result of the medical procedure. So clearly, you’re wrong in stating that the fetus always trumps the health concerns of the mother, when that does occur, even to the point of the fetus’s death.
You seem to want the mother’s health concerns to trump the fetus’s in every instance, which is a different argument, I’d assert. Or do you agree that there are at least some circumstances where the mother’s options should be restricted if it kills the fetus?
Sure, the RCC allows it if its an “indirect result of the medical procedure”, but that’s a load of crap. It’s not really an indirect result of a required medical procedure. They claim “we had to remove the fallopian tube, it’s just too bad the ectopic pregnancy was lodged there.” But if they were being honest with themselves, they’d have to admit that there’s nothing wrong with the fallopian tube that necessitates removing it. It’s not like she has cancer of the fallopian tube, so it’s a shame the egg that’s there needs to be removed with it. The only reason the tube is really being removed is to remove the fetus - there’s nothing indirect about it, and claiming otherwise to attempt to maintain a moral high ground is sheer stupidity.
And what about the many other medical reasons why a pregnancy can threaten the mother’s life? Sure, the RCC allows “indirect” abortion if there is an ectopic pregnancy in the tube, but what if it’s an ectopic pregnancy in the abdominal cavity or on the outside of the uterus? Does the RCC then say the woman should have portions of her intestines removed? Or a hysterectomy? What if it’s some other medical problem that can’t be “indirectly” solved by removing a woman’s perfectly functional organs? Then she should just die?
Yes, as an indirect result of the medical procedure only. Which falls under what I said, ‘It is, by Church standards, perfectly acceptable to risk a woman’s life on the off-chance that a baby may get to survive. It is, by their standards, perfectly acceptable to permanently damage a woman’s health in order to “protect innocent life”.’
In the case mentioned in the OP, or the previously mentioned 9 year old, since the problem IS the pregnancy, there is no “indirect result” and therefore no acceptable medical procedure. An abortion is not allowed, because an abortion would directly kill the fetus. It doesn’t matter that the pregnancy will kill the woman.
In the case of an ectopic tubal pregnancy, the Church requires that the entire fallopian tube be removed, so that they can pretend they are not killing the egg, thereby “protecting innocent life”. It doesn’t matter that this causes permanent harm to the woman with risk of greater complications later.
I think it is both immoral and idiotic to kill the fetus AND kill or harm the woman. In any circumstance where the fetus won’t survive, there is no good reason to damage the mother’s health just for the principle of “no abortions”.
In any case where the mother is risking her life and health, I believe that it should be her decision, just as any other medical decision is. And I believe that it is wrong to pressure a woman to damage her health just for the principle of “no abortions”. If she wishes to take that risk of her own, free, uncoerced will - then I’m fine with that.
But I’m not the one making the claim of treating the two equally, either. I’m really not sure how that would work. “Well, one of you’s gotta die, so we’re gonna flip a coin…”
Good luck getting a reply to those questions.
Huh? Are you under the impression the RCC uses this as a loophole to allow abortions for otherwise healthy women? You’d be wrong. They’re not looking for reasons to permit abortion, believe me.
Your question isn’t clear to me. My point was, it is demonstrably false to state (as redtail23 did) that the woman’s health is a matter of no consequence if it impacts the fetus’s well-being. There are instances where the RCC permits even the death of the fetus in the interest of the mother’s health. The statement made was too broad.
You also said:
This is an overstatement, as I’ve explained.
Please give examples.
How fascinating.