Abortion

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='CrossCuT' post='1418041' date='Nov 12 2007, 01:25 AM'][size=1]I believe I remember being told that if the mother's life is in danger during the pregnancy and that the only solution (unfourtunaly) would be to abort the baby (for whatever reason), she is allowed to do so to save her life.
[/size][/quote]
Its the MDs job to save both their lives. The bottom line is the ends do not justify the means. However, many husbands I know would prefer a live wife and to try again for another baby then vise versa.

[XIX]

[quote name='CrossCuT' post='1418041' date='Nov 12 2007, 01:25 AM'][size=1]I believe I remember being told that if the mother's life is in danger during the pregnancy and that the only solution (unfourtunaly) would be to abort the baby (for whatever reason), she is allowed to do so to save her life.
[/size][/quote]
In cases of eptopic pregnancy.

Except, you can not directly abort the child. There is some surgery where you remove the uterus or something like that. The baby dies in the process. It's the principle of double effect--that much I know for sure.

I also know that without the surgery, there is a 100% chance that the baby will die. Same with the mother also, I believe--maybe there's an exception if the baby is miscarried or something. But that's the only situation where abortion is permissible according to Catholic moral teaching. Because literally speaking, it's not *really* an abortion.

[Lena]

where do most abortions take place (what countries?)? just wondering for the sake of wondering.

[Spamity Calamity]

[quote name='PapaHilarious' post='1416798' date='Nov 9 2007, 09:21 PM']you are correct in that human persons at the earliest stages in their development are not pigs. as to how we know what an embryo is - or this "mass of cells" as abortionists like to call it - well, it's simple.

[u]first of all[/u], there is precedent: every single human person that has been allowed to be born, so all of us from babies to old men, began in the same way. we all looked like a mass of cells - or a blob or whatever derogatory "medical" description that someone wants to use - at the earliest stages of our lives. this is simple biology. we grow and develop as humans. i don't look like i did when i was 2 months old today, and in 50 years, i may be bald or fat or disfigured or wrinkled or many other possibilities.

consider the mighty oak tree: it begins as a seed. if given care and freedom, that oak seed will always develop into an oak tree. it's in its DNA. all oak trees begin the same way. none will be pigs or just a pile of leaves.

[u]second[/u], what happens if you leave bloodcells alone? do they produce a human person? or what about a hair follicle? that's alive in a sense, too, but would it eventually result in a baby if left unobstructed? obviously, not. [b]but when a human egg is fertilized, it creates a new, unique living being that, left intact, grows and develops into a fetus, a baby, a child, possibly an annoying teenager, and then an adult.[/b]

[u]thirdly[/u], consider the implications of the "blob of cells" argument. if we are not human persons from conception, then the value of life will [b]always[/b] be up to a popular vote. after all, if our lives do not have value from the moment of their production, then value is something that happens or [i]occurs[/i] along the path of our development. it is not inherently [i]"endowed by Our Creator."[/i]

[u]lastly[/u], following the "cells" argument: where does one look to find the moment of a human life achieving value? the heart beats within a few weeks...maybe then? how about when we can see all the finger and toes? or maybe just at birth? our society promotes genetic testing to make sure there are no deformities or mental disabilities, too. GREAT IDEA! because after all, a blob of cells that would be born without all the right parts or maybe with Down Syndrome or something like that doesn't really have the value that the rest of us have.

the Nazis had many guidelines as to what constitutes a human person, and we can vilify them as much as we like, but how much better are we today? at least the disabled and weak that they murdered had a chance to resist, if even a futile one. and the Romans preferred to leave unwanted babies in the wilderness rather than murder them themselves. that's almost heroic virtue when compared to [i]our[/i] idea of "human value."

in conclusion, it is a very scary proposition to imply there is anything "reasonable" about denying the value of life in the early weeks of pregnancy. as G.K. Chesteron once said:

[size=3][/size][/quote]

Nail on the head Papa. I especially liked your 2nd and 3rd points.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Lena' post='1418284' date='Nov 12 2007, 06:47 PM']where do most abortions take place (what countries?)? just wondering for the sake of wondering.[/quote]
Statistically, I believe it's Eastern Europe, especially former Soviet Bloc countries. I'd have to look it up to see which ones specifically, but I saw a map of this lately.

[dairygirl4u2c]

more food for thought.

[quote]When Life Begins? . . .An Open Letter to the President

In memory of Christopher Reeve

Dear Mr. President,

Embryonic stem cell research is dependent on the question of when is there life, as well it should be, for no one wants to commit murder. So this question of when there is life is basic to a furtherance of embryonic stem cell research and its possible medical benefits to our ill and aging population. I ask you, Mr. President, and the greater Christian community, and those who believe the Bible to be the inspired unfailing Word of God to prayerfully and diligent seek the truth of these words: "The life of the flesh is in the blood" (Leviticus 17:11).

I understand the Christian Faith to be based on blood:
bullet The blood of Abel crying out from the ground and being heard by God is the first mention of blood in the Bible.
bullet The first shedding of blood may have been by God when God provided skin coverings for Adam and Eve before their expulsion from the Garden.
bullet God "passes over" the homes which have blood sprinkled on their doorposts and lintels in Egypt before the Exodus.
bullet God teaches Moses the shedding, spilling, and sprinkling of blood as ritual sacrifices necessary for the atonement of sins and the purification of the priests and accessories for the tabernacle.
bullet For thousands of years the Old Testament portion of the Bible chronicles countless blood sacrifices before and upon the altar of God in both the tabernacle and the Temple at Jerusalem.
bullet And the prophets, speaking for God, gave many dire warnings of serious repercussions because of the shedding of innocent blood.

All this bloodshed, according to many Christian theologians, was necessary to "teach" the importance of shed blood for the remission of sins. This teaching culminating in the sacrifice of the Blood of Yeshua of Nazareth upon a cross, as so skillfully depicted by Mel Gibson in "The Passion of the Christ."

The idea of Christianity is, as I understand it, Mr. President, that by accepting the blood sacrifice of the Christ as a personal substitute for one’s own sinfulness, a person becomes reunited in their relationship with God and receives a new life based on this shed blood because, as the Bible teaches, "the life is in the blood" and "there is no remission of sins without the shedding of blood." So you, Mr. President, and millions of others, are Christians because of the life that is in the blood. It would seem to follow, that if there is no blood then there is no life.

My point being, Mr. President, that there is no blood in an embryo until many days after conception, and if there is no blood, and "the life is in the blood," then it would seem to follow that until there is blood there is no life. If this is true, then a bloodless embryo could be made available for research without incurring the wrath of God because of the shedding of innocent blood, since no blood is shed.

Mr. President, please do not mistake my intent. I do not condone murder nor wish to create a permissive climate for murder. If "the life is in the blood," then an abortion of a fetus with blood is murder and a government by the people and for the people should have no active or supportive role in murder. But if "the life is in the blood," then the use of a bloodless embryo in research to give hope and perhaps eventually cures to debilitating illnesses should be encouraged and supported by the same government.

In my opinion we may not have one without the other. If this rationale is correct, that "the life is in the blood," and we permit embryonic stem cell research on bloodless embryos, we must also end government participation in abortions involving a fetus with blood, for that fetus, by this rationale, has life.

Thank you, Mr. President, for your personal and prayerful consideration of this matter.[/quote]

[PapaHilarious]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1422713' date='Nov 19 2007, 10:25 PM']more food for thought.[/quote]

the premise of this argument is very flawed if we examine Leviticus 17...

[size=2][quote][10] "If any man of the house of Israel or of the strangers that sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people.

[11] For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life.[/quote][/size]

from the text we see that the law is not saying "blood = life" in some scientific sense as the letter to the president was claiming. after all, the passage is talking about [i]eating[/i] blood and sacrifice. and after a sacrifice, the animal (or person) is [u]dead[/u], so therefore we know that there is no "life" in the blood at the point of reference, since it is postmortem.

in fact, a truer reading of the text would be to say that "the shedding of blood = the taking of life" and it is a warning of the seriousness of taking life. [b]but does this exclude the fact that life could be taken in a bloodless fashion? [/b]certainly not. people dying naturally do not loose blood, nor do those who die from heart attacks. or even if we stay in the frame of murder: one can be poisoned to death without blood loss or strangled or drowned.

in reality, the letter is just one more attempt to choose an artificial point at which to impose dignity on the human person. it it simply too hard of a burden for some to bear to acknowledge that all men are [i][b]created equal,[/b][/i] with dignity [i][b]endowed by their Creator.[/b][/i]

God's gift of creation does not begin at birth, nor does it begin at 18-26 weeks when it is most convenient for partial-birth abortions, nor does it begin at 7 weeks when the baby can pump his or her own blood, nor does it begin at 5 weeks when the foundation for all the child's organs are established. and again it does not begin at 1 week when implantation begins in the uterus.

[b]God's gift of creation begins when life begins, at conception. [/b]A tiny new cell, no bigger than a grain of sand yet containing all the genetic information we will ever need, is how we all begin. The intricacies of our development from our first day are certainly wonderful and amazing, but our dignity does not rest in popular "conscience." It rests first and foremost in our creation, flowing from the ultimate goodness that is our Creator.

[dairygirl4u2c]

to be fair, i don't think he's saying it's directly analogous or proof. i think he's just saying it's circumstantial evidence.
i'm just noting to ensure it's said. you present a sound rebuttal.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1416757' date='Nov 9 2007, 05:35 PM']When Christ wanted to teach us something about how to live or treat each other, he did so with parables. When he wanted to teach something about himself or the kingdom, he simply repeated himself over and over again in plain language, and then said take it or leave it. Abortion is one of those issues. When someone wants to debate, just repeat the same thing over and over again, it is wrong under all circumstances, and eventually they will understand that there isn't anything to debate. They need to take it or leave it.[/quote]
[quote name='PapaHilarious' post='1416798' date='Nov 9 2007, 07:21 PM']our society promotes genetic testing to make sure there are no deformities or mental disabilities, too. GREAT IDEA! because after all, a blob of cells that would be born without all the right parts or maybe with Down Syndrome or something like that doesn't really have the value that the rest of us have.

the Nazis had many guidelines as to what constitutes a human person, and we can vilify them as much as we like, but how much better are we today? at least the disabled and weak that they murdered had a chance to resist, if even a futile one. and the Romans preferred to leave unwanted babies in the wilderness rather than murder them themselves. that's almost heroic virtue when compared to [i]our[/i] idea of "human value."[/quote]
[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1417621' date='Nov 11 2007, 10:28 AM']How can a baby or old or disabled person not be human??
How can they not deserve respect and dignity??
[u]Thou shalt not murder[/u] is valid at either end of life. Slicing and dicing your children is murder. Killing an old or disabled person is murder. Injecting salt into a heart is murder. Partially delivering a baby and sucking its brains out is murder. Starvation is murder. Cutting people up before they are dead to use their organs is murder.
Why is this so hard to understand.?????.[/quote]
great points, everyone!

[prose]

[url="http://www.feministsforlife.org/img/cop/ads_PDF/03DeathPenalty.pdf"]http://www.feministsforlife.org/img/cop/ad...eathPenalty.pdf[/url]