Catholic Weddings

Wow...just wow...

Has anyone seen this article?  I have to admit, I appreciate the honesty, and it's relieving to hear a pro-choicer admit that it's nonsense to call a fetus anything other than a human life, but this is just so sad. 

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/so_what_if_abortion_ends_life/

CN: The article is written by a pro-choicer who believes life begins at conception.  In her own words, " And I would put the life of a mother over the life of a fetus every single time — even if I still need to acknowledge my conviction that the fetus is indeed a life. A life worth sacrificing."

 

«1

Re: Wow...just wow...

  • Ugh. I hate the pervasive notion in modern feminism that we should regard ourselves as the most important person on earth. Everything about it screams narcissism and it makes me nuts. I think that idea is responsible for so much that's gone wrong in the last few decades. Sacrifice for others is the mission of all humanity. We do the world a disservice when we are only out to please ourselves, at the expense of our spouse, our kids, our friends. We've become a society that believes that as long as you, the individual, is happy we're doing the right thing, no matter how it affects anyone else. It's disgusting.
    Lilypie Maternity tickers
    Lilypie Second Birthday tickers
  • ^^ Couldn't agree more, meltoine.  So many of the ethical and moral arguments I've had with friends have boiled down to a difference in whose will is the most important, or whose happiness is at stake.  It's such a fundamental difference in forming one's opinions that it's almost not worth getting into an argument over.

    It doesn't help that every time some idiot makes a completely uninformed comment about rape victims getting pregnant, that's the first thing that hits the news.
    Anniversary

    image

    image

  • You just can't really come up with a rationale for choosing the mother's life (poor choice of words since the mother is not likely to die from carrying and birthing the child) over the child. If you say that a fetus is less "worthy" because it can't really feel, can't survive without the help of another or doesn't have self awareness, then you have an argument for people who are no longer in the womb that struggle with these problems. Are their lives not worthy? Should their parents be able to choose their own "life" over caring for a sick or disabled child?

    If you reduce it to choosing a mother's convenience of not being pregnant (vs her "life"), you're literally choosing 9 months' pregnancy sacrifice over someone's entire life of living. Many people would love to adopt your non-aborted child. You don't have to give up your entire life. It's nine months' sacrifice in exchange for your "sexual freedom". Though I think we need to do a better job of helping women who would be happy choosing adoption over abortion. Help make adoption easier, help care for women that have unwanted pregnancies.
  • I agree, Riss.  A lot of times the option of abortion seems to be the only one because women can't imagine covering the cost of prenatal care, when in actuality there are lots of affordable or even free options out there!

    I was REALLY upset this morning when the clip the news played was of a woman shouting "Women are human beings!  Fetuses are not!" into a megaphone.  Sigh.  When did we become nothing but sex machines?
    Anniversary

    image

    image

  • I agree, Riss. 

    What always gets me furious is Catholics who are so unsupportive of fellow-Catholics who become pregnant out of marriage.  People need to stop putting the concern of "scandal" over their concern for helping those in need, and helping people do the right thing.  I had a huge argument in HS with a girl who insisted it was immoral to celebrate the birth of a baby born outside marriage.  I told her that sex before marriage is always a sin, but a being pregnant and having a baby is NEVER a sin.  The result of a sin, perhaps.  But NEVER is being pregnant a sin, and so celebrating a new life can't be considered celebrating sin.  If we shun the women who bare their children out of wedlock, we risk sending a message that contraception is preferred, and that abortion is preferred.  We can't be so afraid of scandal that we encourage sin.  In a way, shunning these women because of "scandal" is in itself scandalous, as it leads people to sin.

     

  • ^ wow, Resa, I hope that in the end your message to her sunk in!
    Anniversary
  • I wanted to post this article I saw yesterday, but didn't want to stir anything up...but since it's on the topic here, have you seen this?



  • I have heard of that case, Femme.  I've heard speculation that perhaps the legal team is hoping  that if they don't win, it'll result in setting legal precendent that a fetus is a human being.  Not sure if I believe that...I think maybe that's wishful thinking, though, giving too much benefit of the doubt to the hospital.

     

  • I don't think the whole story is getting represented in this, because no way would the diocese allow a hospital to keep the catholic name and be publicly represented this way. Just wouldn't happen. There's something else going on here.

    When the hospital in Arizona did their thing-- catholic was taken off the hospital name. 

    I'm interested to see how this plays out. 
  • femme55femme55 member
    First Anniversary First Comment
    edited January 2013
    As for the Salon article, I think it's pretty absolutist on the pro-choice side on the pro-life vc. pro-choice spectrum.  I do tend to agree with this comment to the article which would better explain why one might value the life of the mother over the life of the fetus:

    ...A 1 week old fertilized ovum is merelya collection of cells. Nothing more.

     

    You're more than a collection of cells, you're a creature with emotions and feelings and passions and desires.

     

    Why would a collection of cells with no feelings or sentience whatsoever have any more "rights" than an algae colony? The only justification that you can come up with involves religion, not science.

     

    Science can provide a coherent answer to the question of when we become sentient beings. It hasn't, yet, but we know that for the first few months, at least, we're not sentient in any reasonable measure of the term.

     

     

  • Kristan, link not working.  Would love to read.
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_wowjust-wow?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:c019d1ed-3f1a-4ea4-a825-69df35470311Post:ce8bcaf1-a489-43e8-aa9d-819acb60113d">Re: Wow...just wow...</a>:
    [QUOTE]I agree, Riss.  What always gets me furious is Catholics who are so unsupportive of fellow-Catholics who become pregnant out of marriage.  People need to stop putting the concern of "scandal" over their concern for helping those in need, and helping people do the right thing.  I had a huge argument in HS with a girl who insisted it was immoral to celebrate the birth of a baby born outside marriage.  I told her that sex before marriage is always a sin, but a being pregnant and having a baby is NEVER a sin.  The result of a sin, perhaps.  But NEVER is being pregnant a sin, and so celebrating a new life can't be considered celebrating sin.  If we shun the women who bare their children out of wedlock, we risk sending a message that contraception is preferred, and that abortion is preferred.  We can't be so afraid of scandal that we encourage sin.  In a way, shunning these women because of "scandal" is in itself scandalous, as it leads people to sin.
    Posted by Resa77[/QUOTE]<div>
    </div><div>
    </div><div>Interesting points.  I also think many unmarried women with unwanted pregnancies, assuming no health or abuse issues, would be more likely to carry to term and give up for adoption if being an unwed mother weren't so stigmatized.  I frankly think it's a big issue of embarrassment for some women.  And I unfortunately think that some religious people (not just catholic) play a very big part in stigmatizing by howling about pre-marital sex being sinful.

    </div>
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_wowjust-wow?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:c019d1ed-3f1a-4ea4-a825-69df35470311Post:09f7664a-a4ca-48b2-8d1e-e3280f17ea23">Re: Wow...just wow...</a>:
    [QUOTE]As for the Salon article, I think it's pretty absolutist on the pro-choice side on the pro-life vc. pro-choice spectrum.  I do tend to agree with this comment to the article which would better explain why one might value the life of the mother over the life of the fetus: ...A 1 week old fertilized ovum is  merely a collection of cells. Nothing more.   You're more than a collection of cells, you're a creature with emotions and feelings and passions and desires.   Why would a collection of cells with no feelings or sentience whatsoever have any more "rights" than an algae colony? The only justification that you can come up with involves religion, not science.   Science can provide a coherent answer to the question of when we become sentient beings. It hasn't, yet, but we know that for the first few months, at least, we're not sentient in any reasonable measure of the term.    
    Posted by femme55@hotmail.com[/QUOTE]

    <div>Because at the moment of conception we are a <em>unique</em> collection of cells.  When the egg and sperm come together it creates a unique life form with a soul that will never exist again.  It is a life with potential.  The algae colony will never be more than an algae colony.  The collection of human cells will eventually be a person who loves others and who is loved by others, with <span style="font-size:8.5pt;line-height:115%;">infinite </span>potential  and a <em>life </em>that one is extinguishing.  </div>
    image
    So this is the miracle that I've been dreaming of...
    Lilypie Premature Baby tickers
  • I'm so tired of the abortion debate. Unfortunately, you can't talk moral values into people that don't have them.  If a mother believes her life is more important than her childs then nothing we say can change her mind, she's going to kill her child.  And this is harsh, but I don't think she deserved to be a mother (that was so unchristian of me, maybe it's the pregnancy hormones or the fact that I just got done having this debate with someone else). 

    In the end, people will tell themselves whatever they want to make it okay in their mind (ex. it's not a human, it can't feel, I'm more important).  How do you think any holocaust/genocide has ever happened.  If you make that person less than a person or less important it makes them easier to kill.  Jews weren't people/equal, blacks weren't people/equal. This isn't new, history always repeats itself.
    Daisypath Anniversary tickers Lilypie Pregnancy tickers
  • My husband has a really interesting take on "rights" - he doesn't believe in them. He believes we have "duties" to each other, to our children, to our parents, etc. He actually calls himself "anti-abortion" rather than "pro-life" because he feels like if you think of the "right to life" you can wind up in weird scenarios like: when a woman that can sustain a pregnancy naturally must do unnatural things to prevent the miscarriage. It's using the slippery slope argument... where do the "rights" stop. If you think of the duties you have as a parent - to care for your child, it is much simpler to say abortion is wrong. He's much more eloquent than I am but I find his take really interesting.

    Anywho - I bet if scientists found that collection of cells on Mars, they would be screaming that they found LIFE on Mars!
  • <span style="font-size:11px;line-height:14px;">[QUOTE]Has anyone seen this article?  I have to admit, I appreciate the honesty, and it's relieving to hear a pro-choicer admit that it's nonsense to call a fetus anything other than a human life, but this is just so sad.  <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/so_what_if_abortion_ends_life/" rel="nofollow">http://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/so_what_if_abortion_ends_life/</a> CN: The article is written by a pro-choicer who believes life begins at conception.  In her own words, " And I would put the life of a mother over the life of a fetus every single time — even if I still need to acknowledge my conviction that the fetus is indeed a life. A life worth sacrificing ."</span>
    Posted by Resa77[/QUOTE]<div>There is definitely something to be said for being honest about that, but yes, it is totally scary. We shouldn't be surprised to hear someone <em>admit</em> that they value life so lowly.</div><div>This reminds me of what I think is a related flaw on the pro-life side - people who say there should be exemptions in the case of rape. Biggest cop-out ever! You *sound* all merciful, but really they're saying, "no you shouldn't kill babies...but actually, you can kill babies to prevent emotional trauma." (or whatever.) And I keep hearing lately the pro-abortion people call pro-lifers out for that exception! Sorry, not sure why the pro-abortion person's quote reminds me of that so much. </div><div>Any thoughts on the rape exception? To me, it almost proves that pro-lifers aren't as serious in believing it's life as they claim to be. I wonder if it's just included by the polititicans to make their position more comfortable?</div><div>
    </div><div><span style="font-size:11px;line-height:14px;">[QUOTE] I bet if scientists found that collection of cells on Mars, they would be screaming that they found LIFE on Mars!</span>
    Posted by Riss91[/QUOTE]
    ha. so true.

    </div>
    Anniversary
  • edited January 2013
    I think for some people, they think that pregnancy is a consequence of sex, and so you can't claim to have a right to choose abortion when you chose to have sex. Killing a fetus isn't justifiable for reasons like not being ready, etc. For a rape victim, she didn't choose to have sex. Although I think it's flawed, I can understand how someone could feel that way. People see the injustice of a woman having control of her body taken from her via rape, and then again by a resulting pregnancy. She doesn't deserve the consequence. It's flawed, though, because people suffer consequences of others' wrongdoing all the time, and it doesn't justify them harming another. If your mother drinks when pregnant, you would suffer the physical defects. If your husband has an affair, you might end up with herpes despite always being faithfully monogamous. If someone drinks and drives and hits another vehicle, someone could lose their life. It's not "fair," and no one would try to say it is. We should insist, though, that two wrongs don't make a right. Abortion will not only kill someone, it will also hurt the mother, and it won't undo the damage of rape.

     

  • I don't support abortion in any case, but I find it really hard to say to a rape victim, "You should definitely carry this baby to term."

    Rape is so much more than a one-time traumatic event.  It stays with you for a LONG time.  Forever for some people.  You don't NEED to get pregnant to carry the scars of that trauma with you.  My high school best friend was raped by an acquaintance in college, and I remember her describing the first time she saw him back on campus (apparently he didn't get kicked out).  It was horrible.

    The problem that I have with the "only in the case of rape/never ever even if it's a rape" argument is that there doesn't seem to be much support out there for the mental health of rape victims.  When a woman goes to a hospital after an assault, she's further humiliated and most hospitals even push Plan-B-type drugs on her.  It's a confusing and emotional time and we're not doing enough to actually heal her.

    And it doesn't help to say to a woman, "God must have a reason for this."  No.  God never intended for you to be violently attacked and forced to carry a baby you didn't ask for.  Yes, this baby is probably the only good thing that can come from that attack, but it's so hard to think about in that moment.  Pregnancy has been the most exciting time of my entire life, but my baby is here on my terms.

    Again, I don't support abortion even in the cases of rape, but I can definitely understand why it seems like the only option.  If a rape victim chooses to keep her baby, defense attorneys have even been known to use that against her: "You didn't terminate your pregnancy, obviously you didn't have a problem with this!"

    Argh... this issue gets me so riled up.
    Anniversary

    image

    image

  • You know what's the worst part of the whole rape conversation? That we have to have it at all. That rape is so overwhelmingly common that we need to have this conversation. It's such a tragedy.

     

  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_wowjust-wow?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:c019d1ed-3f1a-4ea4-a825-69df35470311Post:3f2c40b4-0a91-4ab0-8a67-3277409c2bec">Re:Wow...just wow...</a>:
    [QUOTE]You know what's the worst part of the whole rape conversation? That we have to have it at all. That rape is so overwhelmingly common that we need to have this conversation. It's such a tragedy.
    Posted by Resa77[/QUOTE]

    <div>EXACTLY.</div>
    Anniversary

    image

    image

  • Just as I thought: Denver bishops responding to what they can so far:

  • <span style="font-size:11px;line-height:14px;">[QUOTE]You know what's the worst part of the whole rape conversation? That we have to have it at all. That rape is so overwhelmingly common that we need to have this conversation. It's such a tragedy.</span>
    Posted by Resa77[/QUOTE]
    well... I could be wrong, but I do think that even if there were only 2 babies conceived through rape every year, this would still be an issue, and we would still be having this conversation...
    Anniversary
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_wowjust-wow?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:c019d1ed-3f1a-4ea4-a825-69df35470311Post:1938af9a-e990-4afd-9ef0-23c2bd5bd083">Re:Wow...just wow...</a>:
    [QUOTE]well... I could be wrong, but I do think that even if there were only 2 babies conceived through rape every year, this would still be an issue, and we would still be having this conversation...
    Posted by lalaith50[/QUOTE]

    <div>I think the point Resa was trying to make was that it's ridiculous that rape happens ever.</div>
    Anniversary

    image

    image

  • Yes, that's what I'm trying to say. It just sucks that rape is a thing we have to worry about, in or outside the abortion argument.

     

  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_wowjust-wow?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural Wedding BoardsForum:615Discussion:c019d1ed-3f1a-4ea4-a825-69df35470311Post:acb19550-117b-450b-a939-72e26533c783">Re: Wow...just wow...</a>:
    [QUOTE]Just as I thought: Denver bishops responding to what they can so far: <a href="http://www.archden.org/index.cfm/ID/9767" rel="nofollow">http://www.archden.org/index.cfm/ID/9767</a>
    Posted by agapecarrie[/QUOTE]
     
    Thanks for the update Agape! :o)
    Daisypath Anniversary tickers Lilypie Pregnancy tickers
  • http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/01/25/st_thomas_more_hospital_lawsuit_a_fetus_is_not_a_person_when_we_re_being.html

    Articles I'm reading about the catholic hospital issue are bringing up a lot of other questions for me.  I learned that in an ectopic preganancy for example, where the embryo has ZERO chance of development or survival, the church would allow removal of the fallopian tube but not of the embryo directly.  However, removal of the fallopian tube would harm the woman's future fertility, whereas a simple incision in the tube to remove the embryo would not.  Further, a woman with a non-viable fetus that is literally killing her can have a hysterctomy but not a D&C of the non-viable fetus, rendering the woman sterile.  I don't understand how these positions to "save" a non-viable "life" are justified given the decrease or destruction of the capability for future life.  The above article also mentioned a woman with 3 children who was cannonized for refusing to abort a pregancy that was killing her.  She died.  What about her already living 3 children who then had to grow up without a mother?  Why does the unborn fetus take precedence over the already born children?

    Anyone have any insight on these issues?  It just seems so absolutist to the point that it is harming the greater good.
  • From my limited knowledge, I believe that in an ectopic pregnancy, the tissue needs to be removed and in order to do that, so does the embryo. Since there is no way to remove the tissue without  harming the embryo, it is not considered an abortion. I didn't think that removal of the entire fallopian tube was necessary in order to do this.

    I have less knowledge on the non-viable fetus that is killing the mother. I would need to know more specifics. Are you referring to the case in Ireland?
  • Here's some stuff explaining re: fallopian tube from opposing viewpoints.  



    Basically you can't *just* remove the embryo by making an incision, you have to remove the whole fallopian tube as a "diseased" organ and the indirect effect is that the embryo dies.

    As for the non-viable fetus, the Ireland case was one example.  The fetus was already miscarrying and would not survive.
  • The ends don't justify the means.

    Ectopic: The immoral way to solve is to kill the embryo. When an embryo is implanted in a fallopian tube, that portion of the tube must be removed, and indirectly, the embryo dies. The whole fallopian tube is not removed. This doesn't mean that future fertility is impaired. 

    From what I understand, there is hope that possibly in the future, ectopic embryos can be moved to the uterus. 

    The 2nd question is asking why is one human life more important than another? Simply because one is "unborn" does not make them any less human that one that is. 



  • You can never kill someone to save someone else's life.  If you were terminally ill, and were a match for a kidney donor for me, I couldn't just have you killed so that I could get your kidney.  Not even if I had a great chance of living, and you had absolutely no chance of survival.  You can't put one life before the other by killing someone so that another can live.  Not even if the person you wish to kill is going to die anyway.

    Medical ethics are incredibly difficult, mostly because unless you're a doctor or otherwise extensively trained/educated in the field of medicine, you can't understand the whole scenario. I totally get why it seems wasteful to remove a woman's tube, or uterus, when an abortion would potentially stop the problem, and either way the baby dies.  But the ends do not justify the means.  You can't do something wrong in order to do a good thing, even if the good thing appears to be of much greater importance.

     

This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards