NWR Discussion Topic: This is why I don't believe social issues are black and white

professorscience · May 2013

Re: layout/posting problems -- I know the mods have been posting about it A LOT and it actually seems like Knot Porsha is taking our concerns and actually doing something about it. I actually like the new format, but I agree that some things need to be fixed.

@Meegles: I find the "my version of God" argument to be invalid. There is one God, there is one truth, there is one natural law. And this woman does describe herself as a Catholic, which means she SHOULD be following the teachings of the Church (and therefore God). I hear this a lot -- "Well, I believe in a God who loves all His people the way that they are," and I couldn't disagree more. Yes, God loves all His creation, but that doesn't mean it's okay for the members of His creation with the will to do so should just go on sinning. That's why He gave us guidelines by which to live. I mean, this is a much longer, twistier road to go down than even the current debate, but to make the argument that, "Well, I don't believe what you believe so just back off," has no real place here. It's kind of like saying, "ONLY GOD CAN JUDGE ME." It's like acknowledging that some behavior is bad, but also declaring that you're going to keep right on doing it without any regard for the consequences.

And the Church does not hold that everyone can make their own personal faith and simply choose the tenets they feel like following.

baystateapple · May 2013

But by choosing the life of the fetus over the life of the mother...you ARE saying that one life is more important than the other. You're saying that the life of the fetus is more important than the life of the mother. The mother MUST carry that fetus to term, regardless of the outcome. By saying that the mother must risk her life to carry the baby to term, a baby that is going to die, you (collective you, not anyone in particular) are stating that the rights and life of the fetus are more important than the rights and the life of the mother. Even if that child is terminal, and the mother MIGHT NOT be terminal.

One question. In my left hand is a fertilized embryo in a petri dish. In the other is a newborn, healthy, carried-to-term baby. I drop them both. You only have time to catch one. Which do you save?

CrazyCatLady3 · May 2013

@lalaith50, don't go away--you're entitled to your view just as others are entitled to theirs!

@professor, I think that argument works as far as a church counseling its flock, but not in terms of government laws. This is where some people who personally oppose abortion say they wouldn't do it and would counsel others against it, but don't presume to have the gov't outlaw it (for all, even those who don't follow the same religion) in a country that has separation of church and state. Apparently El Salvador doesn't have separation of church and state. So what the church tells the woman to do and what the gov't of the country allows her to do doesn't diverge.

Meegles4 · May 2013

You're right that it's a twistier road than this specific debate, but, I just...disagree with you. And I'm admittedly having a hard time putting it into words. Yes, she identifies as a Catholic, and thus, yes, she should be abiding by the church's teaching. But, if she chooses to go against those teachings, that's her problem, not mine or yours, IMO. In this case, I guess that I believe that God is the only judge (even though I hadn't really thought of it that way), and I don't believe the Salvadoran government should have a dog in this fight. But I realize that bringing the gov't into it opens up a whole other wider debate that I don't necessarily feel equipped to have

Resa77 · May 2013

CCL -- to an extent, I agree that the Church cannot impose her teachiings on society. However, murder isn't just a Catholic teaching....it's for the good of society. Abortion is murder, and is taking away the rights of defenseless human beings, basically saying that the rights of the mother are more important. Life is always a more important "trump card" right than things like convenience, money, etc. THAT SAID, I can understand the gray area when a mother's life is really, truly at risk. I believe, not because I'm Catholic but because it makes sense to me, that there is a big difference in directly killing someone to save someone else vs letting nature take its course, possibly resulting in someone's death. I do not think you can justify abortion to save a mother, because that is directly killing someone.

professorscience · May 2013

Meegles4 said:

You're right that it's a twistier road than this specific debate, but, I just...disagree with you. And I'm admittedly having a hard time putting it into words. Yes, she identifies as a Catholic, and thus, yes, she should be abiding by the church's teaching. But, if she chooses to go against those teachings, that's her problem, not mine or yours, IMO. In this case, I guess that I believe that God is the only judge (even though I hadn't really thought of it that way), and I don't believe the Salvadoran government should have a dog in this fight. But I realize that bringing the gov't into it opens up a whole other wider debate that I don't necessarily feel equipped to have

I guess that's where we'll have to disagree. If her government identifies abortion as murder, then it's well within it's rights to prohibit her from obtaining one. And you're absolutely right that the choice is hers and has no bearing on me or mine. However, God's law is pretty clear on that instance and it's perfectly reasonable to say, "You should not do this and I do not support you."

And you're right -- the ultimate judgment will come from God. That doesn't mean that in the meantime the Church should just sit back and let everyone do whatever they want because it's "their decision," know what I mean?

Calypso1977 · May 2013

One question. In my left hand is a fertilized embryo in a petri dish. In the other is a newborn, healthy, carried-to-term baby. I drop them both. You only have time to catch one. Which do you save?

instinct would probably lead me to grab the baby, but grabbing the embryo makes more sense because the embryo will surely die if dropped (i think, unless its frozen) whereas the baby probably wont die, but rather just get a bit banged up.

this sort of reminded me of that question where you are in a boat, and its sinking, and you can only save one person so who do you save? grandma or the baby....

Also, the baby will die anyway. Why does it matter if it dies outside the womb after a few hours, or inside the womb? Is it a matter of what happens to the soul? Is the soul condemned if it dies within the womb, rather than the baby being baptized as soon as it emerges, and then the baby dies? Doesn't "original sin" attach at the time of birth? So the unborn child/fetus would still be sinless if it dies in the womb? (not sure of what the teaching is on this, genuinely inquiring).

the way i view it, personally, as a catholic, i think its worse to have it die in the womb - it deserves the chance at life, for baptism or just the chance at life, even though we know there is near zero chance at living. the mother has time to confess, repent her sins, pray for her soul, and prepare for her death which may or may not happen as a result of the pregnancy/birth. i *thought* original sin was attached at the time of creation, not birth, but i could be wrong.

Kamakanani · May 2013

Just to add another layer of perspective on the whole thing, technically, since we're all mortal, life for everyone has a 100% mortality rate. Just because I'm definitely going to die at some point in the future doesn't mean someone could murder me and it'd be OK, does it?

And as a bit of a correction on an earlier note about the fetus's condition, there was a case recently where an infant was born with the same condition and lived 3 years, before finally succumbing. It's miraculously possible, with His will, for anything to happen. (link to the article about the 3 year old's death here)

amaryann210 · May 2013

If original sin didn't exist, there would be no point in Baptism, in grace, in Jesus dying for us. I'm not sure where you got the impression original sin isn't in existence.

agapecarrie · May 2013

-- Morality of an act can't be determined by ends. Ends don't justify the means. I need money... I could earn it or rob a bank. Same ends, different means of getting there.

Catholic doctors who have a problem with abortion will not kill the embryo in an ectopic pregnancy, they will remove the portion of the tube that is the problem.

--- anencphaly may be 100% fatal. That is why we would call it a miracle if cured. NOT because of a medical explanation-- but because of divine intervention. There are many many stories of people told their unborn baby has a condition in the womb. It's born with no problems at all. This is the "miracle" that is being talked about here.

Meegles4 · May 2013

TXKristan - I can't say for sure in this scenario, but as someone who has kidney disease and a kidney transplant, my doctor has told me that if my kidney function were not up to par, he would strongly prefer I not get pregnant. So, yes, I think that even carrying a healthy baby could exacerbate this woman's kidney failure, but that's a completely anecdotal opinion and not based in any further medical facts. I also don't know what pregnancy does to those who live with lupus.

ochemjenn · May 2013

I'm not Catholic, but I lurk over here sometimes.

I feel that there is a third option. Why not deliver the baby? What I have read in posts here is that the mother should carry the baby to term, but that is risking her health. My husband has cared for several babies who were delivered early (C-section maybe? I don't ask for details) because their mothers developed eclampsia. Having the baby early could save the mother's life while avoiding abortion, which I agree is not the solution for this woman. The baby could be baptized and live however long God grants him life. Is there any reason that this would be unacceptable to the Church?

Calypso1977 · May 2013

oche, that's an interesting question.

chelseamb11 · May 2013

I agree that is an interesting question. I think delivering the baby would be alright.

I know we are splitting hairs, but I truly believe that removing the tube during an ectopic pregnancy is different than terminating the pregnancy. It's almost a degree of separation thing, if that makes sense. Terminating the pregnancy is you choosing when the child dies. Getting the tube removed allows God to decide when the child dies.

I feel the same way about cancer treatment during pregnancy. A woman DOES need to choose which life is more important to her. I wouldn't fault someone who does the cancer treatment with the possibility of hurting her child, but I personally would never risk my child's life to save my own. I've told this to H throughout my pregnancy..as hard as it would be for him to do, if it ever came down to saving me or saving the baby, he needs to save the baby.

As for the woman in the story mentioned in the OP..even if her child does only live for a few hours outside the womb..that's better than no hours. I believe we are all given a purpose in life. Some have bigger/longer purposes than others. God doesn't make bad things happen. However, he does allow them to happen because of the good that can/ will come of it. We just don't always know what that good is, when it will happen or who it will be for.

NWR Discussion Topic: This is why I don't believe social issues are black and white

Re: NWR Discussion Topic: This is why I don't believe social issues are black and white

Choose Another Board

Search Boards