Books read in 2012: 21/50
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.
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
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.
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?