Pro-Abortion Catholics Versus Church, Communion Battle Continues

LifeNews.com ^ | May 2, 2004 | Steven Ertelt

[narses]

Ping.

[Qwinn]

*smile* Fair enough!

What always interests me in any of these "latter day saints" is how they met the "miracle" requirement. I'm not doing that just to find holes, as an agnostic I acknowledge that if miracles could -ever- have occurred (which if I didn't believe was possible I'd call myself an atheist), then they can still occur today. But in this day and age it's gotta be a lot tougher to prove miracles to people's satisfaction :)

Qwinn

[narses]

A dear friend of mine lost his wife that way. She died shortly after the birth of her fifth child. Chemo would have aborted the child, she chose life for her little one. If I have ever known a saint, it was her. She glowed in her sanctity.

[narses]

Blessed Gianna, Ora Pro Me.

[AnimalLover]

Ping

[Roy Tucker]

Not in the Catholic Church. I understand that the position you state is the position of Judaism and some Protestant sects who oppose abortion generally.

[grellis]

Stop by the Michigan forum for an in-depth look at Bishop Mengele's (oops, sorry...I mean Mengeling's) comments to the Lansing State Journal regarding withholding the Eucharist from pro-abort politicians. I could tell you from personal experience just how screwed up the good Bishop's priorities are. He seems determined to run many of us straight over the the Orthodoxy.

[Arthur McGowan]

In Mother Teresa's case, it was a huge tumor (about 60 lbs, I think) that disappeared overnight. No miracle is accepted as authentic without x-rays and such documentation. No "psychological healing." It's usually tumors that disappear, or leg bones that grow in a matter of hours, that sort of thing.

[Arthur McGowan]

What and where is the "Michigan forum"?

[ninenot]

I believe that the Church abides by the principle of "Double Effect" in the VERY rare case of, e.g., ectopic pregnancy threatening the life of the mother.

Surgery may be performed to save the life, and if the un-intended result is the death of the embryo, such is NOT considered to be morally wrong.

However, with embryology as advanced as it is, these cases are fewer every year.

[grellis]

If you click on my screen name, my homepage will show the Michigan flag. Click on that and you are in the Michigan forum.

[enuu]

No, there is no such "clause". Abortion is murder. If the mother's life is in danger -- which is almost a medical impossibility in this day and age -- when was the last time you heard of someone dying in childbirth who could have been saved at the last minute by killing the baby? Let's me honest, that argument is a red herring, it's simply not the case, as least in any medically competent situation. But regardless, the church teaching is that every effort must be made to save both lives. The doctor, husband, or mother cannot morally "choose" one (baby or mother) over the other.

[supercat]

But regardless, the church teaching is that every effort must be made to save both lives. The doctor, husband, or mother cannot morally "choose" one (baby or mother) over the other.

If a pregnant woman develops severely malignant cancer, immediate chemotherapy may be the only medically effective means of treatment. Any unborn child in the mother's womb is virtually guaranteed to be killed by chemotherapy.

Obviously if the child is 39 weeks into gestation, a logical course of action would be to induce labor and begin chemo as soon as possible after the child is born. And I will certainly grant that it's almost inconceivable that a mother would be put in more danger by birthing a viable 39-week fetus than by killing it. But there are many situations where any possible course of action will impose considerable risk to mother, fetus, or both, and where the only actions that don't impose severe risk to both will pose nearly-guaranteed-fatal risk to at least one.

I would not expect anyone finding herself in such a situation to be happy about it. But sometimes people have to make the best of bad situations.