Posted on 06/30/2022 9:48:03 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
I had a tough dialogue with a former friend concerning the Supreme Court’s Dodd decision. We disagree on the fundamental aspects of the issue and the discussion has been eye-opening. As teenagers we were both raised in very conservative milieus. I had a loving home with loving parents. When my mother passed away, my father found a wonderful woman who has been a great stepmother.
Unfortunately, I have no idea of my friend’s home life. Having a good home to grow up in, with a dedicated mother who chose to stay at home, resulted in my friend spending time at my house. They didn’t always invite us over to their house. As we became adults, I strove to live up to the ideals our shared religion taught us. I waited till marriage for physical intimacy. I did struggle with pornography for a while, but sought counseling, repented, and while the temptation is still there, I have been sober for years. I know it is possible to live a life following traditional Christian morality because I live it.
About five years ago, my wife had an ectopic pregnancy. It was the first pregnancy she had not miscarried in eight years. We didn’t know it was ectopic until she woke up in the middle of the night experiencing the worst pain she had ever felt. I talked her into going to the ER. The doctor did ultrasounds and tests. She was two months pregnant. (She hadn’t told me because I always got so excited about it) The baby was healthy. We got to hear the healthy hoof-beats of our child’s heartbeat. Then the doctor told us, “It’s implanted in the wrong place. As this baby continues to grow, it will rupture your ovary and you will bleed to death.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Exactly right. Ectopic pregnancy means the baby just isn’t going to make it. That ship has sailed. You can save the mother’s life in most cases, but it requires the surgery.
As you say, this is not an abortion. This is the sort of smokescreen that the “safe, legal, and rare” crowd pushes so that anyone can get any abortion at any time. Apples and Oranges.
.. and until then we should so killing babies.
Yes. Ectopic pregnancies “almost guarantee the passing of the baby” and “almost guarantee the passing of the mother” but it surely feels like we’ve stopped research, treatment and possible curing by just saying “we’re killing the baby. “
We seriously dedicate more time to figuring hair loss.
When my Mother was pregnant with me she had complications near birth time. My Father was told to make a choice and he said to save his wife as she would be able to have another baby some other time. My Mother insisted that I be born. My Mother died about 15 years ago at age 86. I’ll be 80 next month.
I don’t think you know what you’re talking about, or much about female anatomy and reproduction.
Don’t worry - some day, maybe they can remove the embryo and just grow it in a petri dish. Then you’ll have your ‘perfect world’.
A procedure to deal with an ectopic pregnancy is NOT an abortion.
I’m glad you both made it, but I doubt very much that the ‘complication’ was an ectopic pregnancy.
I am not sure exactly at what stage of evelopment a fetus qualifies as a person with an inalienable right to life. Maybe when brain wave patterns start. But it does not seem to be the moment of conception to me. And it certainly is not anywhere in the late terms of pregnancy.
In Jewish law if the baby is a risk to the health of the mother it must be aborted. But these are very rare scenarios.
Skeptical bump
Perhaps. But thank you for the semi- courteous reply.
I don’t know if we’ll ever be able to say when a fetus qualifies as a ‘person’. We’ve just arbitrarily come up with compromising (and materialistic) notions like the trimester framework and ‘viability’ - but we don’t know.
Life of the mother is just common sense, what the left did immediately was switch to the “health of the mother”, which can and did come to mean anything.
That has historically not been the RCC position. The mother has already had the chance to be saved by faith in Jesus Christ, therefore it is the babe that holds the preference about who is to survive.
You may not like it, but that's the catechistic doctrine, IIRC.
It should be fine if the individual chooses that; but Law can’t deal in religious principles. Trying to satisfy them all would be impossible.
The Catholic doctrine does not give preference to the baby over the mother. It says that neither may be killed directly for the sake of the other. When a Caesarian was death for the mother, you could not perform it unless the mother was dead already. You could not dismember a child in utero that the mother was unable to deliver.
As medicine advanced, the teaching allowed for the removal of a pathology as long as the direct intent was not the killing of the baby, if that was an unintended effect.
Hence, a cancerous uterus, fallopian tube on the point of bursting, infected placenta, preeclamptic placenta, can all be removed, even if the baby is removed too early to have a chance.
IN Catholic teaching, you can remove the swollen tube, (pathological tube) but technically, not baby from the tube (pathological location) even though the latter gives the best chance of having another child. Sometimes the teaching seems more quibble than sense, and absolutely wrenching to the poor woman facing the choice.
This Dobbs Ruling by the SCOTUS does NOT, I repeat NOT ban abortions. period.
It just said that there is no federal constitutional right to an abortion. Never was.
Morons on the court-legislation from the bench.
It is now up to the states to figure it out what they want to do. Democrats/communist do not like it when the people have a say in what is going on. So they lie, cheat , steel until they get their way.
They have lost their right to lead anywhere in this country.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that I have seen posts like that, though I can't remember by whom.
There are some people working on it but it is dealing with an area that medicine has trouble with because it is not truly well understood as to what causes a baby to implant.
We have a lot of ideas, some guesses and many theories. But it is still mostly hit and miss.
It is not just a case of moving the child from where it is plugged in to a better location. Unplugging is easy. Plugging it back in is, currently, impossible.
If a 19 year old child was truly criminally insane such that he could not differentiate between right and wrong, and posed a direct, immediate threat to the life of his mother, I don't think anybody on this forum would contest a mother's right to use lethal force against her own child to preserve her life.
An unborn child likewise, can not differentiate between right and wrong, and may not pose a knowing threat to his/her mother, but in those exquisitely rare events where the mother's life is threatened by the pregnancy, I don't think anybody would contest her right to terminate the pregnancy.
That said, any exception will be exploited. IIRC, it was Tiller the Killer that justified late term abortions due to the "adverse health effects," on the mother...the adverse health effects he was documenting were headaches.
On the flip side of that coin, you occasionally hear the story of the truly heroic mother who foregoes necessary, life-saving chemo or other necessary procedures/medications due to the dangers posed to their unborn child.
Thank you for that.. it really counter argues my position.
Thanks!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.