Posted on 05/17/2010 8:58:40 PM PDT by GonzoII
In late 2009, an abortion took place at St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix after a hospital ethics committee deemed the abortion necessary to save the life of the mother. Sister Margaret Mary McBride, the hospital’s vice president of mission integration, was a member of the committee that made the decision and has since been assigned new duties.
The hospital has defended its decision, while Bishop Thomas Olmsted warned that Catholics who formally cooperated in the abortion were automatically excommunicated.
The Diocese of Phoenix said in a May 14 statement:
The Most Rev. Thomas J. Olmsted, Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix, released the following statement today in response to the acknowledgement by officials at St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center to the media that an unborn child was killed several months ago at St. Joseph's through a direct abortion:
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicculture.org ...
Technically, anything that ends the pregnancy is an abortion. A miscarriage is an abortion. However, there is a huge difference between a NECESSARY LIFE SAVING PROCEDURE and the deliberate murder of another human being.
Wagglebee, please let this go. There are people on this thread who are suffering from the loss of a child due to ectopic pregnancy, and that suffering is life-long.
Sorrow and love are needed here. The word “abortion” can also be used for a miscarriage, as in “spontaneous abortion.” That terminology is very painful for those of us who have lost children.
No agenda.
Understood. I am discussing it on another thread where that is clear.
Good for the bishop.
There was no indication in the link that the pregnancy was an ectopic pregnancy. If so, that information must be elsewhere.
Rather than abort the child, might someone have a procedure to relocate the implantation from the tube to within the uterus of the mother? It might be radical, difficult, or even rarely if ever successful, but at least it’s an effort to save both lives.
The problem is that nobody seems to be saying conclusively that the mother’s life was at risk. Certainly something needs to be done about ectopic pregnancy, but I don’t think any sort of relocation procedure exists at this time. It is my understanding that most ectopic fetuses are already dead by the time it’s discovered.
It seems there must always be an effort to save both lives. It may be an extremely unlikely procedure, but at least it’s an effort.
If they’d simply allowed Schiavo’s parents to try to feed her with a spoon and a glass of water, they would not have been guilty of homicide. They would have allowed a saving effort to be made.
Agreed.
The ONLY acceptable reason to allow the baby to die is if it occurs while saving the mother. In that case, it is not so much an abortion as a medical procedure to save a life.
*********************
Imho, if we simply accept abortion as the only solution, it will be the only solution.
In most cases, someone can think of an alternative. If a filthy rich childless couple who craved children had an ectopic pregancy and offered huge rewards for any ideas that might work, then I'll bet there'd be ideas forthcoming.
Exactly right.
Many of the priests,lay leaders and pew sitters have in their artful and crafty ways sent out signals that they have no intention of following the Pope or the Bishops (Bishop Olmsted is one of the best Bishops)as they seek to follow Christ back to the Father,Who made us in His image.
The more slippery slopes they can set us on,the happier they are,some of them seem almost giddy as they find more and more issues that pit Catholics against prevailing social "concerns". They believe that most people will ally themselves with the opinions of the propagandized minions of the New World Order robots and the Church will self destruct and leave them in charge of the money and men that they then can control.
As I said in the beginning I believe this was a set up,we have a lot of hospitals within a two or three mile radius that do perform abortions,why St. Joseph's,why now? I am anxious to see the particulars,I can almost bet on a few things.
Very well said.
Now...you were saying?
This was the first trimester....11 weeks; if the mother died, the baby could not be saved. This is nonsense; her remaining children would be left without a mother.
You’re right. It’s easy to condemn when you know not what you’re talking about.
Can you point to a SINGLE pro-life group who wouldn't be considered credible that does not believe that termination is permissible if it is the ONLY way to save a woman's life?
As I pointed out earlier, if you run an internet search of "rabid" or "rabidly" pro-life you will find that it is a very common pro-abortion talking point.
Sister Margaret Mary McBride, the hospital’s vice president of mission integration, was a member of the committee that made the decision and has since been assigned new duties.
Why was Sister reassigned and not fired? If one is automatically excommunicated for assisting in any way with an abortion, which she apparently did, then shouldn’t she be relieved of all duties not reassigned?
Maybe it would be easier if you simply read what I originally wrote. I’ve also spelled it out for you in a post in the other thread. You are clearly mistaken about my use of the term and I don’t really give a youknowwhat who else uses the term. It fit in the way I was using it.
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.