OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 23, 2014, 06:01:05 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Women and abortion  (Read 4566 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Ansgar
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: More than an inquirer, less than a catechumen
Jurisdiction: Exarchate of orthodox churches of russian tradition in western Europe
Posts: 2,988


Keep your mind in hell and do not despair


« on: August 30, 2013, 08:45:55 AM »

Today I watched a documentary about abortion and women´s rights in Nicaragua. One of the issues, which was discussed in the program, was the health issues of the women. One woman was seen having an illegal abortion because her cancer, combined with the pregnancy, would bring her life in great danger.

Now, for the most part, the women in the documentary declared that they were religious, they believed in God, but their situations, were they had either been raped or were being put at serious risks because of the pregnancy, made it necessary for them to have an abortion.

What would be an Orthodox position on these cases? On the one hand, the Church views abortion as a sin, but on the other hand, I think it should also be necessary to look at each case individually, something that doesn't seem to take place in many countries, were abortion is illegal.
Logged

Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,713



« Reply #1 on: August 30, 2013, 09:00:29 AM »

Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 6,352


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #2 on: August 30, 2013, 10:02:01 AM »



He's totally going to make it.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #3 on: August 30, 2013, 10:24:51 AM »

Today I watched a documentary about abortion and women´s rights in Nicaragua. One of the issues, which was discussed in the program, was the health issues of the women. One woman was seen having an illegal abortion because her cancer, combined with the pregnancy, would bring her life in great danger.

Now, for the most part, the women in the documentary declared that they were religious, they believed in God, but their situations, were they had either been raped or were being put at serious risks because of the pregnancy, made it necessary for them to have an abortion.

What would be an Orthodox position on these cases? On the one hand, the Church views abortion as a sin, but on the other hand, I think it should also be necessary to look at each case individually, something that doesn't seem to take place in many countries, were abortion is illegal.
You think people look at each case individually in countries where abortion is legal?  I can assure you, they do not.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,713



« Reply #4 on: August 30, 2013, 10:28:33 AM »

At the risk of testing the waters on such a delicate topic, I believe what he is asking is: Are there situations where abortion should be permitted? Can economia ever be applied when abortion is the question at hand?
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Ansgar
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: More than an inquirer, less than a catechumen
Jurisdiction: Exarchate of orthodox churches of russian tradition in western Europe
Posts: 2,988


Keep your mind in hell and do not despair


« Reply #5 on: August 30, 2013, 10:34:09 AM »

Today I watched a documentary about abortion and women´s rights in Nicaragua. One of the issues, which was discussed in the program, was the health issues of the women. One woman was seen having an illegal abortion because her cancer, combined with the pregnancy, would bring her life in great danger.

Now, for the most part, the women in the documentary declared that they were religious, they believed in God, but their situations, were they had either been raped or were being put at serious risks because of the pregnancy, made it necessary for them to have an abortion.

What would be an Orthodox position on these cases? On the one hand, the Church views abortion as a sin, but on the other hand, I think it should also be necessary to look at each case individually, something that doesn't seem to take place in many countries, were abortion is illegal.
You think people look at each case individually in countries where abortion is legal?  I can assure you, they do not.

Yes, but we are not talking about countries, where abortion is legal. There are numerous threads about that already.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2013, 10:34:22 AM by Ansgar » Logged

Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite
Ansgar
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: More than an inquirer, less than a catechumen
Jurisdiction: Exarchate of orthodox churches of russian tradition in western Europe
Posts: 2,988


Keep your mind in hell and do not despair


« Reply #6 on: August 30, 2013, 10:34:43 AM »

At the risk of testing the waters on such a delicate topic, I believe what he is asking is: Are there situations where abortion should be permitted? Can economia ever be applied when abortion is the question at hand?

Something like that, yes.
Logged

Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #7 on: August 30, 2013, 10:52:02 AM »

Today I watched a documentary about abortion and women´s rights in Nicaragua. One of the issues, which was discussed in the program, was the health issues of the women. One woman was seen having an illegal abortion because her cancer, combined with the pregnancy, would bring her life in great danger.

Now, for the most part, the women in the documentary declared that they were religious, they believed in God, but their situations, were they had either been raped or were being put at serious risks because of the pregnancy, made it necessary for them to have an abortion.

What would be an Orthodox position on these cases? On the one hand, the Church views abortion as a sin, but on the other hand, I think it should also be necessary to look at each case individually, something that doesn't seem to take place in many countries, were abortion is illegal.
You think people look at each case individually in countries where abortion is legal?  I can assure you, they do not.

Yes, but we are not talking about countries, where abortion is legal. There are numerous threads about that already.
What makes you think the principles are different?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Ansgar
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: More than an inquirer, less than a catechumen
Jurisdiction: Exarchate of orthodox churches of russian tradition in western Europe
Posts: 2,988


Keep your mind in hell and do not despair


« Reply #8 on: August 30, 2013, 11:07:01 AM »

Today I watched a documentary about abortion and women´s rights in Nicaragua. One of the issues, which was discussed in the program, was the health issues of the women. One woman was seen having an illegal abortion because her cancer, combined with the pregnancy, would bring her life in great danger.

Now, for the most part, the women in the documentary declared that they were religious, they believed in God, but their situations, were they had either been raped or were being put at serious risks because of the pregnancy, made it necessary for them to have an abortion.

What would be an Orthodox position on these cases? On the one hand, the Church views abortion as a sin, but on the other hand, I think it should also be necessary to look at each case individually, something that doesn't seem to take place in many countries, were abortion is illegal.
You think people look at each case individually in countries where abortion is legal?  I can assure you, they do not.

Yes, but we are not talking about countries, where abortion is legal. There are numerous threads about that already.
What makes you think the principles are different?
They're probably not, but it was not my intention with this thread. The topic was to discuss whether or not it is morally defensible to outlaw abortion in all cases, when it is clear that many women are being subjected to great danger as a consequence.
Logged

Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite
TheMathematician
Banished and Disgraced
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 1,498


Formerly known as Montalo


« Reply #9 on: August 30, 2013, 11:11:59 AM »

The primary aim should never be to kill the child, and should always be illegal. However, in situations where the child will die if a primary aim to to cure or fix something, and the death of the child would be an unfortunate side effect, however tragic it would be, then economia could be used and be allowed.
Logged

SCREW BON JOVI!
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,836



« Reply #10 on: August 30, 2013, 11:25:43 AM »

The primary aim should never be to kill the child, and should always be illegal. However, in situations where the child will die if a primary aim to to cure or fix something, and the death of the child would be an unfortunate side effect, however tragic it would be, then economia could be used and be allowed.

Co-signed.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,174


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #11 on: August 30, 2013, 12:26:37 PM »

The primary aim should never be to kill the child, and should always be illegal. However, in situations where the child will die if a primary aim to to cure or fix something, and the death of the child would be an unfortunate side effect, however tragic it would be, then economia could be used and be allowed.

Some on this board have accused me of have zero or at best poor reading comprehension.  Today may be one of those days when that is manifestly true.  I say that because the way I understand what you have written is that economia could be used to kill the child if, as the saying goes, the health or the life of the mother is in serious or imminent danger.  Did I get that right?  If not, please correct me.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
TheMathematician
Banished and Disgraced
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 1,498


Formerly known as Montalo


« Reply #12 on: August 30, 2013, 12:34:58 PM »

The primary aim should never be to kill the child, and should always be illegal. However, in situations where the child will die if a primary aim to to cure or fix something, and the death of the child would be an unfortunate side effect, however tragic it would be, then economia could be used and be allowed.

Some on this board have accused me of have zero or at best poor reading comprehension.  Today may be one of those days when that is manifestly true.  I say that because the way I understand what you have written is that economia could be used to kill the child if, as the saying goes, the health or the life of the mother is in serious or imminent danger.  Did I get that right?  If not, please correct me.

What I am attempting to say, and I do not know if I have spoken poorly or not(which may be the case) is that killing the child is never to be the intent of anything. However, if there is a surgery that will save the life of the mother, then it should be done and economia should be used, even though you know it will result in the death of the child.

In a way, what I am trying to say perhaps is that the death of the child should never be the cause, and hopefully never the effect. However, if the effect is the death of the child and the cause is a surgery to save the mother, then it could be applied.
Logged

SCREW BON JOVI!
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,174


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #13 on: August 30, 2013, 01:33:13 PM »

The primary aim should never be to kill the child, and should always be illegal. However, in situations where the child will die if a primary aim to to cure or fix something, and the death of the child would be an unfortunate side effect, however tragic it would be, then economia could be used and be allowed.

Some on this board have accused me of have zero or at best poor reading comprehension.  Today may be one of those days when that is manifestly true.  I say that because the way I understand what you have written is that economia could be used to kill the child if, as the saying goes, the health or the life of the mother is in serious or imminent danger.  Did I get that right?  If not, please correct me.

What I am attempting to say, and I do not know if I have spoken poorly or not(which may be the case) is that killing the child is never to be the intent of anything. However, if there is a surgery that will save the life of the mother, then it should be done and economia should be used, even though you know it will result in the death of the child.

In a way, what I am trying to say perhaps is that the death of the child should never be the cause, and hopefully never the effect. However, if the effect is the death of the child and the cause is a surgery to save the mother, then it could be applied.

Okay.  That's clearer  Wink

I understand where you're coming from, and up to a point agree.  Hopefully, in the application of said economia, the mother would have been consulted and given her permission for this to happen.  If she was not in a state to be able to do so, what then??
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 6,352


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #14 on: August 30, 2013, 01:46:23 PM »

The primary aim should never be to kill the child, and should always be illegal. However, in situations where the child will die if a primary aim to to cure or fix something, and the death of the child would be an unfortunate side effect, however tragic it would be, then economia could be used and be allowed.

Some on this board have accused me of have zero or at best poor reading comprehension.  Today may be one of those days when that is manifestly true.  I say that because the way I understand what you have written is that economia could be used to kill the child if, as the saying goes, the health or the life of the mother is in serious or imminent danger.  Did I get that right?  If not, please correct me.

What I am attempting to say, and I do not know if I have spoken poorly or not(which may be the case) is that killing the child is never to be the intent of anything. However, if there is a surgery that will save the life of the mother, then it should be done and economia should be used, even though you know it will result in the death of the child.

In a way, what I am trying to say perhaps is that the death of the child should never be the cause, and hopefully never the effect. However, if the effect is the death of the child and the cause is a surgery to save the mother, then it could be applied.

Okay.  That's clearer  Wink

I understand where you're coming from, and up to a point agree.  Hopefully, in the application of said economia, the mother would have been consulted and given her permission for this to happen.  If she was not in a state to be able to do so, what then??

Do you mean if the mother is unconscious?  If that's the case, the spouse or other person in charge of her medical guardianship would have to make that decision.  Last resort, the physician would.
Logged

J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,174


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #15 on: August 30, 2013, 02:14:16 PM »

The primary aim should never be to kill the child, and should always be illegal. However, in situations where the child will die if a primary aim to to cure or fix something, and the death of the child would be an unfortunate side effect, however tragic it would be, then economia could be used and be allowed.

Some on this board have accused me of have zero or at best poor reading comprehension.  Today may be one of those days when that is manifestly true.  I say that because the way I understand what you have written is that economia could be used to kill the child if, as the saying goes, the health or the life of the mother is in serious or imminent danger.  Did I get that right?  If not, please correct me.

What I am attempting to say, and I do not know if I have spoken poorly or not(which may be the case) is that killing the child is never to be the intent of anything. However, if there is a surgery that will save the life of the mother, then it should be done and economia should be used, even though you know it will result in the death of the child.

In a way, what I am trying to say perhaps is that the death of the child should never be the cause, and hopefully never the effect. However, if the effect is the death of the child and the cause is a surgery to save the mother, then it could be applied.

Okay.  That's clearer  Wink

I understand where you're coming from, and up to a point agree.  Hopefully, in the application of said economia, the mother would have been consulted and given her permission for this to happen.  If she was not in a state to be able to do so, what then??

Do you mean if the mother is unconscious?  If that's the case, the spouse or other person in charge of her medical guardianship would have to make that decision.  Last resort, the physician would.

Scary.  Especially regarding the physician.  What if he/she was a proponent of abortion at will?  Luckily, I'm pretty sure this kind of scenario happens pretty infrequently.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
TheMathematician
Banished and Disgraced
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 1,498


Formerly known as Montalo


« Reply #16 on: August 30, 2013, 02:17:09 PM »

The primary aim should never be to kill the child, and should always be illegal. However, in situations where the child will die if a primary aim to to cure or fix something, and the death of the child would be an unfortunate side effect, however tragic it would be, then economia could be used and be allowed.

Some on this board have accused me of have zero or at best poor reading comprehension.  Today may be one of those days when that is manifestly true.  I say that because the way I understand what you have written is that economia could be used to kill the child if, as the saying goes, the health or the life of the mother is in serious or imminent danger.  Did I get that right?  If not, please correct me.

What I am attempting to say, and I do not know if I have spoken poorly or not(which may be the case) is that killing the child is never to be the intent of anything. However, if there is a surgery that will save the life of the mother, then it should be done and economia should be used, even though you know it will result in the death of the child.

In a way, what I am trying to say perhaps is that the death of the child should never be the cause, and hopefully never the effect. However, if the effect is the death of the child and the cause is a surgery to save the mother, then it could be applied.

Okay.  That's clearer  Wink

I understand where you're coming from, and up to a point agree.  Hopefully, in the application of said economia, the mother would have been consulted and given her permission for this to happen.  If she was not in a state to be able to do so, what then??

Do you mean if the mother is unconscious?  If that's the case, the spouse or other person in charge of her medical guardianship would have to make that decision.  Last resort, the physician would.

Scary.  Especially regarding the physician.  What if he/she was a proponent of abortion at will?  Luckily, I'm pretty sure this kind of scenario happens pretty infrequently.
There is a concept of implied consent, in which if you cannot, or in the case of a minor a parent not around, the consent to treat is implied, meaning in my case, I am able to perform CPR or the like, even if they would have otherwise declined.
Logged

SCREW BON JOVI!
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,885



« Reply #17 on: August 30, 2013, 02:21:50 PM »

The primary aim should never be to kill the child, and should always be illegal. However, in situations where the child will die if a primary aim to to cure or fix something, and the death of the child would be an unfortunate side effect, however tragic it would be, then economia could be used and be allowed.

Some on this board have accused me of have zero or at best poor reading comprehension.  Today may be one of those days when that is manifestly true.  I say that because the way I understand what you have written is that economia could be used to kill the child if, as the saying goes, the health or the life of the mother is in serious or imminent danger.  Did I get that right?  If not, please correct me.

What I am attempting to say, and I do not know if I have spoken poorly or not(which may be the case) is that killing the child is never to be the intent of anything. However, if there is a surgery that will save the life of the mother, then it should be done and economia should be used, even though you know it will result in the death of the child.

In a way, what I am trying to say perhaps is that the death of the child should never be the cause, and hopefully never the effect. However, if the effect is the death of the child and the cause is a surgery to save the mother, then it could be applied.

Okay.  That's clearer  Wink

I understand where you're coming from, and up to a point agree.  Hopefully, in the application of said economia, the mother would have been consulted and given her permission for this to happen.  If she was not in a state to be able to do so, what then??

Do you mean if the mother is unconscious?  If that's the case, the spouse or other person in charge of her medical guardianship would have to make that decision.  Last resort, the physician would.

Scary.  Especially regarding the physician.  What if he/she was a proponent of abortion at will?  Luckily, I'm pretty sure this kind of scenario happens pretty infrequently.
There is a concept of implied consent, in which if you cannot, or in the case of a minor a parent not around, the consent to treat is implied, meaning in my case, I am able to perform CPR or the like, even if they would have otherwise declined.

There have been many cases where the physicians have unilaterally made life-and-death decisions. I think that we must give then the least degree of leeway.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 6,352


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #18 on: August 30, 2013, 02:22:40 PM »

Legally, in most jurisdictions, the doctor's priority will be to save his patient's life with whatever intervention he sees fit, i.e. surgery, medication, etc.  Let's say in the case of a hypothetical pregnant woman whose life is in danger and surgery is the sole option: the surgeon and anesthesia team must take the fact that woman is pregnant in consideration.  Surgery and anesthesia always carries a risk for the baby and the mother.  Whether the doc is a pro-abortionist is another matter, but his priority is his patient, the mother.  Even if he/she was a vehement pro-"choicer," I doubt that the doctor would intentionally cause an abortion just for the heck of it.  That's a huge legal can of worms even in any jurisdiction, even ones with total abortion rights.
Logged

JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,744


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #19 on: August 30, 2013, 03:37:24 PM »

The Ecumenical Patriarch thinks so, and said himself that there may be some cases where a couple should consider abortion.

On the other hand, I'm not quite sure.

Wouldn't the Christian thing to do be to try as hard as you can to do the RIGHT thing, even if the chances of it succeeding are minuscule? For example, if the only treatment available for a woman involved the death of the fetus, wouldn't it be better to refuse that treatment and hope everything turns out for the best, even if it doesn't? That way, even if things go wrong, no one will have any blood on their hands. This is my same response to all of those ethical brain teasers that operate on a false dichotomy that university students like to debate. I simply wouldn't play by the rules of the game. If I could only save one group of people and not the other, I'd try as hard as I could to save both groups even if the odds are impossibly stacked against me because it is the only right thing to do.

Then again, I don't like compulsion one bit. I especially don't like forcing my religion on others when it could very well threaten their lives and I would never know what it's like. I think that in a case where a woman's life is in danger, the Priest should perhaps demonstrate economia and allow her to receive abortion if she wishes to, however, she should still receive a light penance if she decides to, and the Priest should still encourage her to not have the abortion.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,713



« Reply #20 on: August 30, 2013, 03:47:54 PM »

Sometimes, in real life, there are either-or choices.  If the doctor came in to me while my wife what giving birth and told me that my wife is going septic and it is going to be a 50/50 chance that she will pull through, but they will need to start the medication immediately because if they wait for the baby to come out, she won't make it that long, you can better believe I won't be playing some game with the doctor and tell him to save both of them.  I would say "Get that medication into her right now, do whatever you have to do to save her life, let me know if you need a kidney or something 'cause I got some extra organs in here somewhere". I would not think twice about the baby.  There will be time to grieve for the baby later, that is my wife's life on the line.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Ansgar
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: More than an inquirer, less than a catechumen
Jurisdiction: Exarchate of orthodox churches of russian tradition in western Europe
Posts: 2,988


Keep your mind in hell and do not despair


« Reply #21 on: August 30, 2013, 04:01:36 PM »

The Ecumenical Patriarch thinks so, and said himself that there may be some cases where a couple should consider abortion.

On the other hand, I'm not quite sure.

Wouldn't the Christian thing to do be to try as hard as you can to do the RIGHT thing, even if the chances of it succeeding are minuscule? For example, if the only treatment available for a woman involved the death of the fetus, wouldn't it be better to refuse that treatment and hope everything turns out for the best, even if it doesn't? That way, even if things go wrong, no one will have any blood on their hands. This is my same response to all of those ethical brain teasers that operate on a false dichotomy that university students like to debate. I simply wouldn't play by the rules of the game. If I could only save one group of people and not the other, I'd try as hard as I could to save both groups even if the odds are impossibly stacked against me because it is the only right thing to do.

Then again, I don't like compulsion one bit. I especially don't like forcing my religion on others when it could very well threaten their lives and I would never know what it's like. I think that in a case where a woman's life is in danger, the Priest should perhaps demonstrate economia and allow her to receive abortion if she wishes to, however, she should still receive a light penance if she decides to, and the Priest should still encourage her to not have the abortion.

I think that is the Russian Church's official position.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_abortion#Eastern_Orthodox_Church
« Last Edit: August 30, 2013, 04:02:15 PM by Ansgar » Logged

Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,174


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #22 on: August 30, 2013, 04:07:50 PM »

Sometimes, in real life, there are either-or choices.  If the doctor came in to me while my wife what giving birth and told me that my wife is going septic and it is going to be a 50/50 chance that she will pull through, but they will need to start the medication immediately because if they wait for the baby to come out, she won't make it that long, you can better believe I won't be playing some game with the doctor and tell him to save both of them.  I would say "Get that medication into her right now, do whatever you have to do to save her life, let me know if you need a kidney or something 'cause I got some extra organs in here somewhere". I would not think twice about the baby.  There will be time to grieve for the baby later, that is my wife's life on the line.

May God grant that you (and everyone else) NEVER be faced with such a situation.


I do know, that even though it can now never happen to me and my wife, that I would think twice (and much more) about the baby.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #23 on: August 30, 2013, 04:13:14 PM »

IIRC Elder Sophrony, whose mother had been in jeopardy at his birth, said that the Orthodox - as opposed to the RC - stance in such extreme situations, where only one life can be spared, is to try to save the mother, not the child. 
« Last Edit: August 30, 2013, 04:15:38 PM by Romaios » Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,713



« Reply #24 on: August 30, 2013, 04:13:57 PM »

Sometimes, in real life, there are either-or choices.  If the doctor came in to me while my wife what giving birth and told me that my wife is going septic and it is going to be a 50/50 chance that she will pull through, but they will need to start the medication immediately because if they wait for the baby to come out, she won't make it that long, you can better believe I won't be playing some game with the doctor and tell him to save both of them.  I would say "Get that medication into her right now, do whatever you have to do to save her life, let me know if you need a kidney or something 'cause I got some extra organs in here somewhere". I would not think twice about the baby.  There will be time to grieve for the baby later, that is my wife's life on the line.

May God grant that you (and everyone else) NEVER be faced with such a situation.


I do know, that even though it can now never happen to me and my wife, that I would think twice (and much more) about the baby.
I would when everything was all over, and I would grieve a great deal, but if I was thrown into that situation where I had to make the decision with time ticking, I would pick my wife over a child that I have never met.  I think for me, it would be more a situation that I am emotionally attached to my wife, whereas a baby, I am much less so.

I agree though, I would hope that it would never happen to anyone.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Arachne
Trinary Unit || Resident Bossy Boots
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Online Online

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 4,493


Tending Brigid's flame


« Reply #25 on: August 30, 2013, 04:18:05 PM »

I love my son more than I thought I was capable of loving anyone. But if I were diagnosed with something life-threatening while pregnant, I would most definitely terminate the pregnancy in order to get treatment.

I felt so before I got pregnant, as well as during and after.

I believe that the motivation behind all our actions can boil down to either love or fear, and I know myself well enough to believe that fear would have won. I'm not proud of it, but it's true.
Logged

'When you live your path all the time, you end up with both more path and more time.'~Venecia Rauls

Blog ~ Bookshelf ~ Jukebox
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,174


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #26 on: August 30, 2013, 04:18:52 PM »

Sometimes, in real life, there are either-or choices.  If the doctor came in to me while my wife what giving birth and told me that my wife is going septic and it is going to be a 50/50 chance that she will pull through, but they will need to start the medication immediately because if they wait for the baby to come out, she won't make it that long, you can better believe I won't be playing some game with the doctor and tell him to save both of them.  I would say "Get that medication into her right now, do whatever you have to do to save her life, let me know if you need a kidney or something 'cause I got some extra organs in here somewhere". I would not think twice about the baby.  There will be time to grieve for the baby later, that is my wife's life on the line.

May God grant that you (and everyone else) NEVER be faced with such a situation.


I do know, that even though it can now never happen to me and my wife, that I would think twice (and much more) about the baby.
I would when everything was all over, and I would grieve a great deal, but if I was thrown into that situation where I had to make the decision with time ticking, I would pick my wife over a child that I have never met.  I think for me, it would be more a situation that I am emotionally attached to my wife, whereas a baby, I am much less so.

I agree though, I would hope that it would never happen to anyone.

I understand entirely.  And I think that if Push came to shove, had I been faced with that situation, I probably would have chosen as you would.

There have, though, been cases where the mother chose that her child should be born and live, even at her the cost of her own life.  Wow!!
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #27 on: September 01, 2013, 12:17:50 PM »

IIRC Elder Sophrony, whose mother had been in jeopardy at his birth, said that the Orthodox - as opposed to the RC - stance in such extreme situations, where only one life can be spared, is to try to save the mother, not the child. 

Maybe that should be left up to the doctors and parents at the situation at hand and not to the one-size-fits-all fatwa of Elder Sophrony.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,264


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #28 on: September 01, 2013, 12:28:53 PM »

The primary aim should never be to kill the child, and should always be illegal. However, in situations where the child will die if a primary aim to to cure or fix something, and the death of the child would be an unfortunate side effect, however tragic it would be, then economia could be used and be allowed.

Some on this board have accused me of have zero or at best poor reading comprehension.  Today may be one of those days when that is manifestly true.  I say that because the way I understand what you have written is that economia could be used to kill the child if, as the saying goes, the health or the life of the mother is in serious or imminent danger.  Did I get that right?  If not, please correct me.

What I am attempting to say, and I do not know if I have spoken poorly or not(which may be the case) is that killing the child is never to be the intent of anything. However, if there is a surgery that will save the life of the mother, then it should be done and economia should be used, even though you know it will result in the death of the child.

In a way, what I am trying to say perhaps is that the death of the child should never be the cause, and hopefully never the effect. However, if the effect is the death of the child and the cause is a surgery to save the mother, then it could be applied.

Okay.  That's clearer  Wink

I understand where you're coming from, and up to a point agree.  Hopefully, in the application of said economia, the mother would have been consulted and given her permission for this to happen.  If she was not in a state to be able to do so, what then??
Law of double of effect. We take a similar view in the Catholic tradition. For example, if a pregnant woman has a cancerous uterus that would result in the death of both the baby and the woman, it is morally licit to remove that uterus. The child will die as a result, but that is not the intention.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #29 on: September 01, 2013, 03:42:59 PM »

the one-size-fits-all fatwa of Elder Sophrony.

He was speaking about his own birth - he almost didn't make it.

Your comment is insulting.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,792


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #30 on: September 01, 2013, 04:05:09 PM »

the one-size-fits-all fatwa of Elder Sophrony.

He was speaking about his own birth - he almost didn't make it.

Your comment is insulting.

+1
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #31 on: September 01, 2013, 07:23:01 PM »

the one-size-fits-all fatwa of Elder Sophrony.

He was speaking about his own birth - he almost didn't make it.

Your comment is insulting.

So is the implication that those who choose to save their child rather than themselves are being unorthodox.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
TheMathematician
Banished and Disgraced
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 1,498


Formerly known as Montalo


« Reply #32 on: September 01, 2013, 08:40:32 PM »

The primary aim should never be to kill the child, and should always be illegal. However, in situations where the child will die if a primary aim to to cure or fix something, and the death of the child would be an unfortunate side effect, however tragic it would be, then economia could be used and be allowed.

Some on this board have accused me of have zero or at best poor reading comprehension.  Today may be one of those days when that is manifestly true.  I say that because the way I understand what you have written is that economia could be used to kill the child if, as the saying goes, the health or the life of the mother is in serious or imminent danger.  Did I get that right?  If not, please correct me.

What I am attempting to say, and I do not know if I have spoken poorly or not(which may be the case) is that killing the child is never to be the intent of anything. However, if there is a surgery that will save the life of the mother, then it should be done and economia should be used, even though you know it will result in the death of the child.

In a way, what I am trying to say perhaps is that the death of the child should never be the cause, and hopefully never the effect. However, if the effect is the death of the child and the cause is a surgery to save the mother, then it could be applied.

Okay.  That's clearer  Wink

I understand where you're coming from, and up to a point agree.  Hopefully, in the application of said economia, the mother would have been consulted and given her permission for this to happen.  If she was not in a state to be able to do so, what then??
Law of double of effect. We take a similar view in the Catholic tradition. For example, if a pregnant woman has a cancerous uterus that would result in the death of both the baby and the woman, it is morally licit to remove that uterus. The child will die as a result, but that is not the intention.
I learned what I believe as a catholic, and I still hold it to be true, even now as an Orthodox Christian.
Logged

SCREW BON JOVI!
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #33 on: September 02, 2013, 04:37:21 AM »

the one-size-fits-all fatwa of Elder Sophrony.

He was speaking about his own birth - he almost didn't make it.

Your comment is insulting.

So is the implication that those who choose to save their child rather than themselves are being unorthodox.

Elder Sophrony's mother decided to have him at her own peril. He didn't accuse her of being unorthodox for it. But should others have to make such a decision instead of the mother (who might be unconscious or might not have known about the risks), the Orthodox priority is to save the mother. 
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,713



« Reply #34 on: September 02, 2013, 11:02:50 AM »

Sometimes, in real life, there are either-or choices.  If the doctor came in to me while my wife what giving birth and told me that my wife is going septic and it is going to be a 50/50 chance that she will pull through, but they will need to start the medication immediately because if they wait for the baby to come out, she won't make it that long, you can better believe I won't be playing some game with the doctor and tell him to save both of them.  I would say "Get that medication into her right now, do whatever you have to do to save her life, let me know if you need a kidney or something 'cause I got some extra organs in here somewhere". I would not think twice about the baby.  There will be time to grieve for the baby later, that is my wife's life on the line.

May God grant that you (and everyone else) NEVER be faced with such a situation.


I do know, that even though it can now never happen to me and my wife, that I would think twice (and much more) about the baby.
I would when everything was all over, and I would grieve a great deal, but if I was thrown into that situation where I had to make the decision with time ticking, I would pick my wife over a child that I have never met.  I think for me, it would be more a situation that I am emotionally attached to my wife, whereas a baby, I am much less so.

I agree though, I would hope that it would never happen to anyone.

I understand entirely.  And I think that if Push came to shove, had I been faced with that situation, I probably would have chosen as you would.

There have, though, been cases where the mother chose that her child should be born and live, even at her the cost of her own life.  Wow!!
I am completely in awe of any woman who would be willing to sacrifice her own life for the life of her unborn child.  I certainly don't think God expects a woman to do that, but to those who have the ability to demonstrate such love, it is a great testimony to all those who know of it.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Nicene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 615


« Reply #35 on: September 02, 2013, 03:31:55 PM »

No matter how hard it is to say we should say it is wrong, even in cases of rape.

The only exception would be if the mother's life was in danger.
Logged

Thank you.
lovesupreme
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,037



« Reply #36 on: September 02, 2013, 05:27:03 PM »

Fr. Tom Hopko, The Orthodox Faith, Volume IV: Spirituality:

Quote
The abortion of an unborn child is absolutely condemned in the Orthodox Church. Clinical abortion is no means of birth control, and those who practice it for any reason at all, both the practitioners and those who request it, are punished according to the canon law of the Church with the "penalty for murder." (Council of Trullo, 5-6 Ecumenical Councils)

In extreme cases, as when the mother will surely die, if she bears the child, the decision for life or death of the child must be taken by the mother alone, in consultation with her family and her spiritual guides.Whatever the decision, unceasing prayers for God's guidance and mercy must be its foundation. According to the Orthodox faith, a mother who gives her life for her child is a saint who will most certainly be greatly glorified by God; for there is no greater act of love than to give one's life so that another might live. (cf. John 15:13)
« Last Edit: September 02, 2013, 05:27:11 PM by lovesupreme » Logged

I am prone to bouts of sarcasm. Please forgive me if my posts have offended you.
WPM
Revolutionary Writer
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,549



« Reply #37 on: September 02, 2013, 06:47:35 PM »

Abortion is wrong
Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,348

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #38 on: September 02, 2013, 07:50:23 PM »

The primary aim should never be to kill the child, and should always be illegal. However, in situations where the child will die if a primary aim to to cure or fix something, and the death of the child would be an unfortunate side effect, however tragic it would be, then economia could be used and be allowed.

Some on this board have accused me of have zero or at best poor reading comprehension.  Today may be one of those days when that is manifestly true.  I say that because the way I understand what you have written is that economia could be used to kill the child if, as the saying goes, the health or the life of the mother is in serious or imminent danger.  Did I get that right?  If not, please correct me.

What I am attempting to say, and I do not know if I have spoken poorly or not(which may be the case) is that killing the child is never to be the intent of anything. However, if there is a surgery that will save the life of the mother, then it should be done and economia should be used, even though you know it will result in the death of the child.

In a way, what I am trying to say perhaps is that the death of the child should never be the cause, and hopefully never the effect. However, if the effect is the death of the child and the cause is a surgery to save the mother, then it could be applied.

Okay.  That's clearer  Wink

I understand where you're coming from, and up to a point agree.  Hopefully, in the application of said economia, the mother would have been consulted and given her permission for this to happen.  If she was not in a state to be able to do so, what then??
Law of double of effect. We take a similar view in the Catholic tradition. For example, if a pregnant woman has a cancerous uterus that would result in the death of both the baby and the woman, it is morally licit to remove that uterus. The child will die as a result, but that is not the intention.

I can agree with this. What troubles me with the exceptions for "the health of the mother" is when the unborn child is treated like a cancerous tumor that needs to be removed in order to save the mother's life. Such thinking is in no way Orthodox. I am also uneasy with the notion that the mother's life is more valuable than the child's life. I don't think we have the right to choose to save one life at the expense of another. We should value both lives equally, and do everything we can to preserve them both.


Selam
Logged

"Beauty is truth, and Orthodoxy is beautiful." +GMK+
Sinful Hypocrite
Everyday I am critical of others. Every day I make similar mistakes. Every day I am a hypocrite.
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: "The Orthodox Church" by Bishop Kallistos Ware: "We know where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it is not; and so we must refrain from passing judgment on non-Orthodox Christians."
Posts: 1,770


Great googly moogly!


« Reply #39 on: September 02, 2013, 07:55:50 PM »

It is very easy to say that abortion is wrong.

What is hard is forgiving, God desires mercy above all else from us. He died for our sins. And then forgave us. So for our sake he suffered and died . We should remember that we are all guilty of Jesus death .We should help those who have these problems, laws and hatred do not help them and in turn hurt us all.

Matthew 9
9As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector’s booth. “Follow me,” he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him.

10While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. 11When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

12On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’a For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
« Last Edit: September 02, 2013, 08:23:05 PM by Sinful Hypocrite » Logged

The Lord gathers his sheep, I fear I am a goat. Lord have mercy.

"A Christian is someone who follows and worships a perfectly good God who revealed his true face through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.“
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,348

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #40 on: September 02, 2013, 08:39:29 PM »

It is very easy to say that abortion is wrong.

What is hard is forgiving, God desires mercy above all else from us. He died for our sins. And then forgave us. So for our sake he suffered and died . We should remember that we are all guilty of Jesus death .We should help those who have these problems, laws and hatred do not help them and in turn hurt us all.

Matthew 9
9As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector’s booth. “Follow me,” he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him.

10While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. 11When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

12On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’a For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

I agree 100%. And there is nothing unloving, unforgiving, or unchristian about standing up for the rights of the unborn and deterring women from the physical, emotional, and spiritual devastation of abortion.


Selam
Logged

"Beauty is truth, and Orthodoxy is beautiful." +GMK+
TheMathematician
Banished and Disgraced
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 1,498


Formerly known as Montalo


« Reply #41 on: September 02, 2013, 10:38:31 PM »

The primary aim should never be to kill the child, and should always be illegal. However, in situations where the child will die if a primary aim to to cure or fix something, and the death of the child would be an unfortunate side effect, however tragic it would be, then economia could be used and be allowed.

Some on this board have accused me of have zero or at best poor reading comprehension.  Today may be one of those days when that is manifestly true.  I say that because the way I understand what you have written is that economia could be used to kill the child if, as the saying goes, the health or the life of the mother is in serious or imminent danger.  Did I get that right?  If not, please correct me.

What I am attempting to say, and I do not know if I have spoken poorly or not(which may be the case) is that killing the child is never to be the intent of anything. However, if there is a surgery that will save the life of the mother, then it should be done and economia should be used, even though you know it will result in the death of the child.

In a way, what I am trying to say perhaps is that the death of the child should never be the cause, and hopefully never the effect. However, if the effect is the death of the child and the cause is a surgery to save the mother, then it could be applied.

Okay.  That's clearer  Wink

I understand where you're coming from, and up to a point agree.  Hopefully, in the application of said economia, the mother would have been consulted and given her permission for this to happen.  If she was not in a state to be able to do so, what then??
Law of double of effect. We take a similar view in the Catholic tradition. For example, if a pregnant woman has a cancerous uterus that would result in the death of both the baby and the woman, it is morally licit to remove that uterus. The child will die as a result, but that is not the intention.

I can agree with this. What troubles me with the exceptions for "the health of the mother" is when the unborn child is treated like a cancerous tumor that needs to be removed in order to save the mother's life. Such thinking is in no way Orthodox. I am also uneasy with the notion that the mother's life is more valuable than the child's life. I don't think we have the right to choose to save one life at the expense of another. We should value both lives equally, and do everything we can to preserve them both.


Selam

I agree with you, and that all efforts should be made to save both, but for me at least, it isnt that the mother's life is more important, just, easier to save. It is easier to save the mother than the child, and if both can't happen, then I believe that you should do what you need to guarantee one, which the mother is easier to do.
Logged

SCREW BON JOVI!
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,348

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #42 on: September 02, 2013, 10:49:37 PM »

The primary aim should never be to kill the child, and should always be illegal. However, in situations where the child will die if a primary aim to to cure or fix something, and the death of the child would be an unfortunate side effect, however tragic it would be, then economia could be used and be allowed.

Some on this board have accused me of have zero or at best poor reading comprehension.  Today may be one of those days when that is manifestly true.  I say that because the way I understand what you have written is that economia could be used to kill the child if, as the saying goes, the health or the life of the mother is in serious or imminent danger.  Did I get that right?  If not, please correct me.

What I am attempting to say, and I do not know if I have spoken poorly or not(which may be the case) is that killing the child is never to be the intent of anything. However, if there is a surgery that will save the life of the mother, then it should be done and economia should be used, even though you know it will result in the death of the child.

In a way, what I am trying to say perhaps is that the death of the child should never be the cause, and hopefully never the effect. However, if the effect is the death of the child and the cause is a surgery to save the mother, then it could be applied.

Okay.  That's clearer  Wink

I understand where you're coming from, and up to a point agree.  Hopefully, in the application of said economia, the mother would have been consulted and given her permission for this to happen.  If she was not in a state to be able to do so, what then??
Law of double of effect. We take a similar view in the Catholic tradition. For example, if a pregnant woman has a cancerous uterus that would result in the death of both the baby and the woman, it is morally licit to remove that uterus. The child will die as a result, but that is not the intention.

I can agree with this. What troubles me with the exceptions for "the health of the mother" is when the unborn child is treated like a cancerous tumor that needs to be removed in order to save the mother's life. Such thinking is in no way Orthodox. I am also uneasy with the notion that the mother's life is more valuable than the child's life. I don't think we have the right to choose to save one life at the expense of another. We should value both lives equally, and do everything we can to preserve them both.


Selam

I agree with you, and that all efforts should be made to save both, but for me at least, it isnt that the mother's life is more important, just, easier to save. It is easier to save the mother than the child, and if both can't happen, then I believe that you should do what you need to guarantee one, which the mother is easier to do.

I think that's reasonable. Thank you.


Selam
Logged

"Beauty is truth, and Orthodoxy is beautiful." +GMK+
Agabus
The user formerly known as Agabus.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Pan-American Colloquial Convert Hybrid Orthodoxy.
Jurisdiction: We are all uncanonical now.
Posts: 2,363



« Reply #43 on: September 03, 2013, 11:05:04 AM »

The primary aim should never be to kill the child, and should always be illegal. However, in situations where the child will die if a primary aim to to cure or fix something, and the death of the child would be an unfortunate side effect, however tragic it would be, then economia could be used and be allowed.

Some on this board have accused me of have zero or at best poor reading comprehension.  Today may be one of those days when that is manifestly true.  I say that because the way I understand what you have written is that economia could be used to kill the child if, as the saying goes, the health or the life of the mother is in serious or imminent danger.  Did I get that right?  If not, please correct me.

What I am attempting to say, and I do not know if I have spoken poorly or not(which may be the case) is that killing the child is never to be the intent of anything. However, if there is a surgery that will save the life of the mother, then it should be done and economia should be used, even though you know it will result in the death of the child.

In a way, what I am trying to say perhaps is that the death of the child should never be the cause, and hopefully never the effect. However, if the effect is the death of the child and the cause is a surgery to save the mother, then it could be applied.

Okay.  That's clearer  Wink.  

I understand where you're coming from, and up to a point agree.  Hopefully, in the application of said economia, the mother would have been consulted and given her permission for this to happen.  If she was not in a state to be able to do so, what then??
Law of double of effect. We take a similar view in the Catholic tradition. For example, if a pregnant woman has a cancerous uterus that would result in the death of both the baby and the woman, it is morally licit to remove that uterus. The child will die as a result, but that is not the intention.

I can agree with this. What troubles me with the exceptions for "the health of the mother" is when the unborn child is treated like a cancerous tumor that needs to be removed in order to save the mother's life. Such thinking is in no way Orthodox. I am also uneasy with the notion that the mother's life is more valuable than the child's life. I don't think we have the right to choose to save one life at the expense of another. We should value both lives equally, and do everything we can to preserve them both.


Selam

I agree with you, and that all efforts should be made to save both, but for me at least, it isnt that the mother's life is more important, just, easier to save. It is easier to save the mother than the child, and if both can't happen, then I believe that you should do what you need to guarantee one, which the mother is easier to do.
I agree with this line of thinking.

I do know of one particularly sad story, however, in which a woman chose to die rather than seek a treatment that would either kill or seriously deform her child. The baby, miraculously, was saved after the mother went into a coma at 26 weeks gestation. The mother died shortly after the delivery.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2013, 11:06:34 AM by Agabus » Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH
Arachne
Trinary Unit || Resident Bossy Boots
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Online Online

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 4,493


Tending Brigid's flame


« Reply #44 on: September 03, 2013, 11:22:27 AM »

I can agree with this. What troubles me with the exceptions for "the health of the mother" is when the unborn child is treated like a cancerous tumor that needs to be removed in order to save the mother's life. Such thinking is in no way Orthodox. I am also uneasy with the notion that the mother's life is more valuable than the child's life. I don't think we have the right to choose to save one life at the expense of another. We should value both lives equally, and do everything we can to preserve them both.


Selam

Last year saw two highly publicised cases of such controversy: an unnamed 16-year-old in the Dominican Republic and Savita Halappanavar in Ireland. The way they were handled is, to me, nothing short of criminal. Sturdy paving for the highway to hell. Undecided
Logged

'When you live your path all the time, you end up with both more path and more time.'~Venecia Rauls

Blog ~ Bookshelf ~ Jukebox
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,713



« Reply #45 on: September 03, 2013, 11:51:05 AM »

If it is a choice between the mother and the child, the mother should be the one who makes that choice.  No one should mandate that a woman sacrifice her life for her unborn child.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,402


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #46 on: September 03, 2013, 11:55:19 AM »

If it is a choice between the mother and the child, the mother should be the one who makes that choice.  No one should mandate that a woman sacrifice her life for her unborn child.

What if the mother is incapacitated? Who should make the decision then?
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,713



« Reply #47 on: September 03, 2013, 12:06:47 PM »

If it is a choice between the mother and the child, the mother should be the one who makes that choice.  No one should mandate that a woman sacrifice her life for her unborn child.

What if the mother is incapacitated? Who should make the decision then?
Whoever she has designated to do so.  It would be the same as any other medical procedure.  Presumably, she has notifed her husband/parent/etc what her wishes are.  That is why it is important to have a power of attorney and living will.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Arachne
Trinary Unit || Resident Bossy Boots
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Online Online

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 4,493


Tending Brigid's flame


« Reply #48 on: September 03, 2013, 12:36:27 PM »

If it is a choice between the mother and the child, the mother should be the one who makes that choice.  No one should mandate that a woman sacrifice her life for her unborn child.

That is precisely what happens when the law states 'no abortion, ever, for any reason'. And I'm leaving it at that, since this is not supposed to be about politics.
Logged

'When you live your path all the time, you end up with both more path and more time.'~Venecia Rauls

Blog ~ Bookshelf ~ Jukebox
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,713



« Reply #49 on: September 03, 2013, 12:41:18 PM »

I agree. Although, other than apparently Ireland, I don't know of any place that has such a rule.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #50 on: September 03, 2013, 02:05:14 PM »

I'd rather my wife stay alive, don't want my kids without a mom.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Sinful Hypocrite
Everyday I am critical of others. Every day I make similar mistakes. Every day I am a hypocrite.
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: "The Orthodox Church" by Bishop Kallistos Ware: "We know where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it is not; and so we must refrain from passing judgment on non-Orthodox Christians."
Posts: 1,770


Great googly moogly!


« Reply #51 on: September 03, 2013, 05:55:45 PM »

It is very easy to say that abortion is wrong.

What is hard is forgiving, God desires mercy above all else from us. He died for our sins. And then forgave us. So for our sake he suffered and died . We should remember that we are all guilty of Jesus death .We should help those who have these problems, laws and hatred do not help them and in turn hurt us all.

Matthew 9
9As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector’s booth. “Follow me,” he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him.

10While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. 11When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

12On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’a For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

I agree 100%. And there is nothing unloving, unforgiving, or unchristian about standing up for the rights of the unborn and deterring women from the physical, emotional, and spiritual devastation of abortion.


Selam

By all means I agree.
It is only that we need to have those also for the living. And help them to understand without accusation and hatred. And if they do make the wrong decision we need forgiveness.

Most people think that we can legislate problems away, and then punish those who break the laws.

God made it clear that we cannot follow his laws, otherwise we would not need Jesus Christ to die for our sins.
This is the ultimate sacrifice for us all.
God could easily have given the people the savior they were hoping for, who would destroy their enemies and punish those who they saw as sinners.
That God showed us all how wrong that thinking was by sending his son to love and heal and forgive all.

The way to change these problems is by working with people in a humane,loving manner. Education and love.
This was what Jesus did, he never insisted or coerced.

« Last Edit: September 03, 2013, 06:08:31 PM by Sinful Hypocrite » Logged

The Lord gathers his sheep, I fear I am a goat. Lord have mercy.

"A Christian is someone who follows and worships a perfectly good God who revealed his true face through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.“
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #52 on: September 03, 2013, 06:31:33 PM »

The primary aim should never be to kill the child, and should always be illegal. However, in situations where the child will die if a primary aim to to cure or fix something, and the death of the child would be an unfortunate side effect, however tragic it would be, then economia could be used and be allowed.

Some on this board have accused me of have zero or at best poor reading comprehension.  Today may be one of those days when that is manifestly true.  I say that because the way I understand what you have written is that economia could be used to kill the child if, as the saying goes, the health or the life of the mother is in serious or imminent danger.  Did I get that right?  If not, please correct me.

What I am attempting to say, and I do not know if I have spoken poorly or not(which may be the case) is that killing the child is never to be the intent of anything. However, if there is a surgery that will save the life of the mother, then it should be done and economia should be used, even though you know it will result in the death of the child.

In a way, what I am trying to say perhaps is that the death of the child should never be the cause, and hopefully never the effect. However, if the effect is the death of the child and the cause is a surgery to save the mother, then it could be applied.

Okay.  That's clearer  Wink

I understand where you're coming from, and up to a point agree.  Hopefully, in the application of said economia, the mother would have been consulted and given her permission for this to happen.  If she was not in a state to be able to do so, what then??

Do you mean if the mother is unconscious?  If that's the case, the spouse or other person in charge of her medical guardianship would have to make that decision.  Last resort, the physician would.

Scary.  Especially regarding the physician.  What if he/she was a proponent of abortion at will?  Luckily, I'm pretty sure this kind of scenario happens pretty infrequently.
There is a concept of implied consent, in which if you cannot, or in the case of a minor a parent not around, the consent to treat is implied, meaning in my case, I am able to perform CPR or the like, even if they would have otherwise declined.

There have been many cases where the physicians have unilaterally made life-and-death decisions. I think that we must give then the least degree of leeway.

Right.  I think that the question is that in the case of a physician who has the choice to save the mother or not, then he must save the mother.  If the child dies in the process, then that is not the same as going into an abortion clinic and hacking up the baby.  In many of the cases it is a matter of either mother and child die or mother lives and child dies, in which case there is only one choice:  life, and saving the life of the mother is the Christian and pro-life thing to do. 
Logged
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 6,352


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #53 on: September 04, 2013, 06:46:28 AM »

The primary aim should never be to kill the child, and should always be illegal. However, in situations where the child will die if a primary aim to to cure or fix something, and the death of the child would be an unfortunate side effect, however tragic it would be, then economia could be used and be allowed.

Some on this board have accused me of have zero or at best poor reading comprehension.  Today may be one of those days when that is manifestly true.  I say that because the way I understand what you have written is that economia could be used to kill the child if, as the saying goes, the health or the life of the mother is in serious or imminent danger.  Did I get that right?  If not, please correct me.

What I am attempting to say, and I do not know if I have spoken poorly or not(which may be the case) is that killing the child is never to be the intent of anything. However, if there is a surgery that will save the life of the mother, then it should be done and economia should be used, even though you know it will result in the death of the child.

In a way, what I am trying to say perhaps is that the death of the child should never be the cause, and hopefully never the effect. However, if the effect is the death of the child and the cause is a surgery to save the mother, then it could be applied.

Okay.  That's clearer  Wink

I understand where you're coming from, and up to a point agree.  Hopefully, in the application of said economia, the mother would have been consulted and given her permission for this to happen.  If she was not in a state to be able to do so, what then??

Do you mean if the mother is unconscious?  If that's the case, the spouse or other person in charge of her medical guardianship would have to make that decision.  Last resort, the physician would.

Scary.  Especially regarding the physician.  What if he/she was a proponent of abortion at will?  Luckily, I'm pretty sure this kind of scenario happens pretty infrequently.
There is a concept of implied consent, in which if you cannot, or in the case of a minor a parent not around, the consent to treat is implied, meaning in my case, I am able to perform CPR or the like, even if they would have otherwise declined.

There have been many cases where the physicians have unilaterally made life-and-death decisions. I think that we must give then the least degree of leeway.

Right.  I think that the question is that in the case of a physician who has the choice to save the mother or not, then he must save the mother.  If the child dies in the process, then that is not the same as going into an abortion clinic and hacking up the baby.  In many of the cases it is a matter of either mother and child die or mother lives and child dies, in which case there is only one choice:  life, and saving the life of the mother is the Christian and pro-life thing to do. 
I agree.  In such a case, it would be best if the mother was saved.  It is a difficult decision, but the mother will more than likely be able to have more children.
Logged

William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #54 on: September 07, 2013, 08:10:12 PM »

If it is a choice between the mother and the child, the mother should be the one who makes that choice.  No one should mandate that a woman sacrifice her life for her unborn child.

That is precisely what happens when the law states 'no abortion, ever, for any reason'. And I'm leaving it at that, since this is not supposed to be about politics.

Interesting how you know that when there is no state with such a law and such a situation has never occurred.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
ironchapman
A bull of truth in the china shop of falsehoods.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Serious inquirer into Orthodoxy.
Posts: 783



« Reply #55 on: September 07, 2013, 10:08:49 PM »


The Ecumenical Patriarch thinks so, and said himself that there may be some cases where a couple should consider abortion.

Where did the EP say this? (Not saying I don't believe you, just curious)

Anyways, I can see an argument for the "life of the mother" exception, but other than that, I am pro-life in every circumstance.
Logged

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." --Bertrand Russell
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,971


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #56 on: September 08, 2013, 01:30:17 AM »


Where did the EP say this?
He really didn't, IMO, but there's a prooftext from a statement he made that is presented that way on many blogs, etc.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2013, 01:30:36 AM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
Nikolaos Greek
Last among equals
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Greece
Posts: 203



« Reply #57 on: September 08, 2013, 05:24:09 AM »

Kill the child so I can live or die together? From the eyes of Christ what seems right?
I think you all know.
Logged

God is Love.
Ό Θεός ἀγάπη ἐστί.
There is no luck, there is no fate. There are always two ways. One is God's and one is devil's. And in each step of your life you have to pick one, always.
Arachne
Trinary Unit || Resident Bossy Boots
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Online Online

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 4,493


Tending Brigid's flame


« Reply #58 on: September 08, 2013, 08:30:18 AM »

If it is a choice between the mother and the child, the mother should be the one who makes that choice.  No one should mandate that a woman sacrifice her life for her unborn child.

That is precisely what happens when the law states 'no abortion, ever, for any reason'. And I'm leaving it at that, since this is not supposed to be about politics.

Interesting how you know that when there is no state with such a law

There are several, actually. Malta, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Chile. (Source). Plus, a lot of stuff bandied about during last year's US presidential campaign sounded suspiciously similar.

and such a situation has never occurred.

You sure?

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,53425.msg983016.html#msg983016
Logged

'When you live your path all the time, you end up with both more path and more time.'~Venecia Rauls

Blog ~ Bookshelf ~ Jukebox
Arachne
Trinary Unit || Resident Bossy Boots
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Online Online

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 4,493


Tending Brigid's flame


« Reply #59 on: September 08, 2013, 08:31:31 AM »

Kill the child so I can live or die together? From the eyes of Christ what seems right?
I think you all know.

Not your decision. And if it were your wife, sister or daughter's life, you wouldn't find it so easy.
Logged

'When you live your path all the time, you end up with both more path and more time.'~Venecia Rauls

Blog ~ Bookshelf ~ Jukebox
Nikolaos Greek
Last among equals
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Greece
Posts: 203



« Reply #60 on: September 08, 2013, 09:23:40 AM »

You think i wouldn't and you would be right. But if such a time ever comes I hope God will give em the power to do the right thing.  Wink
Logged

God is Love.
Ό Θεός ἀγάπη ἐστί.
There is no luck, there is no fate. There are always two ways. One is God's and one is devil's. And in each step of your life you have to pick one, always.
Sinful Hypocrite
Everyday I am critical of others. Every day I make similar mistakes. Every day I am a hypocrite.
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: "The Orthodox Church" by Bishop Kallistos Ware: "We know where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it is not; and so we must refrain from passing judgment on non-Orthodox Christians."
Posts: 1,770


Great googly moogly!


« Reply #61 on: September 08, 2013, 05:44:56 PM »

It is always easy when we think we are above those things, but put yourself below and it is easier to be understanding.
Logged

The Lord gathers his sheep, I fear I am a goat. Lord have mercy.

"A Christian is someone who follows and worships a perfectly good God who revealed his true face through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.“
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 6,352


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #62 on: September 08, 2013, 06:19:35 PM »

There is no easy decision.  Do you struggle together with your wife to get through the pain after terminating your pregnancy because of a medical procedure or do you explain to your child that he/she has no mother because of a medical procedure?
Logged

Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #63 on: September 08, 2013, 10:09:43 PM »

Kill the child so I can live or die together? From the eyes of Christ what seems right?
I think you all know.

How old are you? 
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #64 on: September 08, 2013, 10:16:31 PM »

The primary aim should never be to kill the child, and should always be illegal. However, in situations where the child will die if a primary aim to to cure or fix something, and the death of the child would be an unfortunate side effect, however tragic it would be, then economia could be used and be allowed.

Co-signed.
Notarized.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #65 on: September 08, 2013, 10:42:53 PM »

If it is a choice between the mother and the child, the mother should be the one who makes that choice.  No one should mandate that a woman sacrifice her life for her unborn child.

That is precisely what happens when the law states 'no abortion, ever, for any reason'. And I'm leaving it at that, since this is not supposed to be about politics.

Interesting how you know that when there is no state with such a law

There are several, actually. Malta, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Chile. (Source).

In most of those countries there have been cases where a procedure that terminates a pregnancy has been allowed for the sake of saving the mother.

Quote
Plus, a lot of stuff bandied about during last year's US presidential campaign sounded suspiciously similar.

Name one candidate who said that women with life-threatening conditions must carry to full term.

Quote

I'm pretty sure. Abortion for the sake of preserving the mother's life is legal in Ireland, so that case is not an example of the law stating "no abortion, ever, for any reason."

And in the Dominican case, they started the chemo anyway. Did you read the article you linked?
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #66 on: September 08, 2013, 10:50:15 PM »


The Ecumenical Patriarch thinks so, and said himself that there may be some cases where a couple should consider abortion.

Where did the EP say this? (Not saying I don't believe you, just curious)

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2009/10/27/a-not-so-pro-life-patriarch/

"'We are not allowed to enter the bedrooms of the Christian couples,' he said. 'We cannot generalize. There are many reasons for a couple to go toward abortion.'"

Disclaimer: I do not in any way agree with this statement nor do I present it as authentic Orthodox teaching.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,792


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #67 on: September 08, 2013, 11:19:09 PM »

"'We are not allowed to enter the bedrooms of the Christian couples,' he said. 'We cannot generalize. There are many reasons for a couple to go toward abortion.'"

I wish we could look at this in context, or in its original language.  Not that it's impossible for HH to have said this, but it seems odd.  "Not allowed to enter the bedrooms" is usually the kind of language used in connection with the use of birth control, certain types of sexual practices, etc.  I've never heard it in connection with abortion.  Do we know for certain that this is really what HH said, or is it possible that something has been transmitted wrongly?
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Arachne
Trinary Unit || Resident Bossy Boots
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Online Online

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 4,493


Tending Brigid's flame


« Reply #68 on: September 09, 2013, 03:02:53 AM »

In most of those countries there have been cases where a procedure that terminates a pregnancy has been allowed for the sake of saving the mother.

I linked my source. Where's yours?

Name one candidate who said that women with life-threatening conditions must carry to full term.

Take it to politics. Not my country, anyway.

I'm pretty sure. Abortion for the sake of preserving the mother's life is legal in Ireland, so that case is not an example of the law stating "no abortion, ever, for any reason."

That law passed after the Halappanavar case. It's still being fought against.

And in the Dominican case, they started the chemo anyway. Did you read the article you linked?

Yes. Band-aid on an arterial wound. Will that be all?
Logged

'When you live your path all the time, you end up with both more path and more time.'~Venecia Rauls

Blog ~ Bookshelf ~ Jukebox
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,348

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #69 on: September 09, 2013, 03:04:26 AM »

Kill the child so I can live or die together? From the eyes of Christ what seems right?
I think you all know.

Not your decision. And if it were your wife, sister or daughter's life, you wouldn't find it so easy.

No one here is saying that any of these decisions are easy. But the bottom line is that it is God's decision to give life and to take life. Therefore, I think the safest thing spiritually is to leave it in His hands. Our Lord said, "No greater love has any man than to lay down his life for his friend." He did not say, "No greater love has any man than to kill for his friend." But I pass no judgment on those who are faced with such a difficult decision. I am only arguing against the philosophy that says that one human being has lordship over the death of another.


Selam
Logged

"Beauty is truth, and Orthodoxy is beautiful." +GMK+
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 6,352


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #70 on: September 09, 2013, 08:30:47 AM »

Kill the child so I can live or die together? From the eyes of Christ what seems right?
I think you all know.

Not your decision. And if it were your wife, sister or daughter's life, you wouldn't find it so easy.

No one here is saying that any of these decisions are easy. But the bottom line is that it is God's decision to give life and to take life. Therefore, I think the safest thing spiritually is to leave it in His hands. Our Lord said, "No greater love has any man than to lay down his life for his friend." He did not say, "No greater love has any man than to kill for his friend." But I pass no judgment on those who are faced with such a difficult decision. I am only arguing against the philosophy that says that one human being has lordship over the death of another.


Selam

I don't think a doctor faced with the decision of saving lives would feel he/she is lording it over someone when making a medical decision that could kill the child, the mother, or both.
Logged

William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #71 on: September 09, 2013, 05:22:24 PM »

In most of those countries there have been cases where a procedure that terminates a pregnancy has been allowed for the sake of saving the mother.

I linked my source. Where's yours?

http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2013-05-05/news/malta-does-allow-for-abortions-in-case-of-life-or-death-situations-1521942537/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2817051.stm

The laws of each country you mentioned are based on RC social teaching, which permits abortive procedures to save lives. That is why such procedures are routinely performed without penalty in those countries.

Quote
Name one candidate who said that women with life-threatening conditions must carry to full term.

Take it to politics. Not my country, anyway.

You're the one who made the claim. Substantiate it or retract it.

Quote
I'm pretty sure. Abortion for the sake of preserving the mother's life is legal in Ireland, so that case is not an example of the law stating "no abortion, ever, for any reason."

That law passed after the Halappanavar case. It's still being fought against.

What are you talking about? It was well-known during the controversy that Halappanavar could have legally been given an abortion. Her death was exploited by ignorant pro-choicers as an opportunity to push their agenda. Much like you're doing now.

Quote
And in the Dominican case, they started the chemo anyway. Did you read the article you linked?

Yes. Band-aid on an arterial wound. Will that be all?

In other words, you know absolutely nothing about the case.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
Santagranddad
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCA
Posts: 1,198



« Reply #72 on: September 09, 2013, 05:34:40 PM »

The case in Ireland referred to seemed to involve poor medical care, including recognising from early on the mother's condition. And seeking multi-disciplinary advice on the options available. If there were any.

Not sure how the term 'ignorant pro lifers' sounds on an Orthodox Christian website. Is it wrong to be against the elective aborting of human life? Certainly in Greece I heard a lot about the evils of just such. Preached against, written against.

The case did shock me and left me feeling that the professionals involved appeared to have entered a state of 'analysis paralysis'.

« Last Edit: September 09, 2013, 06:04:49 PM by Santagranddad » Logged
Arachne
Trinary Unit || Resident Bossy Boots
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Online Online

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 4,493


Tending Brigid's flame


« Reply #73 on: September 09, 2013, 05:57:35 PM »

http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2013-05-05/news/malta-does-allow-for-abortions-in-case-of-life-or-death-situations-1521942537/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2817051.stm

The laws of each country you mentioned are based on RC social teaching, which permits abortive procedures to save lives. That is why such procedures are routinely performed without penalty in those countries.
Quote

I consider the UN a more reliable source than journalism. They created the classifications, and classified the countries I listed as 0. Take it up with them.

You're the one who made the claim. Substantiate it or retract it.
Quote

I made no claim. I said, verbatim, 'a lot of stuff bandied about during last year's US presidential campaign sounded suspiciously similar'. I don't care for legislation that doesn't affect me, but a lot of my friends over there were quite upset.

What are you talking about? It was well-known during the controversy that Halappanavar could have legally been given an abortion. Her death was exploited by ignorant pro-choicers as an opportunity to push their agenda. Much like you're doing now.
Quote

I'd love to know why she wasn't given one, then. Especially since she was already miscarrying, so it would simply be a D&C. Unless she was misdiagnosed, and staff were frantically trying to cover their rears. I did say in my post above that the way the case was treated was nothing short of criminal.

In other words, you know absolutely nothing about the case.

No. You are the one who knows nothing about it.

Cancer drugs work by suppressing cell division, thus stalling the growth of tumours. It's not very hard to understand what such substances do to a fetus in its early stages, when its cells are rapidly multiplying. It stops growing, and some time afterwards ends in a miscarriage, just like this case. That's why doctors insist on terminating the pregnancy, if the cancer is diagnosed in the first term, before treatment starts. In the second term, the result is usually a mass of defects that make the child unviable outside the womb. In the third term there is little issue, as an early delivery is usually viable.

That the girl was given chemo but not an abortion suggests that medical staff considered her case lost already and were just trying to cover their rears so that the world, that was howling already, would not say that they just stood by and let her die.
Logged

'When you live your path all the time, you end up with both more path and more time.'~Venecia Rauls

Blog ~ Bookshelf ~ Jukebox
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,272


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #74 on: September 09, 2013, 06:00:23 PM »

Adoption is an answer.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
Arachne
Trinary Unit || Resident Bossy Boots
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Online Online

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 4,493


Tending Brigid's flame


« Reply #75 on: September 09, 2013, 06:05:20 PM »

Adoption is an answer.

An answer to what, precisely? Huh
Logged

'When you live your path all the time, you end up with both more path and more time.'~Venecia Rauls

Blog ~ Bookshelf ~ Jukebox
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,713



« Reply #76 on: September 09, 2013, 07:53:30 PM »

Adoption is an answer.
to women potentially dying at childbirth?  How do you figure?  Huh
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,348

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #77 on: September 09, 2013, 09:24:13 PM »

Kill the child so I can live or die together? From the eyes of Christ what seems right?
I think you all know.

Not your decision. And if it were your wife, sister or daughter's life, you wouldn't find it so easy.

No one here is saying that any of these decisions are easy. But the bottom line is that it is God's decision to give life and to take life. Therefore, I think the safest thing spiritually is to leave it in His hands. Our Lord said, "No greater love has any man than to lay down his life for his friend." He did not say, "No greater love has any man than to kill for his friend." But I pass no judgment on those who are faced with such a difficult decision. I am only arguing against the philosophy that says that one human being has lordship over the death of another.


Selam

I don't think a doctor faced with the decision of saving lives would feel he/she is lording it over someone when making a medical decision that could kill the child, the mother, or both.

Probably not. But how they feel is not the issue. The question is whether or not women, doctors, priests, or anyone else has the divine authority to decide who should live and who should die. This question is too easily dismissed. It is somehow assumed that the life of the mother is more important than the life of the unborn child. I'm very uneasy with such an assumption. If the life of the mother is more important than the life of her unborn child, then who's to say that the mother's life is not more important than her children that are born?


Selam
Logged

"Beauty is truth, and Orthodoxy is beautiful." +GMK+
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,713



« Reply #78 on: September 10, 2013, 01:15:52 AM »

I pray that I never have to deal with this hypothetical, but I believe I would still choose my wife over my children.  I can guarantee you that my wife would choose the children over me and I think that would be a wise choice for her.  In such hypotheticals, there are never any good solutions, but if they are going to be discussed, someone has to be chosen.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,348

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #79 on: September 10, 2013, 03:26:31 AM »

I pray that I never have to deal with this hypothetical, but I believe I would still choose my wife over my children.  I can guarantee you that my wife would choose the children over me and I think that would be a wise choice for her.  In such hypotheticals, there are never any good solutions, but if they are going to be discussed, someone has to be chosen.


I share your sentiments. But what if there is a mother with 8 children and only enough food to feed 7? Who decides who should eat and who should starve to death? It would certainly not be an easy decision. But I think the Christian answer is to remember that God can multiply the loaves and the fishes. We do all we can to save life, but we never destroy life. And if mother and child both die as a result, then God will welcome them in the Kingdom. Miracles do not occur when we deny God the opportunity to perform them.


Selam
Logged

"Beauty is truth, and Orthodoxy is beautiful." +GMK+
Arachne
Trinary Unit || Resident Bossy Boots
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Online Online

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 4,493


Tending Brigid's flame


« Reply #80 on: September 10, 2013, 04:41:05 AM »

I can guarantee you that my wife would choose the children over me and I think that would be a wise choice for her.

I'd choose my son over my husband any day, but my unborn child's life over my own? Not so sure at all.

But what if there is a mother with 8 children and only enough food to feed 7? Who decides who should eat and who should starve to death?

I'm very reluctant to put a matter of literal life and death on the same footing as a financial situation, however dire.
Logged

'When you live your path all the time, you end up with both more path and more time.'~Venecia Rauls

Blog ~ Bookshelf ~ Jukebox
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #81 on: September 10, 2013, 06:05:56 AM »

In most of those countries there have been cases where a procedure that terminates a pregnancy has been allowed for the sake of saving the mother.

I linked my source. Where's yours?

http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2013-05-05/news/malta-does-allow-for-abortions-in-case-of-life-or-death-situations-1521942537/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2817051.stm

The laws of each country you mentioned are based on RC social teaching, which permits abortive procedures to save lives. That is why such procedures are routinely performed without penalty in those countries.


Absolutely wrong. The Church NEVER allows direct abortion for any reason. The principle of "double effect" may come into play where a procedure to save the women's life results in the death of the child. As an example: a woman needs chemotherapy or she will die of cancer. The result will be that the unborn child dies. That is a morally acceptable choice to make. To directly abort an unborn child is never acceptable. Please check your facts before posting such things.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2013, 06:06:55 AM by #1Sinner » Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 6,352


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #82 on: September 10, 2013, 06:56:33 AM »

Kill the child so I can live or die together? From the eyes of Christ what seems right?
I think you all know.

Not your decision. And if it were your wife, sister or daughter's life, you wouldn't find it so easy.

No one here is saying that any of these decisions are easy. But the bottom line is that it is God's decision to give life and to take life. Therefore, I think the safest thing spiritually is to leave it in His hands. Our Lord said, "No greater love has any man than to lay down his life for his friend." He did not say, "No greater love has any man than to kill for his friend." But I pass no judgment on those who are faced with such a difficult decision. I am only arguing against the philosophy that says that one human being has lordship over the death of another.


Selam

I don't think a doctor faced with the decision of saving lives would feel he/she is lording it over someone when making a medical decision that could kill the child, the mother, or both.

Probably not. But how they feel is not the issue. The question is whether or not women, doctors, priests, or anyone else has the divine authority to decide who should live and who should die. This question is too easily dismissed. It is somehow assumed that the life of the mother is more important than the life of the unborn child. I'm very uneasy with such an assumption. If the life of the mother is more important than the life of her unborn child, then who's to say that the mother's life is not more important than her children that are born?


Selam
Of course, no one has that divine authority to determine which life is more valuable or precious, and decides who lives or dies.  Physicians don't think that way when having to make those types of decisions.  Your question raises a point that has been happening in our modern day society wherein the value of life has been denigrated to the point where willful abortion is termed a medical procedure on par with getting a vaccine or getting sutures.  The issue here is in an emergency where both lives are at risk, because of the mother's health.  I'm not a father as you are Gebre, so I have no idea how such a decision could even possibly feel.  I only have the context of being married.  I wish no one would have to face such a decision, but it occurs all too often.
Logged

TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,713



« Reply #83 on: September 10, 2013, 07:42:30 AM »

I was listening to the radio and they had an interesting story that relates similarly to what we have discussed here.  It was about evacuating the patients of a hospital during Hurricane Katrina and all the moral and ethical struggles that went into deciding which patients were evacuated first, which ones were evacuated last and which ones were left to die.  Medical professionals are on occasion left with such dilemmas on whose life to spend more time saving.  Lord, have mercy.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Gunnarr
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,753



« Reply #84 on: September 10, 2013, 10:48:31 AM »

I don't know what to say for this
Logged

I am a demonic servant! Beware!
William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #85 on: September 10, 2013, 05:45:00 PM »

In most of those countries there have been cases where a procedure that terminates a pregnancy has been allowed for the sake of saving the mother.

I linked my source. Where's yours?

http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2013-05-05/news/malta-does-allow-for-abortions-in-case-of-life-or-death-situations-1521942537/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2817051.stm

The laws of each country you mentioned are based on RC social teaching, which permits abortive procedures to save lives. That is why such procedures are routinely performed without penalty in those countries.


Absolutely wrong. The Church NEVER allows direct abortion for any reason. The principle of "double effect" may come into play where a procedure to save the women's life results in the death of the child. As an example: a woman needs chemotherapy or she will die of cancer. The result will be that the unborn child dies. That is a morally acceptable choice to make. To directly abort an unborn child is never acceptable. Please check your facts before posting such things.


Please check my facts before posting exactly the same thing you did...?

Huh
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #86 on: September 10, 2013, 08:47:50 PM »

In most of those countries there have been cases where a procedure that terminates a pregnancy has been allowed for the sake of saving the mother.

I linked my source. Where's yours?

http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2013-05-05/news/malta-does-allow-for-abortions-in-case-of-life-or-death-situations-1521942537/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2817051.stm

The laws of each country you mentioned are based on RC social teaching, which permits abortive procedures to save lives. That is why such procedures are routinely performed without penalty in those countries.


Absolutely wrong. The Church NEVER allows direct abortion for any reason. The principle of "double effect" may come into play where a procedure to save the women's life results in the death of the child. As an example: a woman needs chemotherapy or she will die of cancer. The result will be that the unborn child dies. That is a morally acceptable choice to make. To directly abort an unborn child is never acceptable. Please check your facts before posting such things.


Please check my facts before posting exactly the same thing you did...?

Huh

An "abortive procedure" is not the same thing as an unborn baby dying as a result of a medical procedure intended to save the mother, ie: chemotherapy. Direct abortion (dismembering the child, burning it alive in chemicals etc) is never allowed.

You obviously don't understand the idea of double effect. Look it up.
Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
Nikolaos Greek
Last among equals
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Greece
Posts: 203



« Reply #87 on: September 11, 2013, 04:21:16 PM »

I am 17. You say young I am. Yo uare right. But to kill someone for you to live?
Logged

God is Love.
Ό Θεός ἀγάπη ἐστί.
There is no luck, there is no fate. There are always two ways. One is God's and one is devil's. And in each step of your life you have to pick one, always.
Arachne
Trinary Unit || Resident Bossy Boots
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Online Online

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 4,493


Tending Brigid's flame


« Reply #88 on: September 11, 2013, 04:49:38 PM »

An "abortive procedure" is not the same thing as an unborn baby dying as a result of a medical procedure intended to save the mother, ie: chemotherapy. Direct abortion (dismembering the child, burning it alive in chemicals etc) is never allowed.

So removing the fetus surgically with minimal trauma before starting the treatment is verboten, but poisoning it with the drugs over a span of weeks until it dies and bleeds out is a-okay? Huh

Monstrous. Undecided
Logged

'When you live your path all the time, you end up with both more path and more time.'~Venecia Rauls

Blog ~ Bookshelf ~ Jukebox
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #89 on: September 11, 2013, 06:08:19 PM »

An "abortive procedure" is not the same thing as an unborn baby dying as a result of a medical procedure intended to save the mother, ie: chemotherapy. Direct abortion (dismembering the child, burning it alive in chemicals etc) is never allowed.

So removing the fetus surgically with minimal trauma before starting the treatment is verboten, but poisoning it with the drugs over a span of weeks until it dies and bleeds out is a-okay? Huh

Monstrous. Undecided

William made an erroneous statement regarding RC social teaching. I corrected him. Your inability to distinguish between a direct act with an intended consequence and an unintended consequence of an indirect action is your own problem.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2013, 06:09:44 PM by #1Sinner » Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
Arachne
Trinary Unit || Resident Bossy Boots
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Online Online

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 4,493


Tending Brigid's flame


« Reply #90 on: September 12, 2013, 06:08:53 AM »

An "abortive procedure" is not the same thing as an unborn baby dying as a result of a medical procedure intended to save the mother, ie: chemotherapy. Direct abortion (dismembering the child, burning it alive in chemicals etc) is never allowed.

So removing the fetus surgically with minimal trauma before starting the treatment is verboten, but poisoning it with the drugs over a span of weeks until it dies and bleeds out is a-okay? Huh

Monstrous. Undecided

William made an erroneous statement regarding RC social teaching. I corrected him. Your inability to distinguish between a direct act with an intended consequence and an unintended consequence of an indirect action is your own problem.

No, my problem is that exposing a fetus to chemo will torture it for days, if not weeks, before killing it, and I find the idea that this is more acceptable than an abortion before treatment revolting.

Such a desperate situation needs brutal honesty. Say 'This is my child's life, and I'm going to sacrifice it in order to save the life of its mother'. Then do it quickly. The child deserves that much.

(The RC will disagree, of course. Not that I give a fig.)
Logged

'When you live your path all the time, you end up with both more path and more time.'~Venecia Rauls

Blog ~ Bookshelf ~ Jukebox
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #91 on: September 12, 2013, 02:30:49 PM »

An "abortive procedure" is not the same thing as an unborn baby dying as a result of a medical procedure intended to save the mother, ie: chemotherapy. Direct abortion (dismembering the child, burning it alive in chemicals etc) is never allowed.

So removing the fetus surgically with minimal trauma before starting the treatment is verboten, but poisoning it with the drugs over a span of weeks until it dies and bleeds out is a-okay? Huh

Monstrous. Undecided

William made an erroneous statement regarding RC social teaching. I corrected him. Your inability to distinguish between a direct act with an intended consequence and an unintended consequence of an indirect action is your own problem.

No, my problem is that exposing a fetus to chemo will torture it for days, if not weeks, before killing it, and I find the idea that this is more acceptable than an abortion before treatment revolting.

Such a desperate situation needs brutal honesty. Say 'This is my child's life, and I'm going to sacrifice it in order to save the life of its mother'. Then do it quickly. The child deserves that much.

(The RC will disagree, of course. Not that I give a fig.)

I'm not asking you to agree with me but to simply understand what I'm saying.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/

A directly evil act is never justifiable. The ends don't justify the means. You seem to believe that direct murder is justifiable under certain situations. Is that covered under "Oikonomia?"
« Last Edit: September 12, 2013, 02:32:30 PM by #1Sinner » Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
Arachne
Trinary Unit || Resident Bossy Boots
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Online Online

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 4,493


Tending Brigid's flame


« Reply #92 on: September 12, 2013, 02:41:05 PM »

An "abortive procedure" is not the same thing as an unborn baby dying as a result of a medical procedure intended to save the mother, ie: chemotherapy. Direct abortion (dismembering the child, burning it alive in chemicals etc) is never allowed.

So removing the fetus surgically with minimal trauma before starting the treatment is verboten, but poisoning it with the drugs over a span of weeks until it dies and bleeds out is a-okay? Huh

Monstrous. Undecided

William made an erroneous statement regarding RC social teaching. I corrected him. Your inability to distinguish between a direct act with an intended consequence and an unintended consequence of an indirect action is your own problem.

No, my problem is that exposing a fetus to chemo will torture it for days, if not weeks, before killing it, and I find the idea that this is more acceptable than an abortion before treatment revolting.

Such a desperate situation needs brutal honesty. Say 'This is my child's life, and I'm going to sacrifice it in order to save the life of its mother'. Then do it quickly. The child deserves that much.

(The RC will disagree, of course. Not that I give a fig.)

I'm not asking you to agree with me but to simply understand what I'm saying.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/

A directly evil act is never justifiable. The ends don't justify the means. You seem to believe that direct murder is justifiable under certain situations. Is that covered under "Oikonomia?"

I understand what you are saying, I just don't believe that the type of case we are discussing is 'an unintended consequence of an indirect action'. The death of a fetus through exposure to chemo drugs is an inevitable consequence of an entirely intentional act. And a cruel one, at that.
Logged

'When you live your path all the time, you end up with both more path and more time.'~Venecia Rauls

Blog ~ Bookshelf ~ Jukebox
TheMathematician
Banished and Disgraced
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 1,498


Formerly known as Montalo


« Reply #93 on: September 12, 2013, 02:43:36 PM »

In most of those countries there have been cases where a procedure that terminates a pregnancy has been allowed for the sake of saving the mother.

I linked my source. Where's yours?

http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2013-05-05/news/malta-does-allow-for-abortions-in-case-of-life-or-death-situations-1521942537/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2817051.stm

The laws of each country you mentioned are based on RC social teaching, which permits abortive procedures to save lives. That is why such procedures are routinely performed without penalty in those countries.


Absolutely wrong. The Church NEVER allows direct abortion for any reason. The principle of "double effect" may come into play where a procedure to save the women's life results in the death of the child. As an example: a woman needs chemotherapy or she will die of cancer. The result will be that the unborn child dies. That is a morally acceptable choice to make. To directly abort an unborn child is never acceptable. Please check your facts before posting such things.


Please check my facts before posting exactly the same thing you did...?

Huh

An "abortive procedure" is not the same thing as an unborn baby dying as a result of a medical procedure intended to save the mother, ie: chemotherapy. Direct abortion (dismembering the child, burning it alive in chemicals etc) is never allowed.

You obviously don't understand the idea of double effect. Look it up.

you two are saying the same thing, in case you didnt notice

an abortive procedure is not the same as an abortion, rather, it is what you are saying and it calls the double effect into play.
Logged

SCREW BON JOVI!
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #94 on: September 12, 2013, 02:59:41 PM »

An "abortive procedure" is not the same thing as an unborn baby dying as a result of a medical procedure intended to save the mother, ie: chemotherapy. Direct abortion (dismembering the child, burning it alive in chemicals etc) is never allowed.

So removing the fetus surgically with minimal trauma before starting the treatment is verboten, but poisoning it with the drugs over a span of weeks until it dies and bleeds out is a-okay? Huh

Monstrous. Undecided

William made an erroneous statement regarding RC social teaching. I corrected him. Your inability to distinguish between a direct act with an intended consequence and an unintended consequence of an indirect action is your own problem.

No, my problem is that exposing a fetus to chemo will torture it for days, if not weeks, before killing it, and I find the idea that this is more acceptable than an abortion before treatment revolting.

Such a desperate situation needs brutal honesty. Say 'This is my child's life, and I'm going to sacrifice it in order to save the life of its mother'. Then do it quickly. The child deserves that much.

(The RC will disagree, of course. Not that I give a fig.)

I'm not asking you to agree with me but to simply understand what I'm saying.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/

A directly evil act is never justifiable. The ends don't justify the means. You seem to believe that direct murder is justifiable under certain situations. Is that covered under "Oikonomia?"

I understand what you are saying, I just don't believe that the type of case we are discussing is 'an unintended consequence of an indirect action'. The death of a fetus unborn child through exposure to chemo drugs is an inevitable consequence of an entirely intentional act. And a cruel one, at that.

No, you don't understand. I also can't imagine you took the time to read the link I posted. If you had you would understand the concept, which you clearly do not. The unborn baby dying perhaps is inevitable, but that's not the point. The point is that it is not the INTENTION of the act. The intention of the act is to save the woman who is dying of cancer. The INTENT in an abortive procedure is to directly kill the infant.

Again, disagree with me all you like. The fact is that William made an incorrect statement and you still seem not to grasp the concept I'm trying to convey.
Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #95 on: September 12, 2013, 03:01:31 PM »

In most of those countries there have been cases where a procedure that terminates a pregnancy has been allowed for the sake of saving the mother.

I linked my source. Where's yours?

http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2013-05-05/news/malta-does-allow-for-abortions-in-case-of-life-or-death-situations-1521942537/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2817051.stm

The laws of each country you mentioned are based on RC social teaching, which permits abortive procedures to save lives. That is why such procedures are routinely performed without penalty in those countries.


Absolutely wrong. The Church NEVER allows direct abortion for any reason. The principle of "double effect" may come into play where a procedure to save the women's life results in the death of the child. As an example: a woman needs chemotherapy or she will die of cancer. The result will be that the unborn child dies. That is a morally acceptable choice to make. To directly abort an unborn child is never acceptable. Please check your facts before posting such things.


Please check my facts before posting exactly the same thing you did...?

Huh

An "abortive procedure" is not the same thing as an unborn baby dying as a result of a medical procedure intended to save the mother, ie: chemotherapy. Direct abortion (dismembering the child, burning it alive in chemicals etc) is never allowed.

You obviously don't understand the idea of double effect. Look it up.

you two are saying the same thing, in case you didnt notice

an abortive procedure is not the same as an abortion, rather, it is what you are saying and it calls the double effect into play.

Wrong. The intention of an "abortive procedure" is to kill the unborn child. The intention of chemotherapy is to cure the woman of cancer. The unintended consequence of that procedure possibly being the death of the child.

This really shouldn't be this difficult to grasp.
Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
Arachne
Trinary Unit || Resident Bossy Boots
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Online Online

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 4,493


Tending Brigid's flame


« Reply #96 on: September 12, 2013, 03:02:59 PM »

An "abortive procedure" is not the same thing as an unborn baby dying as a result of a medical procedure intended to save the mother, ie: chemotherapy. Direct abortion (dismembering the child, burning it alive in chemicals etc) is never allowed.

So removing the fetus surgically with minimal trauma before starting the treatment is verboten, but poisoning it with the drugs over a span of weeks until it dies and bleeds out is a-okay? Huh

Monstrous. Undecided

William made an erroneous statement regarding RC social teaching. I corrected him. Your inability to distinguish between a direct act with an intended consequence and an unintended consequence of an indirect action is your own problem.

No, my problem is that exposing a fetus to chemo will torture it for days, if not weeks, before killing it, and I find the idea that this is more acceptable than an abortion before treatment revolting.

Such a desperate situation needs brutal honesty. Say 'This is my child's life, and I'm going to sacrifice it in order to save the life of its mother'. Then do it quickly. The child deserves that much.

(The RC will disagree, of course. Not that I give a fig.)

I'm not asking you to agree with me but to simply understand what I'm saying.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/

A directly evil act is never justifiable. The ends don't justify the means. You seem to believe that direct murder is justifiable under certain situations. Is that covered under "Oikonomia?"

I understand what you are saying, I just don't believe that the type of case we are discussing is 'an unintended consequence of an indirect action'. The death of a fetus unborn child through exposure to chemo drugs is an inevitable consequence of an entirely intentional act. And a cruel one, at that.

No, you don't understand. I also can't imagine you took the time to read the link I posted. If you had you would understand the concept, which you clearly do not. The unborn baby dying perhaps is inevitable, but that's not the point. The point is that it is not the INTENTION of the act. The intention of the act is to save the woman who is dying of cancer. The INTENT in an abortive procedure is to directly kill the infant.

The intent of the act is to sacrifice one life to save another. That's on the same footing with a man shooting another in self-defence.
Logged

'When you live your path all the time, you end up with both more path and more time.'~Venecia Rauls

Blog ~ Bookshelf ~ Jukebox
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #97 on: September 12, 2013, 03:07:30 PM »

An "abortive procedure" is not the same thing as an unborn baby dying as a result of a medical procedure intended to save the mother, ie: chemotherapy. Direct abortion (dismembering the child, burning it alive in chemicals etc) is never allowed.

So removing the fetus surgically with minimal trauma before starting the treatment is verboten, but poisoning it with the drugs over a span of weeks until it dies and bleeds out is a-okay? Huh

Monstrous. Undecided

William made an erroneous statement regarding RC social teaching. I corrected him. Your inability to distinguish between a direct act with an intended consequence and an unintended consequence of an indirect action is your own problem.

No, my problem is that exposing a fetus to chemo will torture it for days, if not weeks, before killing it, and I find the idea that this is more acceptable than an abortion before treatment revolting.

Such a desperate situation needs brutal honesty. Say 'This is my child's life, and I'm going to sacrifice it in order to save the life of its mother'. Then do it quickly. The child deserves that much.

(The RC will disagree, of course. Not that I give a fig.)

I'm not asking you to agree with me but to simply understand what I'm saying.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/

A directly evil act is never justifiable. The ends don't justify the means. You seem to believe that direct murder is justifiable under certain situations. Is that covered under "Oikonomia?"

I understand what you are saying, I just don't believe that the type of case we are discussing is 'an unintended consequence of an indirect action'. The death of a fetus unborn child through exposure to chemo drugs is an inevitable consequence of an entirely intentional act. And a cruel one, at that.

No, you don't understand. I also can't imagine you took the time to read the link I posted. If you had you would understand the concept, which you clearly do not. The unborn baby dying perhaps is inevitable, but that's not the point. The point is that it is not the INTENTION of the act. The intention of the act is to save the woman who is dying of cancer. The INTENT in an abortive procedure is to directly kill the infant.

The intent of the act is to sacrifice one life to save another. That's on the same footing with a man shooting another in self-defence.

Wrong again. In that case the offending party is morally guilty of a wrong (attacking with intent to kill); and the innocent party is using justifiable force to repel the attack. In this case the unborn child is a moral innocent. Henceforth, any direct action against the morally innocent party whose intent is the death of said party is immoral and not allowed.

Again, this is an object, scholastic concept that I am not trying to argue with you. I am simply trying to rectify erroneous opinions against it or the RCC's teaching on the matter. There really isn't anything more to say about it.

We are speaking two different theological languages.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2013, 03:08:11 PM by #1Sinner » Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #98 on: September 12, 2013, 08:27:32 PM »

In most of those countries there have been cases where a procedure that terminates a pregnancy has been allowed for the sake of saving the mother.

I linked my source. Where's yours?

http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2013-05-05/news/malta-does-allow-for-abortions-in-case-of-life-or-death-situations-1521942537/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2817051.stm

The laws of each country you mentioned are based on RC social teaching, which permits abortive procedures to save lives. That is why such procedures are routinely performed without penalty in those countries.


Absolutely wrong. The Church NEVER allows direct abortion for any reason. The principle of "double effect" may come into play where a procedure to save the women's life results in the death of the child. As an example: a woman needs chemotherapy or she will die of cancer. The result will be that the unborn child dies. That is a morally acceptable choice to make. To directly abort an unborn child is never acceptable. Please check your facts before posting such things.


Please check my facts before posting exactly the same thing you did...?

Huh

An "abortive procedure" is not the same thing as an unborn baby dying as a result of a medical procedure intended to save the mother, ie: chemotherapy. Direct abortion (dismembering the child, burning it alive in chemicals etc) is never allowed.

You obviously don't understand the idea of double effect. Look it up.

Get a grip. I understand Roman sophistry just fine. Giving a pregnant woman chemotherapy will cause an abortion, so it is an abortive procedure.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #99 on: September 12, 2013, 09:15:52 PM »

In most of those countries there have been cases where a procedure that terminates a pregnancy has been allowed for the sake of saving the mother.

I linked my source. Where's yours?

http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2013-05-05/news/malta-does-allow-for-abortions-in-case-of-life-or-death-situations-1521942537/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2817051.stm

The laws of each country you mentioned are based on RC social teaching, which permits abortive procedures to save lives. That is why such procedures are routinely performed without penalty in those countries.


Absolutely wrong. The Church NEVER allows direct abortion for any reason. The principle of "double effect" may come into play where a procedure to save the women's life results in the death of the child. As an example: a woman needs chemotherapy or she will die of cancer. The result will be that the unborn child dies. That is a morally acceptable choice to make. To directly abort an unborn child is never acceptable. Please check your facts before posting such things.


Please check my facts before posting exactly the same thing you did...?

Huh

An "abortive procedure" is not the same thing as an unborn baby dying as a result of a medical procedure intended to save the mother, ie: chemotherapy. Direct abortion (dismembering the child, burning it alive in chemicals etc) is never allowed.

You obviously don't understand the idea of double effect. Look it up.

Get a grip. I understand Roman sophistry just fine. Giving a pregnant woman chemotherapy will cause an abortion, so it is an abortive procedure.

It will also make her hair fall out. Is it then also a hair-loss procedure? It will also make her vomit. Is it a vomit inducing procedure? The key is what is intended by the action.

What you call sophistry is a solid framework for dealing with these issues. I'm sorry if you don't have the brain power to comprehend. I suppose situational ethics would be an easier way to deal with these things: pre-natal murder is ok under certain circumstances.

Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,713



« Reply #100 on: September 12, 2013, 09:26:31 PM »

In most of those countries there have been cases where a procedure that terminates a pregnancy has been allowed for the sake of saving the mother.

I linked my source. Where's yours?

http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2013-05-05/news/malta-does-allow-for-abortions-in-case-of-life-or-death-situations-1521942537/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2817051.stm

The laws of each country you mentioned are based on RC social teaching, which permits abortive procedures to save lives. That is why such procedures are routinely performed without penalty in those countries.


Absolutely wrong. The Church NEVER allows direct abortion for any reason. The principle of "double effect" may come into play where a procedure to save the women's life results in the death of the child. As an example: a woman needs chemotherapy or she will die of cancer. The result will be that the unborn child dies. That is a morally acceptable choice to make. To directly abort an unborn child is never acceptable. Please check your facts before posting such things.


Please check my facts before posting exactly the same thing you did...?

Huh

An "abortive procedure" is not the same thing as an unborn baby dying as a result of a medical procedure intended to save the mother, ie: chemotherapy. Direct abortion (dismembering the child, burning it alive in chemicals etc) is never allowed.

You obviously don't understand the idea of double effect. Look it up.

Get a grip. I understand Roman sophistry just fine. Giving a pregnant woman chemotherapy will cause an abortion, so it is an abortive procedure.
Not necessarily.  It can cause fetal fatality or deformation in the first trimester, but after that, the likelyhood of chemo affecting the unborn child is extremely remote.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #101 on: September 12, 2013, 09:32:45 PM »

In most of those countries there have been cases where a procedure that terminates a pregnancy has been allowed for the sake of saving the mother.

I linked my source. Where's yours?

http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2013-05-05/news/malta-does-allow-for-abortions-in-case-of-life-or-death-situations-1521942537/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2817051.stm

The laws of each country you mentioned are based on RC social teaching, which permits abortive procedures to save lives. That is why such procedures are routinely performed without penalty in those countries.


Absolutely wrong. The Church NEVER allows direct abortion for any reason. The principle of "double effect" may come into play where a procedure to save the women's life results in the death of the child. As an example: a woman needs chemotherapy or she will die of cancer. The result will be that the unborn child dies. That is a morally acceptable choice to make. To directly abort an unborn child is never acceptable. Please check your facts before posting such things.


Please check my facts before posting exactly the same thing you did...?

Huh

An "abortive procedure" is not the same thing as an unborn baby dying as a result of a medical procedure intended to save the mother, ie: chemotherapy. Direct abortion (dismembering the child, burning it alive in chemicals etc) is never allowed.

You obviously don't understand the idea of double effect. Look it up.

Get a grip. I understand Roman sophistry just fine. Giving a pregnant woman chemotherapy will cause an abortion, so it is an abortive procedure.
Not necessarily.  It can cause fetal fatality or deformation in the first trimester, but after that, the likelyhood of chemo affecting the unborn child is extremely remote.

Completely beside the point. An "abortive procedure" is one in which the abortion is the foreseen and intended result of the action: suction, D&E etc.
Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,713



« Reply #102 on: September 12, 2013, 09:35:29 PM »

I'm merely pointing out that, contrary to the recent posts, chemo is not an automatic death sentence for an unborn child.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #103 on: September 13, 2013, 09:53:03 PM »

In most of those countries there have been cases where a procedure that terminates a pregnancy has been allowed for the sake of saving the mother.

I linked my source. Where's yours?

http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2013-05-05/news/malta-does-allow-for-abortions-in-case-of-life-or-death-situations-1521942537/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2817051.stm

The laws of each country you mentioned are based on RC social teaching, which permits abortive procedures to save lives. That is why such procedures are routinely performed without penalty in those countries.


Absolutely wrong. The Church NEVER allows direct abortion for any reason. The principle of "double effect" may come into play where a procedure to save the women's life results in the death of the child. As an example: a woman needs chemotherapy or she will die of cancer. The result will be that the unborn child dies. That is a morally acceptable choice to make. To directly abort an unborn child is never acceptable. Please check your facts before posting such things.


Please check my facts before posting exactly the same thing you did...?

Huh

An "abortive procedure" is not the same thing as an unborn baby dying as a result of a medical procedure intended to save the mother, ie: chemotherapy. Direct abortion (dismembering the child, burning it alive in chemicals etc) is never allowed.

You obviously don't understand the idea of double effect. Look it up.

Get a grip. I understand Roman sophistry just fine. Giving a pregnant woman chemotherapy will cause an abortion, so it is an abortive procedure.

It will also make her hair fall out. Is it then also a hair-loss procedure? It will also make her vomit. Is it a vomit inducing procedure? The key is what is intended by the action.

What you call sophistry is a solid framework for dealing with these issues. I'm sorry if you don't have the brain power to comprehend. I suppose situational ethics would be an easier way to deal with these things: pre-natal murder is ok under certain circumstances.

The teachings of the heretical Roman church is not a solid framework for dealing with the issue. And how much of a child do you have to be to say that someone doesn't have brain power for not buying your snake oil?

Your beloved Roman church is the one who has said that abortion is okay in certain circumstances, just so long as the abortion isn't "intended" (as if something you know full well is going to happen as a result of your action isn't intentional). I never said any such thing. Once again, get a grip, try peddling at fisheaters or something.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #104 on: September 13, 2013, 10:03:02 PM »


First of all, the UN deals in generalizations. I claimed that there are specific exceptions to the rule. Which I have proved by showing reports of said incidences.

In Halappanavar's case it was a mistake on the hospital's part. Abortion to save a mother's life has been explicitly legal for a while now. Check it.

And you've proven my point with the Dominican case. She died from her leukemia, not from being pregnant, and her pregnancy was not a legal obstacle to any treatment she could have been given.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2013, 10:03:18 PM by William » Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #105 on: September 13, 2013, 10:48:23 PM »

In most of those countries there have been cases where a procedure that terminates a pregnancy has been allowed for the sake of saving the mother.

I linked my source. Where's yours?

http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2013-05-05/news/malta-does-allow-for-abortions-in-case-of-life-or-death-situations-1521942537/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2817051.stm

The laws of each country you mentioned are based on RC social teaching, which permits abortive procedures to save lives. That is why such procedures are routinely performed without penalty in those countries.


Absolutely wrong. The Church NEVER allows direct abortion for any reason. The principle of "double effect" may come into play where a procedure to save the women's life results in the death of the child. As an example: a woman needs chemotherapy or she will die of cancer. The result will be that the unborn child dies. That is a morally acceptable choice to make. To directly abort an unborn child is never acceptable. Please check your facts before posting such things.


Please check my facts before posting exactly the same thing you did...?

Huh

An "abortive procedure" is not the same thing as an unborn baby dying as a result of a medical procedure intended to save the mother, ie: chemotherapy. Direct abortion (dismembering the child, burning it alive in chemicals etc) is never allowed.

You obviously don't understand the idea of double effect. Look it up.

Get a grip. I understand Roman sophistry just fine. Giving a pregnant woman chemotherapy will cause an abortion, so it is an abortive procedure.

It will also make her hair fall out. Is it then also a hair-loss procedure? It will also make her vomit. Is it a vomit inducing procedure? The key is what is intended by the action.

What you call sophistry is a solid framework for dealing with these issues. I'm sorry if you don't have the brain power to comprehend. I suppose situational ethics would be an easier way to deal with these things: pre-natal murder is ok under certain circumstances.

The teachings of the heretical Roman church is not a solid framework for dealing with the issue. And how much of a child do you have to be to say that someone doesn't have brain power for not buying your snake oil?

Your beloved Roman church is the one who has said that abortion is okay in certain circumstances, just so long as the abortion isn't "intended" (as if something you know full well is going to happen as a result of your action isn't intentional). I never said any such thing. Once again, get a grip, try peddling at fisheaters or something.

You're the child. I've made my point. Be obstinate if you wish. Arguing with kids isn't my idea of a good time.

Peace.
Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #106 on: September 13, 2013, 10:53:55 PM »

By the way, sorry to hear about your apostasy.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.41 seconds with 134 queries.