OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 22, 2014, 08:54:31 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 4946 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 9,973



« 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

Why can't you just take your spiritual edification like a man? 
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,407


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
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 9,973



« 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

Why can't you just take your spiritual edification like a man? 
Arachne
Trinary Unit || Resident Bossy Boots
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek *and* Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 4,821


Happy Holidays!


« 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
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 9,973



« 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

Why can't you just take your spiritual edification like a man? 
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
*******
Offline Offline

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: 1,887


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: 2,612



« 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: 7,319


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: 784



« 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: 6,077


Nepsis or Sepsis™


« 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
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek *and* Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 4,821


Happy Holidays!


« 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
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek *and* Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 4,821


Happy Holidays!


« 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
*******
Offline Offline

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: 1,887


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: 7,319


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: 2,612



« 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
Moderated
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: 38,142



« 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
NO TENURE FOR DEPONIO!!
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,765


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


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

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
Arachne
Trinary Unit || Resident Bossy Boots
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek *and* Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 4,821


Happy Holidays!


« 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: 8,496


"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

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."
Selam, +GMK+
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 7,319


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
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek *and* Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 4,821


Happy Holidays!


« 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
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,522


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
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek *and* Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 4,821


Happy Holidays!


« 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
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 9,973



« 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

Why can't you just take your spiritual edification like a man? 
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,496


"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

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."
Selam, +GMK+
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 9,973



« 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

Why can't you just take your spiritual edification like a man? 
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,496


"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

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."
Selam, +GMK+
Arachne
Trinary Unit || Resident Bossy Boots
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek *and* Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 4,821


Happy Holidays!


« 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: 7,319


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
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 9,973



« 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

Why can't you just take your spiritual edification like a man? 
Gunnarr
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,812



« 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
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek *and* Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 4,821


Happy Holidays!


« 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.
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 0.188 seconds with 73 queries.