Topic: Women and abortion

[Arachne]

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?

Monstrous.

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.)

[#1Sinner]

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?

Monstrous.

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?"

[Arachne]

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?

Monstrous.

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.

[TheMathematician]

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...?

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.

[#1Sinner]

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?

Monstrous.

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.

[#1Sinner]

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...?

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.

[Arachne]

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?

Monstrous.

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.

[#1Sinner]

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?

Monstrous.

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.

[William]

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...?

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.

[#1Sinner]

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...?

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.

[TheTrisagion]

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...?

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.

[#1Sinner]

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...?

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.

[TheTrisagion]

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

[William]

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...?

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.

[William]

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.

[#1Sinner]

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...?

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.

[William]

By the way, sorry to hear about your apostasy.