Irish Woman Dies When Denied Abortion

[McBell]

Let's say the person falls from a balcony or falls asleep at the wheel. Let's go way off and say someone is holding your attacker's spouse hostage and forcing them to attack you. I mean, they're all hypotheticals, but I would think that in any case, you'd be justified by anyone's standards, if you defended yourself by killing them (if necessary).

How is the kidnapper "innocent"?
How is falling asleep at the wheel "self defense"?

 

[Quiddity]

This does not change that because the baby was STILL ALIVE even though it was GOING to die, it would be against Catholic Doctrine to do a D&C as is now standard procedure in miscarriages to prevent infection.

No, it wouldn't. I've already quoted catholic doctrine and it covers cases like this.

 

[Storm]

No, it wouldn't. I've already quoted catholic doctrine and it covers cases like this.

Did you completely miss the post where Penguin pointed out that your own source said otherwise?

 

[Quiddity]

No, I'm really not. I don't know how the hell you got that impression, but you're completely mistaken. Also, even if I weren't.... it's still irrelevant.

Choosing to have an abortion in such cases is not even something pro-lifers reguarly argue........so yeah, it's totally relevant.

 

[Drolefille]

But you are assuming that the state of the baby had nothing to do with her decision. Obviously she would choose to live, even more so if the baby was going to die anyhow.

But because Irish Law is vague, and Catholic doctrine is specific - we don't know yet which was the driving force, but she was told this was a CATHOLIC country - she chose to live and died anyway.

 

[Quiddity]

Did you completely miss the post where Penguin pointed out that your own source said otherwise?

I saw it. I was kind of busy responding to you and Drolefille. And it doesn't say otherwise, I need to respond to him.

 

[Storm]

Choosing to have an abortion in such cases is not even something pro-lifers reguarly argue........so yeah, it's totally relevant.

Now you're moving the goal posts. Whether or not it's popular in the anti-choice movement (and it seems to be gaining ground), it was the law there, and anyway, you were arguing Catholic doctrine, not political opinion.

So, no... it's totally IRrelevant.

 

[Drolefille]

I saw it. I was kind of busy responding to you and Drolefille. And it doesn't say otherwise, I need to respond to him.

You're busy ignoring where you were proven wrong on your own religious doctrine.

Catholic doctrine would have had this woman die. Just as it would have had the woman die in this case: Nun Excommunicated for allowing abortion
Remember this story from 2010:

Last November, a 27-year-old woman was admitted to St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix. She was 11 weeks pregnant with her fifth child, and she was gravely ill. According to a hospital document, she had "right heart failure," and her doctors told her that if she continued with the pregnancy, her risk of mortality was "close to 100 percent." The patient, who was too ill to be moved to the operating room much less another hospital, agreed to an abortion. But there was a complication: She was at a Catholic hospital.
...
Sister Margaret McBride, who was an administrator at the hospital as well as its liaison to the diocese, gave her approval.

The woman survived. When Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted heard about the abortion, he declared that McBride was automatically excommunicated — the most serious penalty the church can levy.

You may disagree with doctrine, but do not misrepresent it.

 

[Quiddity]

Now you're moving the goal posts. Whether or not it's popular in the anti-choice movement (and it seems to be gaining ground), it was the law there, and anyway, you were arguing Catholic doctrine, not political opinion.

So, no... it's totally IRrelevant.

Anti-choice eh? Couldn't resist I guess. I won't bother saying anti-life.....whatever.

I don't understand why this is moving the goal posts when you are specifically using this example as something the pro-life movement would support; as indicated, that is simply not true.

 

[Quiddity]

You're busy ignoring where you were proven wrong on your own religious doctrine.

Catholic doctrine would have had this woman die. Just as it would have had the woman die in this case: Nun Excommunicated for allowing abortion
Remember this story from 2010:


You may disagree with doctrine, but do not misrepresent it.

You could at least quote a viable catholic source since you seem so confident.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You could at least quote a viable catholic source since you seem so confident.

Is the Catholic News Service a "viable Catholic source"?

A nun who concurred in an ethics committee's decision to abort the child of a gravely ill woman at a Phoenix hospital was "automatically excommunicated by that action," according to Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted of Phoenix.

Mercy Sister Margaret Mary McBride also was reassigned from her position as vice president of mission integration at St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix after news surfaced about the abortion that took place late last year. The hospital did not say what her new job would be.

The patient, who has not been identified, was 11 weeks pregnant and suffering from pulmonary hypertension, a condition that the hospital said carried a near-certain risk of death for the mother if the pregnancy continued.

"If there had been a way to save the pregnancy and still prevent the death of the mother, we would have done it. We are convinced there was not," said a May 17 letter to Bishop Olmsted from top officials at Catholic Healthcare West, the San Francisco-based health system to which St. Joseph's belongs.

But the bishop said in a May 14 statement that "the direct killing of an unborn child is always immoral, no matter the circumstances, and it cannot be permitted in any institution that claims to be authentically Catholic."

CNS STORY: Nun excommunicated, loses hospital post over decision on abortion

 

[Quiddity]

I think you need to read the rest of that page, particularly this part (emphasis mine):

I'm not sure what you mean about "my understanding". I haven't even brought up my opinions about abortion in this thread. All I've said is that Catholic doctrine says that abortion is never permitted.


In this case, it would have been a direct termination of the fetus that would have saved the woman's life. If you're opposed to it, then you're saying that what the doctors did was right.

I think what you are missing is that she could have been saved without having directly terminated the fetus. The fetus would have died naturally as it does in many miscarriages.

 

[Quiddity]

Is the Catholic News Service a "viable Catholic source"?



CNS STORY: Nun excommunicated, loses hospital post over decision on abortion

For catholic teaching? Heck no.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Anti-choice eh? Couldn't resist I guess. I won't bother saying anti-life.....whatever.

I don't understand why this is moving the goal posts when you are specifically using this example as something the pro-life movement would support; as indicated, that is simply not true.

You're right: a movement that is genuinely "pro-life" would not support something like this.

This is one example of why it's more accurate to call the anti-abortion movement "anti-choice" than "pro-life". It's definitely against a woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion. Does it work to protect "life", as it defines it? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For catholic teaching? Heck no.

Do you think that the Catholic News Service misrepresented the events that happened or altered the quote from the bishop?

Edit: Catholic News Service was just the first site that popped up when I did a Google search for "Catholic news". If you don't like it, then pick another site that you do like and search it for "nun abortion excommunicated" and their story on this event will probably come up.

 

[Storm]

Anti-choice eh? Couldn't resist I guess. I won't bother saying anti-life.....whatever.

I'm sorry my accuracy offends you.

I don't understand why this is moving the goal posts when you are specifically using this example as something the pro-life movement would support; as indicated, that is simply not true.

Well, for one thing, I haven't actually done that, and for another, even in America, the anti-choice movement is heading to "no exceptions." Or were you living under a rock for the last election?

Whether it's the majority (yet), or not, clearly someone in a position of authority supported it over the Savita's life. If that hadn't happened, we never would have hear of her, much to her husband's delight.

ETA: Also, it specifically moving the goal posts because you started out arguing Catholic doctrine, then shifted to me when you got trounced.

 

[Drolefille]

You could at least quote a viable catholic source since you seem so confident.

Wow, can't even bother to look for yourself? How do you remain unaware of your own Church's doctrine on such issues? You would think you would care.

See if you click those citations in wikipedia they take you straight to the sources. Since you are incapable of doing that.
Contemporary Catholic Health Care Ethics

By David F. Kelly (Find it on google books or pay 30 bucks if you want to read more.)

CUF.org The Principle of Double Effect

If you allow and justify the direct killing of a pre-born child involved in an ectopic pregnancy, then you thereby justify other direct killings of pre-born children via other means. In contrast, removing part or all of the Fallopian Tube is not an abortion. These treatments are morally permissible because they meet all of the conditions of the principle of double effect. The morally good end which is directly sought is to save the life of the mother. That which is directly treated is the life-threatening damaged tissue of the tube; therefore, the child is not directly attacked. Removal of the damaged tube or a portion of the tube that contains the child is morally permissible, because the death of the child is an effect which may be foreseen, but it is unintentional. The good end of saving the mother's life is proportionate to the unintended evil side effect, that of the unborn child's death. [2] Further, because there are no other means by which the mother's life may be saved, the principal of necessity also applies. There are no other medical procedures that can save both mother and child.

Hey look, it's our old friend the Humanae Vitae... something I also had to educate you about:

Unlawful Birth Control Methods​

14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)
Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)
Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

Seriously, how do you try to argue your religious doctrine on this and not know it?

 

[Quiddity]

You're right: a movement that is genuinely "pro-life" would not support something like this.

This is one example of why it's more accurate to call the anti-abortion movement "anti-choice" than "pro-life". It's definitely against a woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion. Does it work to protect "life", as it defines it? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Don't really care about being specific about what to call each other. More interested in civil dialogue and talking about the actual issues that seperate us.

 

[Drolefille]

I think what you are missing is that she could have been saved without having directly terminated the fetus. The fetus would have died naturally as it does in many miscarriages.

How?
It did not die naturally until it was too late to save her from infection.

So how, Doctor Quiddity could she have been saved without terminating the fetus. They didn't even really have justification for the hysterectomy until it was probably too late - infections don't just stay in the uterus.

 

[Quiddity]

Do you think that the Catholic News Service misrepresented the events that happened or altered the quote from the bishop?

Edit: Catholic News Service was just the first site that popped up when I did a Google search for "Catholic news". If you don't like it, then pick another site that you do like and search it for "nun abortion excommunicated" and their story on this event will probably come up.

Give me some time to look it over. It's not considered a authoritative source but it doesn't mean it's wrong. I gotta head out. Think I'm gonna keep this between us only.