Abortion: When does life really start?

Esther wrote:

saving lives by killing innocent lives actually.

Well, the view taken by others is that it's not "killing" a child. The child, as I pointed out earlier, is technically at the end of its life. It has no hope of developing further due to the circumstances. In this situation, the goal is to prevent the mother from dying along with the fetus - the same reason an ectopic pregnancy is removed from the mother's body.

Ateo wrote:If the rape victim is traumatized and psychologically broken by the fact that the rape produced something in her body, then it brings the question which welfare should prevail -- the woman or the fetus.

The fetus has nothing to do with the act of rape.

Why cant we save both the rape victim and the fetus?

Esther wrote:

BOTH!
I don't agree that there are only two options given on that hypothetical situation of korril.

So I will go to the third option...

One can pray. Many persons in hopeless circumstances have prevailed against all odds by praying. There is even the example of a war, an invasion, which was stopped by praying the Rosary.

It is secular thinking to say that you must either commit direct abortion convincingly or put everyone's life's at risk.

Christ-like thinking: Eternal life awaits the innocent. And killing an innocent offends God who is infinitely good.

Now If "I am the mother" I would refused direct abortion even if you are the prenatal in my womb.

The options I gave were not hypothetical, Esther. They were based on a recent case where a pregnant woman was admitted to a Catholic run hospital. She was suffering from right heart failure connected with her pregnancy. *

She was critically ill. According to reports, transferring her to another hospital was not even a viable option due to her condition. The only way the doctors could find to stabilize her condition and save her life was to terminate the pregnancy.

It's easy enough to say that another way could have been found to save the lives of the mother and the child. But then, consider this: They told this to the mother and to the hospital administrator - a nun.

A nun, an administrator at a hospital, who should be roughly familiar with medical procedures and who is bound by the ECC Rules of the church, consented to the carrying-out of the procedure (abortion).

Resorting to prayer is admirable, Esther. It shows faith. But then, prayers have not exactly been proven to make a difference towards bettering the condition of a terminal patient. That's why it's not a standard medical procedure.

Also, saying that it is Christ-like thinking not to kill the innocent is the same reason that was given by Yidda. So I'll ask you the same question I posted to her:

How sure are you that that is what god wants? For you to risk the life of a mother for an un-born child whose death is inevitable?

====

Some people ask why the pregnancy was terminated when the problem was her heart. Well, the heart is affected by the pregnancy.

The volume of blood pumped by the heart increases by 30 to 50% to ensure that the developing baby is well-supplied with oxygen and nutrients. By the end of the pregnancy the uterus receives one fifth of the mother's blood supply. And as cardiac output increases, the resting heart rate increases from 70 beats per minute to 85 to 90 beats per minute. Low blood pressure is therefore common and may cause dizziness and fainting. The heart rate returns to normal levels about 6 weeks after delivery. Certain heart palpitations and irregularities may appear because of the increased workload on the heart; these are usually normal and temporary, however some may require treatment. A physician can determine heart health with ECG readings, if necessary.

http://pregnancychildbirth.suite101.com/article.cfm/changes_to_your_heart_and_lungs_during_pregnancy#ixzz0woHz3v38

This is why heart transplant recipients who become pregnant are closely monitored - the risk that the transplant would fail due to the pregnancy.

A pregnant woman with a failing heart cannot support the baby and herself. They would die.

Esther wrote:

BOTH!
I don't agree that there are only two options given on that hypothetical situation of korril.

So I will go to the third option...

One can pray. Many persons in hopeless circumstances have prevailed against all odds by praying. There is even the example of a war, an invasion, which was stopped by praying the Rosary.

It is secular thinking to say that you must either commit direct abortion convincingly or put everyone's life's at risk.

Christ-like thinking: Eternal life awaits the innocent. And killing an innocent offends God who is infinitely good.

Now If "I am the mother" I would refused direct abortion even if you are the prenatal in my womb.

You can't choose both esther. You have to choose one as stated in the case. Your mother or your dogma?

vril wrote:


You can't choose both esther. You have to choose one as stated in the case. Your mother or your dogma?

So you do not believe in prayer since there are only two options for you. as a Catholic In God I Hope ,in God I Trust, To answer you directly vril ,I am like my Mother ... Like Mother like Daughter.

This is a video from an abortion survivor Gianna Jessen. She is 31-32 years old now. It’s very powerful and an amazing story. You can see the Holy Spirit working through her.

korrill wrote:

Well, the view taken by others is that it's not "killing" a child. The child, as I pointed out earlier, is technically at the end of its life. It has no hope of developing further due to the circumstances. In this situation, the goal is to prevent the mother from dying along with the fetus - the same reason an ectopic pregnancy is removed from the mother's body.

ectopic pregnancy is different:

Let me post again your conversation with Yidda:

korril:
What is the church's position when it is established that the pregnancy is what is killing the mother?

Yidda:
In a case where the pregnancy itself endangers the mother, abortion is direct killing and therefore gravely immoral, because the child is not a disease.The act of abortion in this case is not a treatment for a disease, but a type of murder.

You argues that direct abortion is moral in cases when the mother's life is saved; in effect, the person is saying that the end of saving a life justifies the direct killing of an innocent human being. This argument is false.


see the attached:
THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN DIRECT ABORTION AND LEGITIMATE MEDICAL PROCEDURES

http://www.usccb.org/doctrine/direct-abortion-statement2010-06-23.pdf

Esther wrote:

So you do not believe in prayer since there are only two options for you. as a Catholic In God I Hope ,in God I Trust, To answer you directly vril ,I am like my Mother ... Like Mother like Daughter.

This is a video from an abortion survivor Gianna Jessen. She is 31-32 years old now. It’s very powerful and an amazing story. You can see the Holy Spirit working through her.

Hi Esther,

Prayer is out of the question. You can pray all you want and believe your prayers will work. But at the end of the day you will have to choose. Which one are you choosing? Remember there is not much time left, your mother is dying and the doctor is asking you which direction to take? So which one? Abort or save your mother's life?

I already answered you , I am like my Mother.

Mother sacrifices own life..

Esther wrote:I already answered you , I am like my Mother.

Mother sacrifices own life..

So you would let your mother die?

I did not said that.

I said like my mother we refused direct abortion because it is a murder. Would you murder an innocent one for you to live?

Esther wrote:I did not said that.

I said like my mother we refused direct abortion because it is a murder. Would you murder an innocent one for you to live?

If you refuse direct abortion then you're letting your mother die instead. Right? I want to know your answer before I answer you.

My Mother(who teaches us on morals), Me and Yidda prefer death over grave sin. And Direct Abortion is a grave sin, so we refused direct abortion. I hope you get it now.

Esther wrote:My Mother(who teaches us on morals), Me and Yidda prefer death over grave sin. And Direct Abortion is a grave sin, so we refused direct abortion. I hope you get it now.

Yes , clear as the sun! You will let your mothers die for a stupid dogma!..shame on you!

Esther wrote:My Mother(who teaches us on morals), Me and Yidda prefer death over grave sin. And Direct Abortion is a grave sin, so we refused direct abortion. I hope you get it now.

This is so unbiblical. Logic and the Bible explains that there is a difference between allowing the death of human being due to negligence and terminating the pregnancy. The Bible has shown that a human being has higher value than a potential human (fetus). Even medieval Catholic practice and DOGMA valued a human being more than a fetus. Clearly, even the dogma has changed.

vril wrote:

Yes , clear as the sun! You will let your mothers die for a stupid dogma!..shame on you!

what you said is a LIE! read again. this is the first time, I receive such a nasty words like that.

Gal 4:16 Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth? ...

Ateo wrote:

This is so unbiblical. Logic and the Bible explains that there is a difference between allowing the death of human being due to negligence and terminating the pregnancy. The Bible has shown that a human being has higher value than a potential human (fetus). Even medieval Catholic practice and DOGMA valued a human being more than a fetus. Clearly, even the dogma has changed.

Prove it!

Medical Science Proves Abortion Is Killing of Human Beings

Esther wrote:

what you said is a LIE! read again. this is the first time, I receive such a nasty words like that.

Gal 4:16 Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth? ...

It isn't the truth. It's perverted thinking. Irrational decision and IMMORAL. The truth is your mother is dying and you can save her by allowing the physician to terminate the pregnancy and you choose to follow a stupid church dogma and let your mother die.

9. Compassion in chains.

Religious rules and laws invariably hamper the development of conscience. This
causes all sorts of problems like pointless violence and warfare. Those
who preach nonviolence as a rule or law tend to be the most violent of
all. Such people cannot be trusted because they’ll violate their
proclaimed values with the weakest of excuses.When you
externalize compassion into a set of rules and laws, what you’re left
with isn’t compassion at all. True compassion is a matter of conscious
choice, and that requires the absence of force-backed rules and laws.The
more religious a person becomes, the less compassionate s/he is. The
illusion of compassion substitutes for the real thing. Religious people
tend to be the most bigoted and non-accepting people on earth. They’re
the least trustworthy and suffer from the grossest character defects.
They pretend they’re doing good, but they’re really collaborators in a
system designed to push people into unconscious slavery to a “higher”
authority. They are slaves promoting slavery.Historically
speaking, religious people loved to fight each other. Instead of
unconditional love, they practice conditional loyalty. The only
unconditional aspect is their thirst for blood. If you disagree with
them, you’re a target… either for conversion or destruction (both of
which are really the same thing).If you value the ideal of
unconditional love, you won’t find it in the practice of religion. Real
compassion doesn’t arise from believing in God, from practicing various
rituals, or from studying the concept of karma. Compassion can only
result from conscious choice, and this requires the freedom to choose
without the threat of punishment or the promise of reward. If you’re
obedient to your faith, it’s a safe bet that compassion is absent from
your life. You probably don’t even know what real compassion feels like.The
more we collectively abandon all religion, the better off this planet
will be. This doesn’t mean we have to abandon all spiritual pursuits.
It just means we must stop turning spirituality into something it isn’t.

If you are comprehending correctly; would you think my mother would allow such direct abortion contrary to her will?

Would you hate your mother if she chooses to die than to abort you?

Let me respond to your challenge in my own way by citing my favorite biblical story that proves that God tolerates abortion to achieve another purpose. This is the story of Tamar. God allowed Judah to kill Tamar and her fetus in order to punish Tamar. And allow me to quote from my other posting in another thread.

Tamar -- the Prostitute and Jesus ancestor

Genesis 38 talks about the story of Tamar, the daughter-in-law of the patriarch, Judah (after which the Judeo nation was named). Tamar became a widow when her husband and Judah's son died. One day, Judah procured the services of a prostitute (yes, siree, patriarchs liked prostitutes too!). That prostitute turned out to me Tamar who was not recognized because of a disguise. Tamar got pregnant because o that encounter.

Three months later, Judah noticed that his daughter-in-law got a bulging stomach. He therefore declared -- rather correctly -- that the husbandless Tamar must be prostituting around. He therefore ordered Tamar to be burned to death for working in what was the Jewish equivalent of Pegasus.

Moral question 1: Was Judah moral in burning a woman?

Moral question 2 -- and the most relevant question here: Why did Judah order the burning of a pregnant woman? Is it not the equivalent of killing of what Esther calls as the "little life inside the womb"? Why didn't God said no. (By the way, this was the time when God was so personal that He dropped by regularly and interfered with the lives of people.)

To save her life, Tamar declared that her pregnancy was in fact caused by Judah himself. Not bothered by the moral complications, Judah simply forgave Tamar and that is the end of the story.

Not quite the end though. Several months later, Tamar gave birth to a twin, the elder one of which was called Perez. Perez was the ancestor of King David and therefore the ancestor of Jesus. Therefore, Jesus came from the line of a prostitute (Tamar), a prostitute-user (Judah) and their son (Perez) born of incest.

That is what the Bible said; so believe, don't complain.

what you wrote above is an unsound or not an argument at all but purely opinion and question..

Write out a theological argument supporting your view on what you just have said.

1This is so unbiblical. Logic and the Bible explains that there is a difference between allowing the death of human being due to negligence and terminating the pregnancy.

2 The Bible has shown that a human being has higher value than a potential human (fetus). Even medieval Catholic practice and DOGMA valued a human being more than a fetus. Clearly,

3 .even the dogma has changed.

cite any sources in Tradition, Scripture, and the Magisterial documents.

Then show how those sources support your conclusion.

Esther wrote:If you are comprehending correctly; would you think my mother would allow such direct abortion contrary to her will?

Would you hate your mother if she chooses to die than to abort you?

ASking your mother's will will only put her in a complicated situation as she will be committing suicide if she choses to die! Knowing she will die if she didn't allow the pregnancy to terminate will make her guilty of suicide.

Now this creates a scenario for the mother! Suicide or direct abortion? Either of these two is a sin against her church!

Esther wrote:ectopic pregnancy is different:

Let me post again your conversation with Yidda:

korril:
What is the church's position when it is established that the pregnancy is what is killing the mother?

Yidda:
In a case where the pregnancy itself endangers the mother, abortion is direct killing and therefore gravely immoral, because the child is not a disease.The act of abortion in this case is not a treatment for a disease, but a type of murder.

You argues that direct abortion is moral in cases when the mother's life is saved; in effect, the person is saying that the end of saving a life justifies the direct killing of an innocent human being. This argument is false.


see the attached:
THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN DIRECT ABORTION AND LEGITIMATE MEDICAL PROCEDURES

http://www.usccb.org/doctrine/direct-abortion-statement2010-06-23.pdf

Let me clarify my point: How is it killing when technically, the child is dead?

It has no hope of survival no matter what decision is made. If it is removed from the mother, it dies. If it is left in the mother, it still dies.

The only difference is that in the second option, the mother dies along with it.

This is why I find the church's excuse about direct and indirect abortion as unrealistic. Their only contention is that in ectopic pregnancies:

* the fetus has no hope of developing further

* it is probably dead already so it's okay to remove

* the treatment is the removal of the fallopian tube, not the fetus. The unfortunate effect is the death of the fetus.

Yet what is ignored is the fact that ectopic pregnancy is still the removal of the threat to the mother's life by terminating a failed prenancy. Furthermore, the same can be argued for the case I mentioned:

* the fetus has no hope of developing further

* it will die, no matter what is done.

* the treatment is the removal of the umbilical cord, not the fetus. The unfortunate effect is the death of the fetus.

You would probably say that it is different and that removing the umbilical cord is actually killing the baby directly. Well, bear in mind that removing the fallopian tube to which the ectopic fetus is attached to has the same effect.

You can argue direct or indirect all you want but what cannot be denied is that in both cases, the death of the fetus is the end result.

So answer the question: How sure are you that that is really what god wants?

How sure are you that god really wants a mother to die needlessly for a child whose death is inevitable no matter what decision is made?

Esther wrote:If you are comprehending correctly; would you think my mother would allow such direct abortion contrary to her will?

Would you hate your mother if she chooses to die than to abort you?

I can't say I could hate her if she did that. Afterall, I'd be dead right along with her.

====

Word of advice, Esther. The appeal to emotion is known as a fallacy simply because it doesn't prove your argument to be true.

korrill wrote:

Let me clarify my point: How is it killing when technically, the child is dead?

It has no hope of survival no matter what decision is made. If it is removed from the mother, it dies. If it is left in the mother, it still dies.

The only difference is that in the second option, the mother dies along with it.

This is why I find the church's excuse about direct and indirect abortion as unrealistic. Their only contention is that in ectopic pregnancies:

* the fetus has no hope of developing further

* it is probably dead already so it's okay to remove

* the treatment is the removal of the fallopian tube, not the fetus. The unfortunate effect is the death of the fetus.

Yet what is ignored is the fact that ectopic pregnancy is still the removal of the threat to the mother's life by terminating a failed prenancy. Furthermore, the same can be argued for the case I mentioned:

* the fetus has no hope of developing further

* it will die, no matter what is done.

* the treatment is the removal of the umbilical cord, not the fetus. The unfortunate effect is the death of the fetus.

You would probably say that it is different and that removing the umbilical cord is actually killing the baby directly. Well, bear in mind that removing the fallopian tube to which the ectopic fetus is attached to has the same effect.

You can argue direct or indirect all you want but what cannot be denied is that in both cases, the death of the fetus is the end result.

So answer the question: How sure are you that that is really what god wants?

How sure are you that god really wants a mother to die needlessly for a child whose death is inevitable no matter what decision is made?

only abortionist would say that there is a dead fetus in the womb of a mother! Proved first the child in the womb of a mother is dead and a disease,before making a conclusion. Your making an argument that is already is conclusive actually.

korrill wrote:

I can't say I could hate her if she did that. Afterall, I'd be dead right along with her.

====

Word of advice, Esther. The appeal to emotion is known as a fallacy simply because it doesn't prove your argument to be true.

my argument can be supported by the sources of morality. And by the way that is not appeal to emotion, just take a look of the post above whose more of emotion between me, you and vril.


My I say this as an advice too:
It seems to me that part of the problems is that people have not Faith in the afterlife, in Heaven, or does not really believe that there is life after our physical deaths on this earth, that this life is all there is, so that when these difficult circumstances appear,they would prefer an abortion to save the mother. If there is nothing we can morally do to save both lives, (mother and child), then, this is a
sign that God wills to take them to the real, eternal life. What else can we do?...pray and do all we can to make sure the mother dies in a state of grace.