Trying to understand Catholic arguments for and against abortion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One of many examples from a report on mi

I'll never forget this; it was awful—I had one of my partners accept this patient at 19 weeks. The pregnancy was in the vagina. It was over… . And so he takes this patient and transferred her to [our] tertiary medical center, which I was just livid about, and, you know, “we're going to save the pregnancy.” So of course, I'm on call when she gets septic, and she's septic to the point that I'm pushing pressors on labor and delivery trying to keep her blood pressure up, and I have her on a cooling blanket because she's 106 degrees. And I needed to get everything out. And so I put the ultrasound machine on and there was still a heartbeat, and [the ethics committee] wouldn't let me because there was still a heartbeat. This woman is dying before our eyes. I went in to examine her, and I was able to find the umbilical cord through the membranes and just snapped the umbilical cord and so that I could put the ultrasound—“Oh look. No heartbeat. Let's go.” She was so sick she was in the [intensive care unit] for about 10 days and very nearly died… . She was in DIC [disseminated intravascular coagulopathy]… . Her bleeding was so bad that the sclera, the white of her eyes, were red, filled with blood… . And I said, “I just can't do this. I can't put myself behind this. This is not worth it to me.” That's why I left.

holy sh*t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That was supposed to cite to an article on miscarriage management in Catholic Hospitals at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2636458/

I think it is a problem that hospitals are being managed by various religions. Everyone should be able to go to a non-denominational hospital.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That was supposed to cite to an article on miscarriage management in Catholic Hospitals at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2636458/

I think it is a problem that hospitals are being managed by various religions. Everyone should be able to go to a non-denominational hospital.

Sorry, a non-religious hospital.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does Alyssa Milano talk about moral theology/Christian ethics in this video? That is what we are talking about here.

np then you shouldn't have an abortion. but, MYOB for other women and their families

Again, read the title.

What is your point pp?

DP. Your comment is totally off topic and has nothing to do with moral theology.

But while we are at it, your "then you shouldn't have an abortion but MYOB for other women" could be restated back to you--"if your state allows abortion and you're happy about that, then MYOB about other states."

I believe that the right to self determination of what happens to my body cannot be legislated by any state. We fought a civil war over the idea that states can do anything they want within their borders if it violates personal liberties.

You talk about the right to what happens to your body. You don have that right. The state did not get you pregnant. You used your right and became pregnant.

This is the key. I believe I absolutely have the right. Who has the right if not me? Do you believe the state has a right to my body?

I agree the state did not get me pregnant. So why should it have any sort of say in anything?

You do have the right. You and someone else got your pregnant. The state has nothing to do with that but you want the state to fix it.

No, all humans don't want the government to interfere with bodily autonomy.

The state doesn't have to "fix" anything - they just have to not take away my rights to make decisions with my doctor about my own body.

No state is interfering in bodily autonomy. You did something to your body, the state did not. Then you want the state to fix what you did to yourself.

what? stop lying. the state outlawing a medical procedure is the state doing something to my body.

That is actually the exact opposite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Patients should absolutely be free to make their own medical decisions with their doctor without the interference of religious extremists.

You know there are those who are not religious who don’t believe in abortion. We all know and don’t argue that it’s stilling a life. Do only religious people condemn murder? Of course not, non religious people don’t believe in that either. Why do many assume non religious people are immune from being anti-abortinists?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Patients should absolutely be free to make their own medical decisions with their doctor without the interference of religious extremists.

You know there are those who are not religious who don’t believe in abortion. We all know and don’t argue that it’s stilling a life. Do only religious people condemn murder? Of course not, non religious people don’t believe in that either. Why do many assume non religious people are immune from being anti-abortinists?

*stopping a life

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Patients should absolutely be free to make their own medical decisions with their doctor without the interference of religious extremists.

You know there are those who are not religious who don’t believe in abortion. We all know and don’t argue that it’s stilling a life. Do only religious people condemn murder? Of course not, non religious people don’t believe in that either. Why do many assume non religious people are immune from being anti-abortinists?

SOME extremist religious people think it is "murder" based on their religious beliefs.

Why should they force their religious beliefs on EVERYONE ELSE?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Patients should absolutely be free to make their own medical decisions with their doctor without the interference of religious extremists.

You know there are those who are not religious who don’t believe in abortion. We all know and don’t argue that it’s stilling a life. Do only religious people condemn murder? Of course not, non religious people don’t believe in that either. Why do many assume non religious people are immune from being anti-abortinists?

SOME extremist religious people think it is "murder" based on their religious beliefs.

Why should they force their religious beliefs on EVERYONE ELSE?

Please stop with the “extremist” nonsense and being over dramatic. They are following their religion with fidelity rather than a la carte.
I am not religious but will not tell someone to pick and choose what their faith says just because I don’t believe I’m it.
Anyway, it is stopping a life so in essence it’s not a reach to say it’s murder.
I’m neutral on the matter, and again, it’s not compulsory to be religious to be against abortion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are no Catholic arguments in favor of abortion. It has always been considered homicide, even prior to the resolution of the “ensoulment” issue. Primacy of individual conscience does not apply in the face of perennial, unambiguous teaching.

Really? It's my understanding that before 1869, early abortion before quickening was not considered homicide and not subject to excommunication.

What Church or legal documentation do you have for your understanding?

Not PP but Try this:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12340403/#:~:text=In%20the%20early%20Roman%20Catholic,with%20excommunication%20as%20the%20punishment.

The Catholic Church regularly backdates new ideas. "This is what we always taught."

Thanks for doing this research and finding an NIH abstract supporting app's understanding.

https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1125&context=nd_naturallaw_forum

[Anonymous]

We’ll, the problem is when 5 right wing Catholics on the Supreme Court force the rest of us to adhere to their beliefs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We’ll, the problem is when 5 right wing Catholics on the Supreme Court force the rest of us to adhere to their beliefs.

You condone discrimination? Wow!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pro choice Catholics are making a political point: the U.S. government has no business telling citizens what to do with respect to their own health care, reproductive decisions, and bodies. Same argument if the government decided that religious circumcision was child abuse and started arresting mohels.

BTW, the "states right" argument is legally weak and utterly ridiculous.

How is the states rights argument weak and utterly ridiculous? It was how it worked in the country for hundreds of years until Roe.

The fact is that a zealous faction wanted to shortcut the legal process for enshrining an unenumerated right into the Constitution by using the Supreme Court for politics instead of doing the work required to do a Constitutional amendment. So fifty years later, we are still arguing about this.

Just like discriminating against blacks was legal until a constitutional amendment… oh, wait, the Supreme Court did that first too…. Those zealots demanding equal rights and not using the right process!

[Anonymous]

If I have a baby and petri dish with 4 viable embryos, and I am going to throw one off the roof of a building, which one would you save?

Please explain your reasoning.

[Anonymous]

Here's another perspective -- Sr. Joan Chittister "A Catholic Nun on What It Really Means to Be Pro-Life"

"We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."

https://billmoyers.com/story/what-pro-life-means/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If I have a baby and petri dish with 4 viable embryos, and I am going to throw one off the roof of a building, which one would you save?

Please explain your reasoning.

Interesting. I know a Catholic woman, oh so holy, church and everything, but in reality a lifestyle Catholic. She did this very thing. She had three boys and wanted a girl. So she had the fertilized male embryos discarded.