Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
South Dakota to ban abortions?; ...the perfect law.
Topic Started: Jan 23 2006, 07:56 AM (4,183 Views)
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Yes bach, but that's what Roe v Wade is. And only 18% agree with it.

Generally, the pro-life stance is that abortion shouldn't be allowed except in extreme cases.

Generally, the pro-choice stance is that abortion should generally be allowed, with a few restrctions like parent-notification, etc.

The polls I just posted show that most people are pro-life.

Anyway, I was just demonstrating how there are polls on either side of this issue, but in general I see it basically 50/50...since there are so many variables.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Quote:
 
In a Zogby ``American Values'' poll respondents were asked to choose between the two statements, ``abortion destroys a human life and is manslaughter,'' or ``abortion does not destroy a life and is not manslaughter.''


Ah, yes, that's phrasing the question very neutrally and without trying to elicit a certain response.

:doh:

Every one of those polls was at least six years old ... and not a single one asked the question, "Should it be legal for an adult woman who wishes to have an abortion to get an abortion in the first trimester?" Yes/No, very simple, neutrally phrased.

I'm not going to research contrary polling data right now, but let's just say there's an awful lot of it running in exactly the opposite direction.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
no 89th, r vs w is not a blanket approval of all abortions...

the ruling was that the state cannot restrict a womans right to abortion in the first trimester, in the second trimester, the state can regulate.. "in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health," and in the third trimester...the state can proscribe abortion as it sees fit.

read the opinion 89th...

Roe vs Wade
"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Bach:

Your language and understanding does not accurately reflect the Catholic position.

(1) "Human life begins at conception" -- this part is true.

(2) "Therefore all abortion is murder" -- this is only true if abortion is thus defined by the statutes enacted. Murder is a legal category. It would be more accurate to say "Abortion kills an innocent human being", and let the courts and legislature work out the implications of these things. It has never been the role of the Church to tell secular rulers what laws to make or what penalties to prescribe. The Church has its own canonical structure that at times paralleled civil law regarding ecclesiastical penalties for sins (such as a murderer shall do penance for 10 years) but did not tell kings and nations how to run their own social orders.

(3) The Catholic position is NOT that abortion should be prohibited in all cases, but that under double effect (which much not include the intent to do evil, such as killing the innocent), a good may be legitimately pursued which was unintended bad consequences. Such are the cases of the surgical correction of an ectopic pregnancy which removes and inadvertently destroys the human embryo, or exposing a pregnant woman to chemotherapy for cervical cancer which probably will decrease viability, or the removal of a cancerous uterus. These are "reasonably grave causes" that would permit a medical procedure that would or might inadvertently end the life of the baby. If and when medicine is able to transplant an ectopic to the uterine wall for proper development, this procedure ought to be done.

For more on the question, see Prof Dianne Irving' s Abortion: Correct Application of Natural Law Theory
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
These are "reasonably grave causes" that would permit a medical procedure that would or might inadvertently end the life of the baby


is a serious risk to maternal life, (say, not ectopic) considered reasonably grave causes?

your wife (may she live a long and healthy life...) seemed to imply she would (god forbid a thousand times) give her life and not abort.

so why is ectopic or cancer ok?
"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
HEY 89th..RTFM!!!! and then get back to me on r vs w....
"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
QuirtEvans
Jan 25 2006, 09:40 AM
Quote:
 
In a Zogby ``American Values'' poll respondents were asked to choose between the two statements, ``abortion destroys a human life and is manslaughter,'' or ``abortion does not destroy a life and is not manslaughter.''


Ah, yes, that's phrasing the question very neutrally and without trying to elicit a certain response.

:doh:

Every one of those polls was at least six years old ... and not a single one asked the question, "Should it be legal for an adult woman who wishes to have an abortion to get an abortion in the first trimester?" Yes/No, very simple, neutrally phrased.

I'm not going to research contrary polling data right now, but let's just say there's an awful lot of it running in exactly the opposite direction.

If what you say is so, Quirt, then it is certainly interested that when the poll asks to agree first with a statement (abortion does/does not destroy a human life), that the answers shift to a more prolife perspective.

I can understand why agenda driven pollsters would not want to bring up all that messy business about what might or might not actually be going on when "an adult woman who wishes to have an abortion [gets] an abortion in the first trimester". That, however, is hardly neutral polling, much less reflective of an informed sampling.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
bachophile
Jan 25 2006, 09:56 AM
Quote:
 
These are "reasonably grave causes" that would permit a medical procedure that would or might inadvertently end the life of the baby


is a serious risk to maternal life, (say, not ectopic) considered reasonably grave causes?

your wife (may she live a long and healthy life...) seemed to imply she would (god forbid a thousand times) give her life and not abort.

so why is ectopic or cancer ok?

If a woman needs brain surgury, and the anesthetic might cause her to spontaneously abort, that too is permissable. The point is that an evil action is not intended, and that there is grave reason, etc.

Is has nothing to do specifically with obstetric or gynocological issues -- these are just the most usual topics for discussion.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
bachophile
Jan 25 2006, 09:41 AM
no 89th, r vs w is not a blanket approval of all abortions...

the ruling was that the state cannot restrict a womans right to abortion in the first trimester, in the second trimester, the state can regulate.. "in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health," and in the third trimester...the state can proscribe abortion as it sees fit.

read the opinion 89th...

Roe vs Wade

It is fair to say that RvW and DvB have been "generously" :angry: interpreted, and subsequent case law has been built upon them to allow for abortion for any reason at any stage of pregnancy.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
anestheisa doesnt cause abortion (although id ask george for the literature),ive done numerous appendectomies and a few gall bladders in pregnant woman.

my question is simple, in a medical situation in which a direct threat to the mothers life from her pregnancy, is aborting the fetus permissible or not according to catholic doctrine.

if the answer is yes...thats news to me. then basically u r saying abortion is permissible in a case of maternal danger, the only equivocle factor being maybe the "degree" of maternal danger, and if so..abortion is not murder, because murder is NEVER permissible even in danger to life.

if the answer is no, case closed.(from your point of view)
"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
It is fair to say that RvW and DvB have been "generously"  interpreted, and subsequent case law has been built upon them to allow for abortion for any reason at any stage of pregnancy.


i think its fair to say, (based on his comments above) 89th key has never really read the opinion that he has been campaigning to repeal.
"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
bachophile
Jan 25 2006, 10:10 AM
anestheisa doesnt cause abortion (although id ask george for the literature),ive done numerous appendectomies and a few gall baldders in pregnant woman.

my question is simple, in a medical situation in which a direct threat to the mothers life from her pregnancy, is aborting the fetus permissible or not according to catholic doctrine.

if the answer is yes...thats news to me.  then basically u r saying abortion is permissible in a case of maternal danger, the only equivocle factor being maybe the "degree" of maternal danger, and if so..abortion is not murder, because murder is NEVER permissible even in danger to life.\


if the answer is no, case closed.(from your point of view)

Broadly speaking, yes. There are prudential questions about the degree of gravity and the possibilities of alternative actions, and there is the moral necessity to make all reasonable attempts to save the life of the baby. However, "abortion qua abortion" is not permissable -- the intent cannot be to abort the baby -- which you seem to be framing in the question.
Also, l reread what I wrote about about murder. You are not following the clear logic.

Did you read the article I linked to, or are you pulling an 89th? :wink:
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
no ill admit i didnt read it, because im trying to do a number of things at once.

ill be happy to, i have it bookmarked, but id prefer maybe some vatican sources then just a scholarly opinion.

however, again, i dont mean to make this personal, its not my intent, but musicasacra made this statement in this thread and id like to know if it accuratly reflects your (or official) doctrine...

"if it came down to my life or the baby's, i would choose the baby's. i would not abort. St. Gianna Beretta Molla made the same decision.


fair enough?
"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
bachophile
Jan 25 2006, 10:23 AM
no ill admit i didnt read it, because im trying to do a number of things at once.

ill be happy to, i have it  bookmarked, but id prefer maybe some vatican sources then just a scholarly opinion.

however, again, i dont mean to make this personal, its not my intent, but musicasacra made this statement in this thread and id like to know if it accuratly reflects your (or official) doctrine...

"if it came down to my life or the baby's, i would choose the baby's. i would not abort. St. Gianna Beretta Molla made the same decision.


fair enough?

that is a personal decision, which one is allowed to make -- such as rushing into a burning building to save an innocent life.

there is no requirement or moral obligation to do so, but nor is heroism ever condemned by the Church. Also, note again, the choice is never to abort for the sake of abortion (one can never kill an innocent person with the direct and full intent to kill another person).
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ok personal decision is something else entirely. thats fine.

but doctrinally, u say there are exceptions, (call it grave, extreme whatever...) that it would be permissible, hence by definition (at least by jewish definition) its not murder, because if it was, it would never be allowed.

so in the end, we seem both to be benighted by the same grey area. and maybe differ only in degree. the pursuer concept is only to point out that in these circumstances, u r not murdering.

that for me is new.

welcome to the dark ages...i was getting lonely.
"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
bachophile
Jan 25 2006, 10:56 AM
ok personal decision is something else entirely. thats fine.

but doctrinally, u say there are exceptions, (call it grave, extreme whatever...) that it would be permissible, hence by definition (at least by jewish definition) its not murder, because if it was, it would never be allowed.

so in the end, we seem both to be benighted by the same grey area. and maybe differ only in degree. the pursuer concept is only to point out that in these circumstances, u r not murdering.

that for me is new.

welcome to the dark ages...i was getting lonely.

I don't think it is quibbling to point out the difference.

The Jewish point seems to be that the baby is accorded a criminal status and deprived of its rights to live in preference of the innocent mother. Killing a criminal is not murder. So it is ok to procure an abortion. All the Jewish position does is redefine the status of the baby to an arbitrary "pursuer" status to get around the rabbinical quibble.

The Catholic point is that one may never directly kill another innocent person, and the baby is completely innocent. Every effort must be made to safe the life of both the mother and the baby. If the baby inadvertantly dies in the reasonable attempt to save the mother from a grave condition, that is not procuring an abortion. An abortion may never be procured for the sake of terminating a life.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
actually criminal status is not correct, more like threat status, but thats nuance and its not the point.

the point is u have taught me a great leasson today. what a wonderful day. u taught me that acts of self sacrifice, like said St. Gianna Beretta Molla, are acts of personal decision. thats a reasonable point of view, which i can at least understand without necessarily aggreeing.

but doctrinally, there are circumstances where grave maternal danger would allow terminating pregnancy. and so...

u r saying that while certainly every effort must be made to save both mother and child, in the event that this proves medically impossible, then u make a choice, and u can treat the mother, even if this involves terminating a pregnancy. unless she chooses otherwise.

again, gravity and danger is hard to quantify, and yet, underneath all the rhetoric and hyperbole (holocaust, himmler and even mengele thrown in), u still make choices. its not yes or no.

im so happy. ive learned new things.
"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Mazel tov!
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
a case in point would be breast cancer. ive personally treated a number of pregnant women discovering breast cancer.

without going into the specifics, being pregnant is probably the worst thing u can be with breast cancer. the high estrogen/progesterone hyperstimulus to the tumor is a huge risk in proliferating the cancer. and chemotherapy can be highly teratogenic to the fetus.

in the third trimester its easy, u do an immediate c section and then commence therapy.

but in earlier pregnencies u r faced with a dilemna.

if a patient said to me, screw the risk, i want the baby and thats it. i accept this as a personel decision and have no issue with it.

if a patient said to me, i prefer an abortion and then commence treatment (which is what is recommended) thats also an option which i think is reasonable.

but if doctrine dictated to me that i cannot abort in spite of the health danger from the breast cancer, because taking the life of the fetus is murder, that is something i cant comprehend. is this a "grave" health risk? certainly although no one can gaurantee that this particular breast cancer will kill this woman, we would only know that several years down the road.

anyway, this is stuff i deal with on a regular basis, so i think its important to me that i understand where other cultures are coming from, hence im curious of your feelings on this.
"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

QuirtEvans
Jan 25 2006, 11:40 AM
Quote:
 
In a Zogby ``American Values'' poll respondents were asked to choose between the two statements, ``abortion destroys a human life and is manslaughter,'' or ``abortion does not destroy a life and is not manslaughter.''


Ah, yes, that's phrasing the question very neutrally and without trying to elicit a certain response.

:doh:

Every one of those polls was at least six years old ... and not a single one asked the question, "Should it be legal for an adult woman who wishes to have an abortion to get an abortion in the first trimester?" Yes/No, very simple, neutrally phrased.

I'm not going to research contrary polling data right now, but let's just say there's an awful lot of it running in exactly the opposite direction.

This isn't about RvW, these polls and this discussion is about what % of america is pro-life and pro-choice. I actually found the wording of that question harsh and would expect more people to say the latter because it is so harsh. Either way...one represents a pro-life view and one represents a pro-choice view.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

bachophile
Jan 25 2006, 11:57 AM
HEY 89th..RTFM!!!! and then get back to me on r vs w....

RTFM? Read the f- message, I guess? :lol:

Anyway, bach I apologize for my ignorance. I really didn't know the details of RvW. I didn't know it was that specific about 1st trimester...which does change things a little, but not much for me. Thanks for the posting...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
89th read the f@cking manual, in this case the opinion.

and i see ive made a second big success today. besides getting IT to teach me that in the face of grave danger abortion can be done, ive also taught u something about R vs W.
"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

bachophile
Jan 25 2006, 12:12 PM
Quote:
 
It is fair to say that RvW and DvB have been "generously"  interpreted, and subsequent case law has been built upon them to allow for abortion for any reason at any stage of pregnancy.


i think its fair to say, (based on his comments above) 89th key has never really read the opinion that he has been campaigning to repeal.

I haven't read it in detail, no...but the general statement behind is the same. It set a precedent to keep abortion legal and many case laws have been built upon it. Repeal RvW and the WHOLE pro-choice movement gets their legs cut from under them. It would go to the states...where it should be anyway.

Regarding catholic doctrine, I might be late to the party here...but I think (or would guess) that the catholic church encourages self-defense...which what an abortion to save the mother, would be.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
well i spoke too soon.

i read your article..

here is note 13...

13 Pope Pius XII, "Th Attempt on Innocent Human Life" (Nov. 26, 1951), in Sources … (note 2), p. 103: "…Deliberately, we have always used the expression "direct attempt on the life of an innocent person,", "direct killing". Because if, for example, the saving of the life of the future mother, independently of her pregnant condition, should urgently require a surgical act or other therapeutic treatment which would have an accessory consequence, in no way desired nor intended, but inevitable, the death of the fetus, such a act could no longer be called a direct attempt on an innocent life. Under these conditions the operation can be lawful, like other similar medical interventions - granted always that a good of high worth is concerned, such as life, and that it is not posible to postpone the operation until after birth of the child, nor to have recourse to other efficacious remedies." See also, Pontifical Council for Pastoral Assistance, Charter For Health Care Workers (Boston: St. Paul Books & Media, 1995), pp. 122-12: "If the abortion follows as a foreseen but not intended or willed but merely tolerated consequence of a therapeutic act essential for the mother's health, this is morally legitimate. The abortion in this case is the indirect result of an act which is not in itself abortive" (from Pius XII, To "Face of the Family" and the "Associations of Large Families" Nov. 27, 1951, in AAS 43 (1951)p. 859). See also, Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, (Washington, D.C., 1995), pp, 1920: #47, "Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child."[Back]

so it seems that doesnt cover an elective abortion, but rather (and ive had this too) say an emergency operation after a car accident with an immediate operation and having to remove a fetus from a hemorhagging uterus, (both died in the end unfortunatly). then my breast cancer patients would have to keep their pregancies according to this definition.

good old pius 12th, screwed up my happy day.

"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
bachophile
Jan 25 2006, 11:49 AM
a case in point would be breast cancer. ive personally treated a number of pregnant women discovering breast cancer.

without going into the specifics, being pregnant is probably the worst thing u can be with breast cancer. the high estrogen/progesterone hyperstimulus to the tumor is a huge risk in proliferating the cancer. and chemotherapy can be highly teratogenic to the fetus.

in the third trimester its easy, u do an immediate c section and then commence therapy.

but in earlier pregnencies u r faced with a dilemna.

if a patient said to me, screw the risk, i want the baby and thats it. i accept this as a personel decision and have no issue with it.

if a patient said to me, i prefer an abortion and then commence treatment (which is what is recommended) thats also an option which i think is reasonable.

but if doctrine dictated to me that i cannot abort in spite of the health danger from the breast cancer, because taking the life of the fetus is murder, that is something i cant comprehend.  is this a "grave" health risk? certainly although no one can gaurantee that this particular breast cancer will kill this woman, we would only know that several years down the road.

anyway, this is stuff i deal with on a regular basis, so i think its important to me that i understand where other cultures are coming from, hence im curious of your feelings on this.

What are the risks to the mother of surgery/ treatment while pregnant? Would these per se gravely increase the dangers to the mother?

As for official positions, here are a few:

Declaration on Procured Abortion (1974)

Instruction on Respect for Human Life (1987)

Declaration on Euthanasia (1980) -- NB the section on "Due Proportion in the Use of Remedies" which has some application with ethical issues regarding medical treatment during pregnancy as well.

Catechism of the Catholic Church esp 2269-2275
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply