There's no gray area here.
A nun at a Catholic hospital in Phoenix, Arizona was automatically excommunicated after approving an abortion be performed on a patient in order to save the woman’s life, The Arizona Republic reported Saturday.
Bp. Olmstead of Phoenix issued a statement.
"I am gravely concerned by the fact that an abortion was performed several months ago in a Catholic hospital in this diocese," Olmsted said.
"I am further concerned by the hospital’s statement that the termination of a human life was necessary to treat the mother’s underlying medical condition.
"An unborn child is not a disease. While medical professionals should certainly try to save a pregnant mother’s life, the means by which they do it can never be by directly killing her unborn child. The end does not justify the means."
The formulation of his statement is critical.
While MD's may (e.g.) remove a diseased ovary to save the life of a woman, and in the process, incidentally dislodge a baby from the uterus with the result that the baby dies, they may NOT deliberately kill the child in order to remove the ovary.
Big difference. It's called 'the principle of double effect.'
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I have to disagree with you, Dad. If the woman's life was truly in danger, then I would sadly support the abortion.
Unless there is more too the story that we don't know about, it seems like the woman's life was in danger and if she gave birth, she could have died.
Dan, we ARE in agreement.
But the precise wording of the Bishop's statement is absolutely critical.
One may NOT, DELIBERATELY, kill the baby. But one MAY operate to save the mother's life.
Big difference.
The difference lies in DIRECT versus INDIRECT abortion as the bishop - and you, Dad - correctly pointed out.
You can't deliberately abort to save the mother's life but you can perform a procedure that saves the life of the mother but indirectly results in the death of the child.
Unfortunately today, with abortion being taken for granted this distinction is lost on a lot of people - including the sister in question apparently.
Funny how quickly they can act if a woman is deemed to have in good conscience saved a life, and how slowly they move when a man rapes a child.
when a woman's life is in danger, it seems absolutely ridiculous to worry about this distinction. good grief, thank goodness I distanced myself from the church several years ago...
Like! More and more as we have the changing of the guard.
Anon-1, well I guess we should give up on doing good then. That would solve all the worlds problems.
Anon-2, why wouldn't you choose to save both lives? Why is the child targeted as an enemy? Taking a vacuum and sucking a kids brains out while he kicks and screams is a little different than removing part of the placenta and hoping(and praying) for the best.
"when a woman's life is in danger, it seems absolutely ridiculous to worry about this distinction."
And the baby's life is not in danger, Anon...?
That is the whole point of the distinction. You don't get to choose which life is more 'worthy' of saving. Both lives are equally worthy and you must do all you can to save both. Killing one to save the other is never morally justified.
As to your 'thankfulness' for having distanced yourself from the Church, that's not a cause for rejoicing, but for sorrow. But remember, it's never too late to convert...
Time is short, eternity is for keeps.
Below is a link to some very interesting facts on ectopic pregnancies.
http://cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=57
I am the above Anonymous from 5/18 10:22.
You need to understand--the pregnancy was going to be terminated no matter what. The pregnancy was going to kill the mother, thus killing the fetus since she was only 11 weeks along. The only person possible of surviving this was the mother, and the pregnancy had to be aborted to achieve that. Though I completely disagree, I understand the church makes the distinction between direct and indirect termination. My issue with that is that it is silly to expect the physician in cases like this to put on the show of trying to save both lives, when it's clear that their is no way the fetus is going to make it anyway. Why waste the time of trying to save the mother without aborting right away when it could cost her life as well? The importance the Catholic church places on these "rules" is why it is such a laughingstock among both religious and non-religious circles.
And for the record, I am 100% pro-choice and proud of it.
Anon, you may feel that being pro-choice is something to ‘be proud of’ and that attitude conforms to much of the relativistic thought of today – read: Modernism.
Satan was also proud of his opposition to God and was supported by many angels as well. People often feel there’s safety in numbers, but Faith and Doctrine are not the result of polls or the will of the ‘majority’ – but are revealed by God and taught continuously by the Catholic Church.
You are on thin ice. Better to reach terra firma before you sink.
As to the Church being a ‘laughingstock among religious and non-religious circles”, well if that’s the case (which I would dispute…) then we are in good company, as Our Lord was made a laughingstock by both religious and non religious people of His time.
Would that we all were such ‘failures’ as He was!
Anony, you're to be complimented for your understanding of the difference between direct/indirect termination!
As to an MD "putting on a show"...
You really think that little of MD's?
I don't.
Anon: Hang in there. Christ also challenged the religious authorities of his day. So I in this respect, you are Christ-like in my book.
Peace.
Why does Anon1 or Anon2 care what the Church does with her members? Wouldn't they be happy if more people left the Church(albeit in this case unwillingly). You should get after bishops to excommunicate more people & then we can truly all be free to be slaves to the popular opinion.
Post a Comment