- I am unequivocally prolife - no exceptions except to save the Mother's life
- I am pro traditional marriage
- I am pro family values especially interested in the media
- I am moderately pro Gun
- I support concealed carry
- I generally find merit in arguments for small government
- I am opposed to the far left in general
2 hours ago
no exceptions except to save the Mother's life
ReplyDeletewhat would an example of this be?
Mary
Duuude! Hi, buddy. Twitter is just kinda fun, isn't it? I like it..relaxed, whenever, whatever.
ReplyDeleteMary, I'm not a doctor so...hard for me to specifically state a medical situation. Occasionally you hear of a case in the news where a pregnant woman sacrifices her life so her child may live. One I recall was a woman with cancer, whose life could only be saved by chemo-therapy which would have killed the baby. She chose to give life to her baby, which I admire.
ReplyDeleteThe moral principle I am firmer on, although I am not a moral theologian. As I understand it (I'm not Googling it)there are two types of circumstances where abortion could be morally permisible.
(a) If there are two people and they are both going to die and the only way you can save either is by killing the other, it is morally permissible to kill one to save the other. This one would apply where the fetus is not viable, and the mother is going to die, but could be saved if the fetus was aborted. (No, I don't have the medical example, but even the rarest of things happen on occasion).
(b) If you can save one person by taking an action, and as an unintended consequence another person might die(?will die? research)it is morally permissible to save the life. This would apply clearly in the case I cited of the woman with cancer receiving Chemo-Therapy.
What should be clear is that I believe abortion should not be legal except in cases where the mother is actually going to die, and the only possibility of saving her life involves either deliberately aborting the fetus, or an unintended abortion as a result of other treatment.
Even in those circumstances I admire greatly a woman and a family that chooses to preserve the life of the child if at all possible. However, from what I understand such a circumstance is one where the people involved, particularly the mother, are the only ones who can make such a decision.
If that doesn't clarify my thoughts, feel free to ask more questions. If you understand things differently, I am open to discussion, but I'd probably just check out Wesley Smith's blog Second Hand Smoke since whatever he says I'll pretty much ditto. If he disagrees with what I've stated here, then I stand down and admit I just got it wrong.
Thanks for commenting!
God Bless, Paul
Memoriadei,
ReplyDeleteTwitter is fun! My wife says its time consuming, but I just fit in a Tweet here and a Tweet there, and run over to the computer to check for Tweetes every 3 minutes. No time wasted, right?
Paul you NEVER have to abort to save the mother, that is misinformation. That's why the Church doesn't permit it. For example, when a tubal pregnancy threatens the mother's life, you remove the tube. The baby dies, but he was going to die anyway with his mother. BUT you have not ABORTED him. You merely removed his home (the tube which was going to burst and make the mother hemhorrage to death). No way does the Church say the mother must die, just that it's not necessary to chop that baby up to save her.
ReplyDelete