Jump to content

- preserving the life of the mother -


Uncle Dale

Recommended Posts

Nevada legislator Sharron Angle appeared on the Bill Manders show,

in Las Vegas, I think kit was -- or maybe Carson City. Her answer

to a question caught my interest:

Mr. Manders: ...I'm also pro choice, do you understand what I mean when I say that?

Mrs. Angle: I'm pro responsible choice. There is choice to abstain,

choice to do contraception. There are all kind of good choices.

Mr. Manders: Is there any reason at all for an abortion?

Mrs. Angle: Not in my book.

Manders went on to ask for her specific views on abortion in cases

of rape, incest, etc. -- To which the lady replied: "God has a plan"

for such situations, and so the births should be required.

She seemed to imply that even if the mother was certain to die in

the birthing, that there should be no abortion.

Is this some radical Christian belief that I have not previously

heard of -- sacrificing a mother, to save an unborn child?

What if the mother is the sole surviving parent of a household

full of her children? Should she die, so that one more child

will be added to a parentless household?

I wonder what others have to say -- I've avoided thinking about

this question for too long it seems.

UD

Link to comment

Uncle Dale:

On a personal level I would say that if any person is against abortion for any reason then they shouldn't have one. However it is quite another thing to through the force of law compel someone else not to have an abortion.

On a more general basis I agree with the LDS position that under some rare exceptions abortion is allowed, but highly discouraged.

As a matter of public policy I think it is best to keep it safe, legal, and rare.

Link to comment

...

As a matter of public policy I think it is best to keep it safe, legal, and rare.

I agree totally.

But, I'm trying to picture a surgeon with a pregnant lady

on his operating table -- say, the victim of a car crash --

and the other doctors there are saying: "Remove the fetus,

or the lady is certain to die within minutes!!!"

And the surgeon is a supporter of the doctrine of no

abortions, under any circumstances.

What then? Try to remove the fetus in such a way that

it has a chance to survive -- to be a living baby?

And let the mother die? It just seems wrong to me.

What if the operation fails and both lady and fetus die?

UD

.

Link to comment

Is this some radical Christian belief that I have not previously

heard of -- sacrificing a mother, to save an unborn child?

Seems radical to me, regardless of the basis. What's not so radical is the tendency to avoid tough decisions.

Link to comment

Seems radical to me, regardless of the basis. What's not so radical is the tendency to avoid tough decisions.

I'm not sure which church the lady belongs to.

Nor do I wish to make this a political thread.

But she will be challenging (and perhaps debating)

one of the best known LDS in the country, and the

matter will probably come up again in the course

of those televised debates.

It seems important to me.

UD

Link to comment

Gospel Principles manual - Chapter 39

Breaking the Law of Chastity Is Extremely Serious

...

If a man and a woman break the law of chastity and conceive a child, they may be tempted to commit another abominable sin: abortion. There is seldom any justifiable reason for abortion. Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion. Those who face such circumstances should consider abortion only after consulting with their local Church leaders and receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

as for you situation, with the Dr. letting the woman die, sure seems a violation of the Drs Oath - no matter which version you use - Do no harm.

Link to comment

What then?

If anyone senses they have a strong stake in the outcome, they would call in the institutional review board, even in an emergent situation. If it acts too late for anyone's satisfaction, it might become a legal matter (if anyone feels they own a stake in the outcome).

Link to comment

Uncle Dale:

I think that surgeon doesn't belong anywhere near any operating table. The state I live in would have a not so nice discussion with that surgeon, and would in all likelihood pull the license of that surgeon. There may also be criminal penalties involved, and that's not counting the civil suits that would result.

Link to comment

Gospel Principles manual - Chapter 39

Breaking the Law of Chastity Is Extremely Serious

...

If a man and a woman break the law of chastity and conceive a child, they may be tempted to commit another abominable sin: abortion. There is seldom any justifiable reason for abortion. Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion. Those who face such circumstances should consider abortion only after consulting with their local Church leaders and receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

as for you situation, with the Dr. letting the woman die, sure seems a violation of the Drs Oath - no matter which version you use - Do no harm.

Very interesting.

If only one life can be saved during such an operating table emergency,

is the taking of the other life a murder?

UD

Link to comment

Nevada legislator Sharron Angle appeared on the Bill Manders show,

in Las Vegas, I think kit was -- or maybe Carson City. Her answer

to a question caught my interest:

Manders went on to ask for her specific views on abortion in cases

of rape, incest, etc. -- To which the lady replied: "God has a plan"

for such situations, and so the births should be required.

She seemed to imply that even if the mother was certain to die in

the birthing, that there should be no abortion.

Is this some radical Christian belief that I have not previously

heard of -- sacrificing a mother, to save an unborn child?

What if the mother is the sole surviving parent of a household

full of her children? Should she die, so that one more child

will be added to a parentless household?

I wonder what others have to say -- I've avoided thinking about

this question for too long it seems.

UD

I think you are putting words into her mouth....

It seemed to me her responce was towards rape and incest, not if the mother was going to die.

I'm sure if the mother was going to die that "who" lived would be up to the mother and father.

Link to comment

Very interesting.

If only one life can be saved during such an operating table emergency,

is the taking of the other life a murder?

UD

no right answer. The answer would be determined by a long and expensive trail of paid experts who each would say "in my professional opinion" and the decision would ultimately be made by a jury of completley incompetent persons (i say this because persons untrained in highly skilled and life threatening procedures should judge the actions of a highly skill and trained person)

IMO a prosecutor would most likely not seek criminal charges of murder.

Link to comment

I don't speak for anyone but myself on this issue.

Does the life of the mother outweigh the life of her unborn child if here life is threatened by the birth?

It depends on a lot of variables.

A terminally ill mother, would IMO be better off having the child.

A healthy mother that was going to have a child with known dramatic birth defects would be better off aborting the child, IMO.

A healthy mother that would have a healthy child, I would still err in saving the mother but could see how this would be a difficult choice for the mother.

I am sure there are other permutations as well. But in short, I think there are certainly good reasons and circumstances to abort a child for the life of the mother.

Link to comment

Catholicism teaches that abortion is not justified even to save the life of the mother. Here in Arizona, Bishop Olmsted announced that an administrator who was a nun at a Catholic hospital was "automatically excommunicated" for permitting an abortion to save the life of the mother. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126985072 As I understand it, Catholic teaching allows medical procedures to save the life of a mother when an indirect side effect of the procedure results in the death of the fetus--such as removing a cancerous uterus. But it does not allows a procedure whose direct purpose is to abort the fetus, but not as part of some other procedure.

Which raises an interesting question. Many bishops take the position that a Roman Catholic politician who votes to permit or fund abortion is deemed excommunicated, at least to the extent that they cannot take communion. I wonder if that same position applies to a Roman Catholic legislator who voted for, say, a constitutional amendment to ban abortion in all cases except to save the life of the mother, or who voted for a ban on abortion funding except to save the life of the mother.

Link to comment

Uncle Dale:

On a personal level I would say that if any person is against abortion for any reason then they shouldn't have one. However it is quite another thing to through the force of law compel someone else not to have an abortion.

On a more general basis I agree with the LDS position that under some rare exceptions abortion is allowed, but highly discouraged.

As a matter of public policy I think it is best to keep it safe, legal, and rare.

I, Romney and Reagan used to agree with you, but we were wrong, and you are wrong.

It's actually one of the mandates of the Constitution for the "state/government" to protect the innocent.

You can't get more innocent than unborn children.

As far as the state "forcing". Well, the state can't force you to KEEP the baby, but once you made the choice to have sex with the chance of getting pregnant, that is when your choice actually ended. It is your obligation (save death or trauma) to then have the baby. After that, THEN it is up to you what you do with it (other than murder of course).

Murder is Murder people.... Don't know when you liberals are going to get that!

It's only NOT murder when there is another moral justification.

This issue is exactly like the Commandment not to kill.

We know the commandment is not to "murder". And we know it's okay to kill in war, and in self defense or the defense of others. But when you kill a baby in the womb, IT IS MURDER, "unless" there is another moral reason involved, such as the health of the mother. Only then can it be justified to kill a innocent baby in the womb.

"Choice" is not a moral justification. We can choose lot's of things, but we can't choose the consequences. And murder is murder, no matter if a baby can breath on it's own or is fully formed or not.

Link to comment

I think you are putting words into her mouth....

It seemed to me her responce was towards rape and incest, not if the mother was going to die.

I'm sure if the mother was going to die that "who" lived would be up to the mother and father.

obiwan she was asked "any reason" response "not in my book" meaning no abortion ever for any reason end of discussion.

Link to comment

...

could see how this would be a difficult choice for the mother.

...

I can't speak for the Nevada legislator, but my guess is that

in such a case, she would argue that the mother has already

had her opportunity to come to Christ, repent and be baptized;

but that the infant should likewise have a chance of several

years (or several decades), just as the mother had -- so that

the baby can also grow to become a Christian, etc.

At least that's what I expect her position might be, if the

senatorial debates actually are held in Nevada this year.

UD

Link to comment

Which raises an interesting question. Many bishops take the position that a Roman Catholic politician who votes to permit or fund abortion is deemed excommunicated, at least to the extent that they cannot take communion. I wonder if that same position applies to a Roman Catholic legislator who voted for, say, a constitutional amendment to ban abortion in all cases except to save the life of the mother, or who voted for a ban on abortion funding except to save the life of the mother.

this has been discussed in american politics as recently as john kerry v bush election. The oft reported statement was that to deny john kerry or any political figure communion based on their known stance or vote on abortion would case said religious group to loose its Tax Exempt status. Admittedly, the loss of Tax exempt status is almost completely theoretical, or rather, no one knows what bug will be in the pants of the irs and who the irs will seek to remove tax exempt status of.

Link to comment

...

As I understand it, Catholic teaching allows medical procedures to save the life of

a mother when an indirect side effect of the procedure results in the death of the fetus

-- such as removing a cancerous uterus.

...

In other words -- in cases where both mother and fetus are likely

to die anyway, if no medical attention is given.

But, if there is a chance that the fetus can live outside of

the womb, and its doing so causes the mother's death, then

RCC doctrine requires the mother's death and fetus' life. Yes?

UD

Link to comment

she will be challenging (and perhaps debating) one of the best known LDS in the country, and the matter will probably come up again in the course of those televised debates.

I do not think her position would be well-received by the general electorate. She might get some attention out of it, and certainly from pro-choice advocates, but I think it's too extreme a position to appeal to the average voter, or to help her succeed if it is a key element of her platform. She may end up back-peddling and say it is only her personal belief and she would work for her constituency regardless.

Link to comment

I do not think her position would be well-received by the general electorate. She might get some attention out of it, and certainly from pro-choice advocates, but I think it's too extreme a position to appeal to the average voter, or to help her succeed if it is a key element of her platform.

I'll probably get this thread shut down, for turning it political --

But my impression is that the lady's supporters are hoping that

voter turn-out in Nevada is so light this year, that the "liberals"

and "moderates" will mostly stay home -- disgusted over the high

unemployment and other economic woes in Nevada.

In such a scenario, she has a decent chance of winning the election.

UD

Link to comment

I'll probably get this thread shut down, for turning it political --

But my impression is that the lady's supporters are hoping that

voter turn-out in Nevada is so light this year, that the "liberals"

and "moderates" will mostly stay home -- disgusted over the high

unemployment and other economic woes in Nevada.

In such a scenario, she has a decent chance of winning the election.

UD

That's not turning political, that's just reading the tea leaves.

Link to comment

Nevada legislator Sharron Angle appeared on the Bill Manders show,

in Las Vegas, I think kit was -- or maybe Carson City. Her answer

to a question caught my interest:

Manders went on to ask for her specific views on abortion in cases

of rape, incest, etc. -- To which the lady replied: "God has a plan"

for such situations, and so the births should be required.

She seemed to imply that even if the mother was certain to die in

the birthing, that there should be no abortion.

Is this some radical Christian belief that I have not previously

heard of -- sacrificing a mother, to save an unborn child?

What if the mother is the sole surviving parent of a household

full of her children? Should she die, so that one more child

will be added to a parentless household?

I wonder what others have to say -- I've avoided thinking about

this question for too long it seems.

UD

I think abortion on demand remains legal because of the lack of exceptions in proposed laws to limit abortions. I think the lack of exceptions (life of mother, rape, etc.) WORKS IN THE FAVOR OF THE PRO-CHOICE. It gives power to their argument.

IF a bill banning abortions was introduced that included these exceptions, it might pass. A reasonable bill including these exceptions, would be the pro-choice's worst enemy. Don't polls show that a majority of citizens are pro-life? Maybe I'm wrong. As far as partial-birth abortion, the majority certainly is against it, yet it remains legal.

As said by others here, the LDS Church does allow abortions for these rare exceptions as long as the Spirit is in agreement. The Lord's will trumps all. That's why He must be consulted, ESPECIALLY in such life and death matters.

Link to comment

...ESPECIALLY in such life and death matters.

I would guess that in 90% of these rare instances,

the mother is conscious and lucid enough to call

in the elders for administration and prayer. But

in other rare cases, there may be no time.

I know of a situation in my own extended family,

in which the imminent death of the mother was

only discovered during the last stages of a

full-term, breech birth. There was no chance

for a C-section at that point, and the baby

was on the verge of death. The operation was

conducted in such a way that the baby died before

delivery and the mother lived.

I'd guess that such instances, with the mother

unconscious when the decision had to be made,

are very rare these days.

UD

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...