Permissibility Of Abortion

[saemo]

LOL out of context as usual- in the case of a choice between the mother and the fetus I would do what the Catholic church would also permit

Quit twisting my words.

"Under no circumstances is my wife's life as a mother to my children an my eternal companion and a fully developed human being equal to that of a few cells. Sorry- but that is the truth."

This is not what the Catholic Church teaches.

[saemo]

Well we are obvious beyond reason here- I am gone

Yes I agree, your position is unreasonable. Too bad you can't seriously defend it.

Edited September 25, 2012 by saemo

[mfbukowski]

Yet it is wrong for a mother to do the same for her unborn child? What about your other children, and your wife? You would leave them fatherless and without a husband. Shouldn't you let one child die so the others don't suffer you being gone?

This is the contradiction.

NO, that is not what I said. I will answer this bit of silliness and then I am really out of here. THIS is a total waste of life- and time is precious. Think about the time wasted here rather than worrying about the unborn- we are wasting our own lives here arguing about nonsense.

If the mother wanted to die rather than abort her baby, that would be the mother's decision. And by falling on the grenade for my children I would BE SAVING THEIR LIVES and of course I would be leaving them fatherless, BUT THAT IS BETTER THAN LEAVING THEM DEAD.

If you ever are able to use reason, let me know.

[mfbukowski]

"Under no circumstances is my wife's life as a mother to my children an my eternal companion and a fully developed human being equal to that of a few cells. Sorry- but that is the truth."

This is not what the Catholic Church teaches.

Yep. And I am so glad I am gone from that.

[Ran]

Wow- I really appreciate your extensive response to the CFR. Thank you very much.

I extend my thanks to you, actually, because I learned a lot in this research.

In researching this, I may have also realized where my difficulty with the LDS position (partly) stems from: "the doctrine on the grave immorality of direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being" (cf. CDF). For one thing, as a divinely and formally revealed object of theological faith, it makes a massive impression to a Catholic's conscience, perhaps similar to what you would call a "Thus sayeth the Lord" teaching.

Second, as John Paul II puts it, "No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church" (my emphasis). I therefore unconsciously expect to intellectually resolve the tension in what appears to be an inconsistency in LDS policy. I use the word "appears" because I may actually be misunderstanding the policy at various levels and eventually find that the inconsistency is not really there.

So the learning continues . . .

[mfbukowski]

Yes I agree, your position is unreasonable. Too bad you can't seriously defend it.

I know you are but what am I?

[blueadept]

It doesn't say that.

Fine. Here is my reference from the Catechism

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion.

This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.

Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.

74

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves.

Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.

75

So while your reference doesn't say that it's a serious mortal sin, trust me that it is.

[saemo]

NO, that is not what I said. I will answer this bit of silliness and then I am really out of here. THIS is a total waste of life- and time is precious. Think about the time wasted here rather than worrying about the unborn- we are wasting our own lives here arguing about nonsense.

If the mother wanted to die rather than abort her baby, that would be the mother's decision. And by falling on the grenade for my children I would BE SAVING THEIR LIVES and of course I would be leaving them fatherless, BUT THAT IS BETTER THAN LEAVING THEM DEAD.

If you ever are able to use reason, let me know.

I'm not trying to vilify you or your position. I'm quite sure you are able to reason. It isn't reasonable to stomp out of a room because you know full well, you have made up your mind now, expressed in this thread, that there is a circumstance where the life that YOU helped bring into existence, would be snuffed out if you viewed the circumstance as warranting it.

These are not my words, or twisting your words, this is what you have said. So getting all pissy at me doesn't change your position, or the irrationality of it.

[saemo]

I know you are but what am I?

Sad, really, that disagreement causes the unraveling of an otherwise intelligent mind.

You are out of the thread.

[mfbukowski]

I extend my thanks to you, actually, because I learned a lot in this research.

In researching this, I may have also realized where my difficulty with the LDS position (partly) stems from: "the doctrine on the grave immorality of direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being" (cf. CDF). For one thing, as a divinely and formally revealed object of theological faith, it makes a massive impression to a Catholic's conscience, perhaps similar to what you would call a "Thus sayeth the Lord" teaching.

Second, as John Paul II puts it, "No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church" (my emphasis). I therefore unconsciously expect to intellectually resolve the tension in what appears to be an inconsistency in LDS policy. I use the word "appears" because I may actually be misunderstanding the policy at various levels and eventually find that the inconsistency is not really there.

So the learning continues . . .

I will just ignore those here who are unreasonable I guess because I want to take this up with you.

I am not seeing the quandary- would you please explain it further?

The LDS policy I think is pretty simple- it's that abortion is tantamount to murder in most circumstances except in cases of rape and incest and where the health of the mother is seriously jeopardized- and even then it is to be undertaken only after serious though and prayer and counseling with the Bishop and family and confirmation by the Holy Spirit.

I am not seeing what affect the Catholic policy has on the LDS policy- and why what the Pope says creates a problem for you as you said here:

I therefore unconsciously expect to intellectually resolve the tension in what appears to be an inconsistency in LDS policy.

If you are Catholic I would expect that LDS policy would be irrelevant to giving you personal conflict, as I would expect that Catholic policy would be irrelevant to giving you conflict if you were LDS

I am obviously missing something.

[mfbukowski]

I'm not trying to vilify you or your position. I'm quite sure you are able to reason. It isn't reasonable to stomp out of a room because you know full well, you have made up your mind now, expressed in this thread, that there is a circumstance where the life that YOU helped bring into existence, would be snuffed out if you viewed the circumstance as warranting it.

These are not my words, or twisting your words, this is what you have said. So getting all pissy at me doesn't change your position, or the irrationality of it.

This is totally off the wall and I have no clue what you are talking about. Yes I endorse the position of my church saying that abortion is permissible in cases of rape incest and health of the mother.

So what?

The reason I am ignoring you should be clear to everyone-

Edited September 25, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Fine. Here is my reference from the Catechism

So while your reference doesn't say that it's a serious mortal sin, trust me that it is.

Fine, thank you. I think it is rather silly to condone something which is a serious sin, but if that is what the church wants to do, I really don't care.

That is the bottom line.

I think that if you actually look at what I said and what your church has said, there is no conflict. But if you want to persist in arguing about something we agree on, be my guest.

As I said, I really don't care.

Edited September 25, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Here I am defending the Catholic position, and the Catholics are arguing with me.

Figure THAT one out.

[blueadept]

I wasn't convinced you fully understood the Catholic position........after all this BS.....I stand corrected.

[mfbukowski]

I wasn't convinced you fully understood the Catholic position........after all this BS.....I stand corrected.

That's ok- you can sit down now.

[emeliza]

So it is ok if the results are the same but the process is different. Sounds a bit like religion telling the field of medicine how to best do their job.

Sounds the same to me. The practical consequences are indistinguishable as would even be the thought processes for an LDS woman. But for us it would be up to the mother to decide - as directed and counseled by God himself through the spirit, not dictated by what she "can" or "cannot" do as determined by someone else.

I disagree with that part. I think on one hand you are doing a procedure (abortion) for the specific purpose of ending a pregnancy. I think on the other hand where it is a different procedure that might affect or kill the fetus, the specific purpose is trying to help the mother. For the second situation, the fetus might end up being fine in the end or it might not, however for the first situation, the fetus would die as that is the specific purpose.

I am not Catholic and I am not pretending to be, but that was my understanding when reading it.

I am sure Saemo or Blueadept would be able to say if my understanding is correct.

[TruthSeeker24]

Greetings fellow pro-lifers!

I was wanting to start a discussion on the permissibility of abortion within the LDS church. From my understanding of the LDS position, a woman may have an abortion and not sin in the case of rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother. Why are these exemptions allowed?

From the Catholic perspective, there is no permissibility in these areas. This comes from our belief that life, the creation of the soul, begins at the moment of conception. It certainly would be a difficult burden, a difficult cross, for a women to bear the child of her rapist, but it is hard to see why the child's life should be terminated in that case. The same applies for incest. Perhaps in the case of incest the idea as well is that the child runs a chance of being malformed, but this line of thinking seems to open up the path for aborting, say, a fetus with Down's Syndrome. In the case of the health of the mother, is the self-defense exemption? We can kill without sin in self-defense. However, from the Catholic point-of-view, the child is not attacking the mother, so the self-defence exemption does not apply.

Thoughts?

Thanks!

I happen to agree with the Catholic stance on this whole issue. Just my personal feelings on the matter.

[CV75]

I'm not quite sure how this connects to the topic at hand. Can you clarify?

Hello...? I posted a reply yesterday: "The issue of abortion ties back to both commandments"--in reference to the commandments given in the Garden of Eden.

Which one is more important: the command to multiply and replenish the earth, or to not bring death into the world by partaking of the forbidden fruit (and thus kill what God created)?

[mfbukowski]

I disagree with that part. I think on one hand you are doing a procedure (abortion) for the specific purpose of ending a pregnancy. I think on the other hand where it is a different procedure that might affect or kill the fetus, the specific purpose is trying to help the mother. For the second situation, the fetus might end up being fine in the end or it might not, however for the first situation, the fetus would die as that is the specific purpose.

I am not Catholic and I am not pretending to be, but that was my understanding when reading it.

I am sure Saemo or Blueadept would be able to say if my understanding is correct.

I think your understanding is correct.

We do not disagree. I am talking about where it is a foregone conclusion that the choice is between a dead baby and a living mother.

My only point is that whatever you call it, you end up with a dead baby and a living mother. Regardless of how you try to rationalize it, it is a tragic decision to have to make, but the outcome is the same. It's a horrible horrible decision to face, I am sure.

Edited September 25, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Vance]

Hello...? I posted a reply yesterday: "The issue of abortion ties back to both commandments"--in reference to the commandments given in the Garden of Eden.

Which one is more important: the command to multiply and replenish the earth, or to not bring death into the world by partaking of the forbidden fruit (and thus kill what God created)?

I don't think Catholics have the same view of these things as we do. Remember the Biblical account is inadequate and LDS (unique) scripture gives a much clearer account.

[CV75]

I don't think Catholics have the same view of these things as we do. Remember the Biblical account is inadequate and LDS (unique) scripture gives a much clearer account.

Agreed, but this is what I would like to explore strictly from the information available in the Old Testament:

Genesis 1: 28, “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”

Genesis 2:17, “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

Two commandments; was/is one more important than the other?

[saemo]

Agreed, but this is what I would like to explore strictly from the information available in the Old Testament:

Genesis 1: 28, “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”

Genesis 2:17, “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

Two commandments; was/is one more important than the other?

Verse 28 is a blessing, not a commandment, given before the fall. They did not have to eat of the forbidden fruit in order to know the fruits of this blessing. Doing so was a sin. God does not desire or cause sin.

[blueadept]

Thanks saemo....leave it to the ex-mormon to understand the question that my Catholic mind wasn't fully appreciating

[Vance]

Verse 28 is a blessing, not a commandment, given before the fall. They did not have to eat of the forbidden fruit in order to know the fruits of this blessing. Doing so was a sin. God does not desire or cause sin.

Missing the important conjunction "and". But I am not surprised.

[CV75]

Verse 28 is a blessing, not a commandment, given before the fall. They did not have to eat of the forbidden fruit in order to know the fruits of this blessing. Doing so was a sin. God does not desire or cause sin.

Where contraception is a willing refusal of that blessing and condemned as sinful, and where we are commanded to accept God's blessings (though we are free to refuse them)--being fruitful, it seems to me that multipllying and replenishing the earth is a commandment.

So what was more important, this blessing / commandment or the commandment not eat of the forbidden fruit?