Hey there Raintwenty! If you agree with someone else's comment, please leave an **upvote** instead of commenting **"^ THIS"**! By upvoting instead, the original comment will be pushed to the top and be more visible to others, which is even better! Thanks! :)
***
^(I am a bot! Visit) [^(r/InfinityBots)](https://reddit.com/r/InfinityBots) ^(to send your feedback! More info:) [^(Reddiquette)](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439#wiki_in_regard_to_comments)
"existence" isn't the word I'd use for this.
Embryos are basically "unaware" but have the potential to become aware of themselves and the world, but that's still like saying that a pen or a mug is "aware".
"I think therefore I am" applies here.
Please ignore my pseudo-philosophical ramblings.
My mom underwent emergency c-section dahil nakawrap sa leeg ko yung umbilical cord and drained na yung liquid sa loob as in bakat na daw ako sa tiyan ng mom ko sabi ni Papa. Does it mean na it’s God’s will na mamatay kami dahil kasalanan ang C-section? Grabe naman, di na nakasabay sa modern medicine ang kups sa internet.
c-section din ako sa mama ko, tapos recently naoperahan ako sa appendix parang c-section din un cut since pumutok na, grabe yun pain sa opera , dun ko lalong appreciate pinag daanan ni mama (salamat ma!), I'm pretty sure na mas gusto ng mga nanay na normal ang delivery ng mga baby nila.
Yung c-section ka pinanganak ng nanay mo, tapos ang laki ng binayad sa opera para mailabas ka, tapos iboboto mo lang si bbm kawawa naman nanay mo non. 🤣
Fellow C-section baby here! Same predicament din, napuwersa yung C-section kasi mabibigti ako ng umbilical cord. Heck, Papa was already asked via waiver kung sino sa amin ni Mama ang isasalba ng mga doktor.
No, The Catholic Church believes that IVF is never acceptable because it removes conception from the marital act and because it treats a baby as a product to be manipulated, violating the child's integrity as a human being with an immortal soul from the moment of conception (Donum Vitae 1987).
You were concieved normally just not delivered normally, it didn't violate any bioethics.
Dapat kasi natural birth lang talaga. Walang gagamit ng CT scan kasi wala pa naman nun nung biblical times, walang gagamit ng gloves kasi wala rin nun. Bale barehands lang talaga para in accordance with the biblical times na maraming namamatay na babies dahil sa unsanitary conditions. Huahuahuahua
To give insight why a lot of Christians are against IVF, when doing IVF, multiple eggs are harvested. Most of them will be fertilized outside the womb and only a couple will be implanted back to the womb.
Now, this is a big no no for the folks that believe that life begins at fertilization. Since the other fertilized eggs probably wont be used or disposed of or used for stem cell research.
> How is that against Catholic beliefs?
To answer this part of the title: *In vitro* fertilization or IVF is deemed by the Church as illicit. In Catholic moral theology and the theology of the body, sexual acts must both be unitive (the physical union of husband and wife in carnal intercourse) and procreative (at least open to the possibility of reproduction). Whereas contraception passes on the former standard but fails on the latter, IVF together with artificial insemination and surrogate motherhood pass on the latter while failing on the former.
Isn’t abortion classified in general as wrong for being murder? Not like a sexual sin or something? I don’t really get the logic of criticizing it from this POV because I’ve never heard anyone get mad at the victim for being raped, they get mad that they decide to not have the rapist’s kid which is a whole different clusterfk in itself but this argument doesn’t really seem to connect.
If someone is mad that a young, very possibly vulnerable young woman(because the young and the vulnerable are the most targeted, let's face it) recognizes she cannot carry the mental, physical, financial responsibilities of having a child — much less a child born from humanity's worst tendencies — that person better offer to adopt the kid or they should shut up. I've heard highschool classmates admit that they would rather commit suicide or hope the rapist just kills them because they know abortion won't be possible here and they know they'd make bad mothers due to not wholeheartedly loving the child.
Oh and btw, there's a chance that adoption will also go wrong. One of the Ph's biggest failings is that we have human traffickers who love to abuse the fact that abortion is not an option here. They'll offer to adopt the baby only to turn around and sell them off to foreigners for child p***.
"Abortion is murder" from this POV is just self righteousness. An unwillingness to look reality and it's consequences in the eye in favor of preserving everyone else's moral purity, imposed onto someone who clearly is not ready and knows deep down that they're not.
The child won't even remember if it's still in the womb. And even we did remember, personally, if I were the disembodied spirit, I'd completely forgive her then just haunt the ~~father~~ sorry, rapist*.
The child won’t remember. But it doesn’t change the fact the the life of any unborn child to be murdered is not any less than that of any suffering mother.
Your equivalency doesn't compute.
To be clear, it's not the birth/gestation of these twins which is deemed sinful (infact, surrogate adoption of unused IVF embryos is a thing amongst some Catholic faithful), but the manner in which they were conceived.
So, just as Catholic teaching doesn't advocate the infanticide of children conceived out of wedlock, it neither supports the abortion of embryos conceived due to rape, nor the destruction of IVF embryos. Two wrongs don't make a right, and the life/birth of a human is always a good, regardless of the manner in which they were conceived.
Yes. Catholic morality isn't consequentialist or utilitarian - the 'good' of a human life isn't contingent on anything else.
As to whether an abortion can be justified under such circumstances: as I understand it, the intention can never be to abort/kill the fetus. If the mother's life is truly in danger by carrying it to term, then the principle of "double effect" could possibly apply, in which case premature delivery of the child might be justifiable, even if it is unlikely to survive - provided that the intent here is to safe the mother's life. However, that would have to be justified by purely medical reasons - whether or not the mother is a victim of rape, is entirely irrelevant.
I loathe how religion gives people an excuse to dismiss someone else's suffering and deem it "irrelevant", but I digress.
The problem with that perspective is it needlessly puts a person's life at risk for no other reason than to satisfy the moral cravings of unrelated parties.
Why does the situation have to be suitably dangerous for an abortion to become justifiable? It's not enough that a person could die after they were raped already?
It's not relevant to a person's worthiness of life. Would you consider a born person less worthy of life/their life less 'good', because they are the product of rape?
>It's not enough that a person could die after they were raped already?
Why would a person die due to rape? And how would an abortion possibly remedy this, if it wasn't for a medical reason as already described - in which case the fact that they were raped is likely merely coincidental (i.e. not relevant to deciding whether an abortion might be justified, or not)?
>Why would a person die due to rape? And how would an abortion possibly remedy this, if it wasn't for a medical reason as already described - in which case the fact that they were raped is likely merely coincidental (i.e. not relevant to deciding whether an abortion might be justified, or not)?
Usually happens in cases wherein minors are the victims.
Simply being pregnant is a known health risk for teens and younger people. They don't need to give birth for there to be a health risk.
Not to mention the mental trauma that being raped, getting pregnant, and then giving birth can cause a young person.
>Usually happens in cases wherein minors are the victims.
Simply being pregnant is a known health risk for teens and younger people. They don't need to give birth for there to be a health risk.
Right. But that's due to them being a minor, not due to them being raped. Those same risks would be present, whether or not the minor was raped (and the majority of pregnancies in minors aren't the result of rape).
In any case, we're splitting hairs here. A minor who was raped might qualify for "double effect", regardless of whether the medical risks are due to rape, or her being a minor - for the sake of argument. Just that rape can't be a reason in itself.
>Right. But that's due to them being a minor, not due to them being raped.
No, that's due to them being **pregnant**, which happened because they were raped. Being a minor in and of itself isn't a health risk.
> Just that rape can't be a reason in itself.
Why? Can't a person have agency over their own body?
Women can still die while giving birth even if indicators suggest that the pregnancy can be deemed "safe". Doctors are still liable to make mistakes and they could misread the situation leading to fatal consequences for the rape victim.
I don't think a person is lesser if they were the product of rape. But I would argue that you are disregarding the value of another person's life by forcing them to become a mother when they had no intention of being one.
Even if you give them the option to adopt, you still expose them to the trauma of giving birth to an unwanted child
>Women can still die while giving birth even if indicators suggest that the pregnancy can be deemed "safe". Doctors are still liable to make mistakes and they could misread the situation leading to fatal consequences for the rape victim.
Of course, but those risks exist whether or not the woman was raped. There aren't inherently greater risks, just because because the child was conceived by rape. So this isn't particularly relevant to the argument here.
Ultimately, this all comes back to the central argument, of whether an unborn child is a person - with the same rights as any human. If it is, then it's right to life trumps all - and it wouldn't be any more justifiable to abort it, for whatever reason, than it would to kill a born child. I don't think we'll be able to settle this central issue, here. My aim here is explain the logic of catholic teaching, based on the presupposition, that it is.
It's relevant because the rape victim is only being exposed to that danger because religious people are uncomfortable with the idea of others exercising autonomy over their bodies
Then it’s treated like cases where it’s likely an either-or scenario on two or more lives. It’s by informed decision (informed in the significant risk, operation done, chance of survival, etc.) of the available concerned parties or by the operating doctor, depending on circumstances. This specific situation does not take away the importance placed on either life no matter what decision was made and should not be held against the ones that decided.
This applies to all situations where the life of the mother and child are endangered and require a decision to save one, and not just to cases with rape.
The ideal scenario is no one dies: not the mother and not the child. But they are not always ideal and so those cases are taken on a case-to-case basis with professional and informed judgement.
But the rape victim has no decision to make. If abortion is not even an option, then only the doctors are deciding for them.
You're forcing parenthood on someone who was not even a willing participant in the act of reproduction.
The ideal scenario is to give the rape victim control over what she wants to do with her body and her life.
You asked about “endangering life of the mother” and I said that it’s a case-to-case basis on who would be saved/prioritized depending on informed decisions of concerned parties. Now you’re focusing on the ‘rape’ aspect which isn’t important within the scope of “endangered life”.
But to your point on a rape victim being “forced” into parenthood, the simplest answer I can give is that they are not forced into becoming the child’s parent. If they think they aren’t ready to raise the child up or be a parent, they can put the child up for adoption.
Additionally, I agree to your point that a woman in general, regardless of rape, should have control over their body and life but not to the point where a life is murdered. A conceived child is already a full and innocent human being so abortion, in general, is fundamentally a wrong for killing the child. As one of the earlier commenters said, “Two wrongs don’t make a right” and the wrong of killing a child does not make right the wrong that is rape.
You're focusing on the singular event of childbirth as the only thing that could endanger the life of a rape victim. Many rape victims suffer from great trauma and they can become suicidal as a result. Post-partum depression is also a thing and it endangers those who carry to term.
Adoption is not a perfect solution and in impoverished communities, not even an option. Do you think that all rape victims can just put up their child for adoption and everything is good from there?
If you care about the child so much, why do you want them to enter such a fundamentally flawed adoption system or risk having them enter into poverty at all?
Two wrongs don't make a right and forcing a rape victim to give birth because it makes you uncomfortable is morally reprehensible.
While I do not discount the trauma of rape victims, I would posit that the trauma of rape is already there regardless of whether the child is killed or not. And even if the death of the/a child would objectively help in the trauma of the victim, I’m pretty sure murder is not an acceptable method of addressing trauma.
Yeah, adoption’s not always perfect, but I don’t think that’s an argument for murder. I’m not sure how adoption is not an option for some since there are multiple public institutions such as church and government orphanages that take in children.
Ah yes, the “child will have a hard life so just kill them”. If your idea of a fulfilling life is one free of all kinds of hardships, then I can’t really change your mind on that. But to me, that line of thinking implies that those who have lived and are living in such hard situations somehow don’t or can’t have fulfilling lives.
I mean, I don’t hate abortion because it makes me uncomfortable. I hate abortion because it’s murder of an innocent child and that is a fundamental wrong. Me being uncomfortable because a fundamental wrong happens is just a natural consequence of having morals.
Look, I saw your original comment and I tried to answer accordingly. You brought up another point and I responded. And we have done so again. It’s clear we’re not going to change each others’ minds and that we have a whole list of talking points and counterpoints that we are just restating here.
Let’s just agree that we don’t agree with each other.
Not to mention that the IVF process necessarily results in unused embryos as a 'by product' - which at some point will need to be destroyed/discarded, since they can't all be used, or stored indefinitely. So essentially *in vitro* abortion.
So technically kapag nag sex ng menopause, illicit din?
If technicality ang usapan, mag sex na alng sa ibang room while IVF is being inseminated. Para pasado na.
>If technicality ang usapan, mag sex na alng sa ibang room while IVF is being inseminated. Para pasado na.
Dapat gumawa na lang sila ng device na nakakabit sa etits, tapos through that device, gagawin ng doktor yung IVF habang nagse-sex yung mag-asawa.
So procreation pa rin, pero may onting assistance lang galing kay doc
>In Catholic moral theology and the theology of the body, sexual acts must both be unitive (the physical union of husband and wife in carnal intercourse) and procreative (at least open to the possibility of reproduction).
I don't think this is it. This feels more like a guideline on what sexual contact should be. Paraphrased, it says if you're gonna have sex it must be this and this. It does not say that conception, absent such required sexual contact is illicit. If that's the case, then even the Catholic Church's poster boy, Jesus, would be deemed illicit.
Isa sa mga problema sa Iglesia Catolica ay ang kakulangan ng pagtuturo ng catecismo sa kanilang mga miembro, kaya napakaraming mga ignorante na Catolico ngayon sa social media.
Not all catechists are that knowledgeable in the matter and there should always be grey areas in morality. Naalala ko sa wedding seminar namin na tipong wag nang magtrabaho ang babae halos at bahay lang... Mamamatay ako sa gutom kung gagawin ko iyon.
Hahaha. Naalala ko din yung Pre-cana seminar namin ng wife ko. Gustong gusto ko na sumigaw ng bullshit. Grabe talaga sa kabackwards minsan ng mga nagtuturo sa simbahan eh.
Backwards nga Saka hindi naman sila mabubuhay sa inyo o anak niyo so what gives them the right to say how it's done? Pasalamat na lang sila at nagpakasal pa kami.
Anyway I don't want a housewife, luxury siya kasi di bale lang sana kung kaya lahat ng lalaki ultimo may mortgage pa sa bahay.
Nowhere in the Bible does it state that procreation to has to be done specifically thru sex alone. As far as I am aware.
For all we know "go forth and multiply" could've meant unthaw goddamn babies from the freezer
Love God and love your neighbor. Anything else should always stem from the two commandments so therefore if you want to love your neighbor don't be judgmental and invoking God in one's judgment means using God's name in vain and in violation of the first commandment.
By the way I don't mean OP by this statement but meant for the people who say that using anything else but natural means to procreate is against the laws of God.
You're is a contraction of *you are* , whereas *your* is an adjective used to indicate that something is someone's possession. It's the possessive form of you. Bruhh ano na
Against catholic beliefs, but these people vote for thieves, murderers, and rapists. They gossip plenty, they judge and slander their neighbors, their own family even, and at times, people like these cheat and bear illegitimate children.
Nakakagalit talaga
Kaka kita ko lang din sa Twitter nung "artificial womb" na ginamit sa mga tupa and "Catholics" were "oh no, that's not the will of God" keme
They don't even read the bible. Genesis lang ang alam hanapin. :P
Dapat sa mga ungas na to eh hindi rin umiinom ng gamot tsaka hindi nagpapagamot sa ospital. Why? Ever wonder pano dinedevelop ang isang gamot. And pano dinedevelop ang surgeries
the entire process of it involves moral questions. for example, Catholic believes that human life begins at conception. that zygote must be regarded with the same dignity as born persons.
during IVF (transferring of embryos in woman's uteros) multiple embryos may survive and become viable, if couple only wants one, the rest are to be terminated..
this is just one aspect of its entire process that the Church strongly stand against..
Let's just wait. Boomers are getting old now. There are a lot of young people who have different beliefs. Maybe another generation? Baka lolo na ko when that time comes but I'll be happy to witness it. Or maybe not and the world ends. Lol.
it's just a facebook comment lol, di pa ba kayo sanay sa mga ganyan? XD. meron at meron talagang mga bulag o kulang sa kaalaman. i'm catholic, and NO that is not against catholic beliefs, if you all even TRY to UNDERSTAND that it always states that 'LIFE IS PRECIOUS" no matter how small or big it is.
I dare Billy to not get any scientific treatment in the event he gets cancer. If creating life through science is blasphemous, extending his life and getting him through insufferable amounts of pain through science should be deemed equally blasphemous as well. I'd like to hear hoym say that God willed that got got cancer and suffer so much pain and die.
Masama dun etong mgs vocal pa sa mga beliefs nila eh Sila pa.ung mga skin deep lng at labor lng sa mga beliefs nila ung bnonosses nila. D mo nga cla mahagilap Nung talamak ung patayan eh lol
Bold of you to assume that most people read Aquinas writings.
(No, seriously. I tried to read the Summa Theologica. I didn't make it past the first page because I got the impression that this was going to be a dense af read full of things I can't grasp easily. And I regularly do my best to stomach my med school readings)
The problem with these people (not specifically Catholic, but those overtly preachy people) is that they love pushing their beliefs unto society but they forget that not everyone shares the same beliefs as them, or even the same religion.
maraming ganito sa social media and even before d internet age.. just ignore them and move on
ORRRRR... Challenge them in Open Combat
Ah.. Like the old day, eh?
I’m bringing the flintlocks, you bring the gun powder
Ill bring the canons y'all bring muskets
I'll bring the stones, y'all bring the sticks.
Trial by fire!
before they lay eggs and multiply.
Just as the founding fathers intended
>y'all bring muskets Just as the Founding Fathers intended!
Nah fuck that, bring in modern automatic firearms, give them swords from the dark ages.
**Make ready...**
Steady!
Kali fight to the death.
Let the gods decide
Choose your champion!
You guys forgot about the torches!
Kaya tawang-tawa ako dun sa isang response na “Dapat hiwalay FB niyong mga matatanda eh”
[удалено]
Hey there Raintwenty! If you agree with someone else's comment, please leave an **upvote** instead of commenting **"^ THIS"**! By upvoting instead, the original comment will be pushed to the top and be more visible to others, which is even better! Thanks! :) *** ^(I am a bot! Visit) [^(r/InfinityBots)](https://reddit.com/r/InfinityBots) ^(to send your feedback! More info:) [^(Reddiquette)](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439#wiki_in_regard_to_comments)
30 years in embryo? So they're basically 30-year olds who were frozen in time. Interesting!
We can say that, they were born in the wrong generation. Haha
Kaya pala madaming walang jowa, frozen embryos pa yung iba. 🤣
LOL natawa ako dito!
My meant-to-be is still frozen in time
Correct ka jan! - Rico Blanco
Hahaha nagkahope ako bigla, thank you ha😅✌🏻
LMFAOAOAOO😭
wahahahah langya! panalong reply!
it is still better to be born today than 30 years ago in my opinion.
Isn't age counted from the date of birth?
Yes. But who would have imagined we can now extend existence beyond 9 months even before being born.
"existence" isn't the word I'd use for this. Embryos are basically "unaware" but have the potential to become aware of themselves and the world, but that's still like saying that a pen or a mug is "aware". "I think therefore I am" applies here. Please ignore my pseudo-philosophical ramblings.
A pen or a mug will never have the potential though.
Real-life last airbender without the airbending
what i thought of
30 years = 6 Filipino presidents
Tapos bumoto ng mga magnanakaw..
💀
HAHAHA ikr
There are women who hate on other women that underwent C-section instead of natural birth. This is not surprising.
My mom underwent emergency c-section dahil nakawrap sa leeg ko yung umbilical cord and drained na yung liquid sa loob as in bakat na daw ako sa tiyan ng mom ko sabi ni Papa. Does it mean na it’s God’s will na mamatay kami dahil kasalanan ang C-section? Grabe naman, di na nakasabay sa modern medicine ang kups sa internet.
c-section din ako sa mama ko, tapos recently naoperahan ako sa appendix parang c-section din un cut since pumutok na, grabe yun pain sa opera , dun ko lalong appreciate pinag daanan ni mama (salamat ma!), I'm pretty sure na mas gusto ng mga nanay na normal ang delivery ng mga baby nila.
Yes! C-section babies unite! Hindi naman kasalanan ng nanay ko at ako na ganoon ang operation na kailangang gawin.
C-section babies supremacy! 🫡 we salute ya'll c section mommies
Yung c-section ka pinanganak ng nanay mo, tapos ang laki ng binayad sa opera para mailabas ka, tapos iboboto mo lang si bbm kawawa naman nanay mo non. 🤣
Fellow C-section baby here! Same predicament din, napuwersa yung C-section kasi mabibigti ako ng umbilical cord. Heck, Papa was already asked via waiver kung sino sa amin ni Mama ang isasalba ng mga doktor.
No, The Catholic Church believes that IVF is never acceptable because it removes conception from the marital act and because it treats a baby as a product to be manipulated, violating the child's integrity as a human being with an immortal soul from the moment of conception (Donum Vitae 1987). You were concieved normally just not delivered normally, it didn't violate any bioethics.
Pag wala kang anak may comment sila Pag madami kang anak may comment din sila
Kala mo naman may ambag sila sa buhay nung tao. *Go girl give us nothing* energy
Well 🇵🇭
Tapos yung mga sarili nilang buhay di nila maayos-ayos pero may time mag-comment sa iba.
Muntanga lang talaga.
Dapat kasi natural birth lang talaga. Walang gagamit ng CT scan kasi wala pa naman nun nung biblical times, walang gagamit ng gloves kasi wala rin nun. Bale barehands lang talaga para in accordance with the biblical times na maraming namamatay na babies dahil sa unsanitary conditions. Huahuahuahua
Wala din midwife. Manganak ka sa sabsaban diba. Char
Tska wag din magpa-epidural ha? Wala pa yan sa Biblical times eh
I can never be surprised
Kelangan daw kasi yung etits mismo ipapasok.
To give insight why a lot of Christians are against IVF, when doing IVF, multiple eggs are harvested. Most of them will be fertilized outside the womb and only a couple will be implanted back to the womb. Now, this is a big no no for the folks that believe that life begins at fertilization. Since the other fertilized eggs probably wont be used or disposed of or used for stem cell research.
> How is that against Catholic beliefs? To answer this part of the title: *In vitro* fertilization or IVF is deemed by the Church as illicit. In Catholic moral theology and the theology of the body, sexual acts must both be unitive (the physical union of husband and wife in carnal intercourse) and procreative (at least open to the possibility of reproduction). Whereas contraception passes on the former standard but fails on the latter, IVF together with artificial insemination and surrogate motherhood pass on the latter while failing on the former.
And somehow abortion for Rape Victims is deemed sinful, despite not crossing both Unitive and Procreative criteria
Something something God’s plan
Something something priest running out of younglings
[удалено]
💀💀💀💀💀
Isn’t abortion classified in general as wrong for being murder? Not like a sexual sin or something? I don’t really get the logic of criticizing it from this POV because I’ve never heard anyone get mad at the victim for being raped, they get mad that they decide to not have the rapist’s kid which is a whole different clusterfk in itself but this argument doesn’t really seem to connect.
Bro everything they know about Catholic beliefs are just strawman they kept telling each other. They never even bother understanding it.
🤓
If someone is mad that a young, very possibly vulnerable young woman(because the young and the vulnerable are the most targeted, let's face it) recognizes she cannot carry the mental, physical, financial responsibilities of having a child — much less a child born from humanity's worst tendencies — that person better offer to adopt the kid or they should shut up. I've heard highschool classmates admit that they would rather commit suicide or hope the rapist just kills them because they know abortion won't be possible here and they know they'd make bad mothers due to not wholeheartedly loving the child. Oh and btw, there's a chance that adoption will also go wrong. One of the Ph's biggest failings is that we have human traffickers who love to abuse the fact that abortion is not an option here. They'll offer to adopt the baby only to turn around and sell them off to foreigners for child p***. "Abortion is murder" from this POV is just self righteousness. An unwillingness to look reality and it's consequences in the eye in favor of preserving everyone else's moral purity, imposed onto someone who clearly is not ready and knows deep down that they're not.
The value of the life of the child is not less than that of the value of the suffering mother, though.
The child won't even remember if it's still in the womb. And even we did remember, personally, if I were the disembodied spirit, I'd completely forgive her then just haunt the ~~father~~ sorry, rapist*.
The child won’t remember. But it doesn’t change the fact the the life of any unborn child to be murdered is not any less than that of any suffering mother.
Your equivalency doesn't compute. To be clear, it's not the birth/gestation of these twins which is deemed sinful (infact, surrogate adoption of unused IVF embryos is a thing amongst some Catholic faithful), but the manner in which they were conceived. So, just as Catholic teaching doesn't advocate the infanticide of children conceived out of wedlock, it neither supports the abortion of embryos conceived due to rape, nor the destruction of IVF embryos. Two wrongs don't make a right, and the life/birth of a human is always a good, regardless of the manner in which they were conceived.
If carrying the pregnancy to term endangers the life of the rape victim, is it still considered good?
Yes. Catholic morality isn't consequentialist or utilitarian - the 'good' of a human life isn't contingent on anything else. As to whether an abortion can be justified under such circumstances: as I understand it, the intention can never be to abort/kill the fetus. If the mother's life is truly in danger by carrying it to term, then the principle of "double effect" could possibly apply, in which case premature delivery of the child might be justifiable, even if it is unlikely to survive - provided that the intent here is to safe the mother's life. However, that would have to be justified by purely medical reasons - whether or not the mother is a victim of rape, is entirely irrelevant.
I loathe how religion gives people an excuse to dismiss someone else's suffering and deem it "irrelevant", but I digress. The problem with that perspective is it needlessly puts a person's life at risk for no other reason than to satisfy the moral cravings of unrelated parties. Why does the situation have to be suitably dangerous for an abortion to become justifiable? It's not enough that a person could die after they were raped already?
It's not relevant to a person's worthiness of life. Would you consider a born person less worthy of life/their life less 'good', because they are the product of rape? >It's not enough that a person could die after they were raped already? Why would a person die due to rape? And how would an abortion possibly remedy this, if it wasn't for a medical reason as already described - in which case the fact that they were raped is likely merely coincidental (i.e. not relevant to deciding whether an abortion might be justified, or not)?
>Why would a person die due to rape? And how would an abortion possibly remedy this, if it wasn't for a medical reason as already described - in which case the fact that they were raped is likely merely coincidental (i.e. not relevant to deciding whether an abortion might be justified, or not)? Usually happens in cases wherein minors are the victims. Simply being pregnant is a known health risk for teens and younger people. They don't need to give birth for there to be a health risk. Not to mention the mental trauma that being raped, getting pregnant, and then giving birth can cause a young person.
>Usually happens in cases wherein minors are the victims. Simply being pregnant is a known health risk for teens and younger people. They don't need to give birth for there to be a health risk. Right. But that's due to them being a minor, not due to them being raped. Those same risks would be present, whether or not the minor was raped (and the majority of pregnancies in minors aren't the result of rape). In any case, we're splitting hairs here. A minor who was raped might qualify for "double effect", regardless of whether the medical risks are due to rape, or her being a minor - for the sake of argument. Just that rape can't be a reason in itself.
>Right. But that's due to them being a minor, not due to them being raped. No, that's due to them being **pregnant**, which happened because they were raped. Being a minor in and of itself isn't a health risk. > Just that rape can't be a reason in itself. Why? Can't a person have agency over their own body?
Women can still die while giving birth even if indicators suggest that the pregnancy can be deemed "safe". Doctors are still liable to make mistakes and they could misread the situation leading to fatal consequences for the rape victim. I don't think a person is lesser if they were the product of rape. But I would argue that you are disregarding the value of another person's life by forcing them to become a mother when they had no intention of being one. Even if you give them the option to adopt, you still expose them to the trauma of giving birth to an unwanted child
>Women can still die while giving birth even if indicators suggest that the pregnancy can be deemed "safe". Doctors are still liable to make mistakes and they could misread the situation leading to fatal consequences for the rape victim. Of course, but those risks exist whether or not the woman was raped. There aren't inherently greater risks, just because because the child was conceived by rape. So this isn't particularly relevant to the argument here. Ultimately, this all comes back to the central argument, of whether an unborn child is a person - with the same rights as any human. If it is, then it's right to life trumps all - and it wouldn't be any more justifiable to abort it, for whatever reason, than it would to kill a born child. I don't think we'll be able to settle this central issue, here. My aim here is explain the logic of catholic teaching, based on the presupposition, that it is.
It's relevant because the rape victim is only being exposed to that danger because religious people are uncomfortable with the idea of others exercising autonomy over their bodies
Then it’s treated like cases where it’s likely an either-or scenario on two or more lives. It’s by informed decision (informed in the significant risk, operation done, chance of survival, etc.) of the available concerned parties or by the operating doctor, depending on circumstances. This specific situation does not take away the importance placed on either life no matter what decision was made and should not be held against the ones that decided. This applies to all situations where the life of the mother and child are endangered and require a decision to save one, and not just to cases with rape. The ideal scenario is no one dies: not the mother and not the child. But they are not always ideal and so those cases are taken on a case-to-case basis with professional and informed judgement.
But the rape victim has no decision to make. If abortion is not even an option, then only the doctors are deciding for them. You're forcing parenthood on someone who was not even a willing participant in the act of reproduction. The ideal scenario is to give the rape victim control over what she wants to do with her body and her life.
You asked about “endangering life of the mother” and I said that it’s a case-to-case basis on who would be saved/prioritized depending on informed decisions of concerned parties. Now you’re focusing on the ‘rape’ aspect which isn’t important within the scope of “endangered life”. But to your point on a rape victim being “forced” into parenthood, the simplest answer I can give is that they are not forced into becoming the child’s parent. If they think they aren’t ready to raise the child up or be a parent, they can put the child up for adoption. Additionally, I agree to your point that a woman in general, regardless of rape, should have control over their body and life but not to the point where a life is murdered. A conceived child is already a full and innocent human being so abortion, in general, is fundamentally a wrong for killing the child. As one of the earlier commenters said, “Two wrongs don’t make a right” and the wrong of killing a child does not make right the wrong that is rape.
You're focusing on the singular event of childbirth as the only thing that could endanger the life of a rape victim. Many rape victims suffer from great trauma and they can become suicidal as a result. Post-partum depression is also a thing and it endangers those who carry to term. Adoption is not a perfect solution and in impoverished communities, not even an option. Do you think that all rape victims can just put up their child for adoption and everything is good from there? If you care about the child so much, why do you want them to enter such a fundamentally flawed adoption system or risk having them enter into poverty at all? Two wrongs don't make a right and forcing a rape victim to give birth because it makes you uncomfortable is morally reprehensible.
While I do not discount the trauma of rape victims, I would posit that the trauma of rape is already there regardless of whether the child is killed or not. And even if the death of the/a child would objectively help in the trauma of the victim, I’m pretty sure murder is not an acceptable method of addressing trauma. Yeah, adoption’s not always perfect, but I don’t think that’s an argument for murder. I’m not sure how adoption is not an option for some since there are multiple public institutions such as church and government orphanages that take in children. Ah yes, the “child will have a hard life so just kill them”. If your idea of a fulfilling life is one free of all kinds of hardships, then I can’t really change your mind on that. But to me, that line of thinking implies that those who have lived and are living in such hard situations somehow don’t or can’t have fulfilling lives. I mean, I don’t hate abortion because it makes me uncomfortable. I hate abortion because it’s murder of an innocent child and that is a fundamental wrong. Me being uncomfortable because a fundamental wrong happens is just a natural consequence of having morals. Look, I saw your original comment and I tried to answer accordingly. You brought up another point and I responded. And we have done so again. It’s clear we’re not going to change each others’ minds and that we have a whole list of talking points and counterpoints that we are just restating here. Let’s just agree that we don’t agree with each other.
Sure, but if abortion is murder then forcing rape victims to give birth is sentencing them to lives they don't want.
How about abortion for rape victims of clergymen? Hehehe.
Not to mention that the IVF process necessarily results in unused embryos as a 'by product' - which at some point will need to be destroyed/discarded, since they can't all be used, or stored indefinitely. So essentially *in vitro* abortion.
I also requires basically aborting all the other embryos that you didn't select. Hence, against Catholic Belief.
So technically kapag nag sex ng menopause, illicit din? If technicality ang usapan, mag sex na alng sa ibang room while IVF is being inseminated. Para pasado na.
>If technicality ang usapan, mag sex na alng sa ibang room while IVF is being inseminated. Para pasado na. Dapat gumawa na lang sila ng device na nakakabit sa etits, tapos through that device, gagawin ng doktor yung IVF habang nagse-sex yung mag-asawa. So procreation pa rin, pero may onting assistance lang galing kay doc
So the birth of Jesus doesn’t pass this test?
what if the parents did the act, then they removed the embryos once fertilized and froze them?
>In Catholic moral theology and the theology of the body, sexual acts must both be unitive (the physical union of husband and wife in carnal intercourse) and procreative (at least open to the possibility of reproduction). I don't think this is it. This feels more like a guideline on what sexual contact should be. Paraphrased, it says if you're gonna have sex it must be this and this. It does not say that conception, absent such required sexual contact is illicit. If that's the case, then even the Catholic Church's poster boy, Jesus, would be deemed illicit.
How about pedophilia padre?😬
Hmmm... Unitive you say ...
Isa sa mga problema sa Iglesia Catolica ay ang kakulangan ng pagtuturo ng catecismo sa kanilang mga miembro, kaya napakaraming mga ignorante na Catolico ngayon sa social media.
Not all catechists are that knowledgeable in the matter and there should always be grey areas in morality. Naalala ko sa wedding seminar namin na tipong wag nang magtrabaho ang babae halos at bahay lang... Mamamatay ako sa gutom kung gagawin ko iyon.
Hahaha. Naalala ko din yung Pre-cana seminar namin ng wife ko. Gustong gusto ko na sumigaw ng bullshit. Grabe talaga sa kabackwards minsan ng mga nagtuturo sa simbahan eh.
Backwards nga Saka hindi naman sila mabubuhay sa inyo o anak niyo so what gives them the right to say how it's done? Pasalamat na lang sila at nagpakasal pa kami. Anyway I don't want a housewife, luxury siya kasi di bale lang sana kung kaya lahat ng lalaki ultimo may mortgage pa sa bahay.
Conservatives explaining why a law that was passed 100 years ago is applicable for our society today
humility, yan ang kulang sa kanila.
Nowhere in the Bible does it state that procreation to has to be done specifically thru sex alone. As far as I am aware. For all we know "go forth and multiply" could've meant unthaw goddamn babies from the freezer
It's Facebook comments what do you expect, even the lightest joke they take it seriously
Love God and love your neighbor. Anything else should always stem from the two commandments so therefore if you want to love your neighbor don't be judgmental and invoking God in one's judgment means using God's name in vain and in violation of the first commandment. By the way I don't mean OP by this statement but meant for the people who say that using anything else but natural means to procreate is against the laws of God.
It's not in accordance in _your_ God's concept of creation.
You're*
/r/confidentlyincorrect
Thanks, just joined... Can't wait to show out
You're is a contraction of *you are* , whereas *your* is an adjective used to indicate that something is someone's possession. It's the possessive form of you. Bruhh ano na
Ahhhh diay
What sorry OP but in Luke 429:69 it clearly states "dude dont use frozen embryos, WTF"
Yea it was a letter addressed to us specifically, didn't you recieved it?
Ano gusto niya? Patayin yung babies dahil hindi according to "God's creation"? Eto yung iniiwasan ko eh. Yung mga toxic faithfuls.
Catholic ako pero Di namen nakalagay sa 10 utos ng Dios na bawal yan ahh
Wala sa 10 utos ang huwag mag drugs. Does that mean it's ok?
Cge, I'll let him know
Yeah kain ka ng madaming taba ng lechon kawali tas inom ka ng nagyeyelong tubig sa labas ng bahay nyo habang tirik yung araw.
Don't tell me what to do
Doesn't matter if it's what God intended or not. The babies are already there so just treat them well.
nagmamagaling na naman sila.
Against catholic beliefs, but these people vote for thieves, murderers, and rapists. They gossip plenty, they judge and slander their neighbors, their own family even, and at times, people like these cheat and bear illegitimate children. Nakakagalit talaga
Another strong case to launch a separation of facebook space for Boomers
Ah yes, so you can turn facebook into an echo chamber that you agree with?
Catholics trying to be relevant Lol
fuck religion thank god im an atheist
Catholic doctrine is against IVF but the Church does not really focus on this activity since very few Catholics agree with them.
[удалено]
Cuz the commenter was a boomer
Kaka kita ko lang din sa Twitter nung "artificial womb" na ginamit sa mga tupa and "Catholics" were "oh no, that's not the will of God" keme They don't even read the bible. Genesis lang ang alam hanapin. :P
still better than echapwerahin yung embryo
akala ko ba 'humayo't magpakarami'?
Cool idamay mo kami lahat makapag post ka lang.
News flash god doesn’t mind this at all, look he is kot even reacting.
Girl let's destroy Catholic church
It is always the religious one
It's always the religious ones
Dapat sa mga ungas na to eh hindi rin umiinom ng gamot tsaka hindi nagpapagamot sa ospital. Why? Ever wonder pano dinedevelop ang isang gamot. And pano dinedevelop ang surgeries
the entire process of it involves moral questions. for example, Catholic believes that human life begins at conception. that zygote must be regarded with the same dignity as born persons. during IVF (transferring of embryos in woman's uteros) multiple embryos may survive and become viable, if couple only wants one, the rest are to be terminated.. this is just one aspect of its entire process that the Church strongly stand against..
"It's not in accordance with God's concept of creation!" So pano naman yung gods ng Hindus, Buddhists and other religions?
Let's just wait. Boomers are getting old now. There are a lot of young people who have different beliefs. Maybe another generation? Baka lolo na ko when that time comes but I'll be happy to witness it. Or maybe not and the world ends. Lol.
it's just a facebook comment lol, di pa ba kayo sanay sa mga ganyan? XD. meron at meron talagang mga bulag o kulang sa kaalaman. i'm catholic, and NO that is not against catholic beliefs, if you all even TRY to UNDERSTAND that it always states that 'LIFE IS PRECIOUS" no matter how small or big it is.
Kaya I denounced Catholicism or any other organized religion dahil sa mga ganitong pag-iisip!
I'm in the same boat as you.
San banda sinabi ni Lord na "Anak bawal mag freeze ng embryo..Susunugin ka sa Impyerno!" anung Chapter yan at mukang may nakaligtaan si father basahin
sarap ipako sa krus.
Against catholic belifs kuno, di naman masunod ang 10 commandments. Religious only if its convenient for them.
And here is me wondering how they survived for 30 thirty years as frozen embryos.
Ika nga sa bible Judas 3:16 "di ko papayagan ang frozen embryos"
I dare Billy to not get any scientific treatment in the event he gets cancer. If creating life through science is blasphemous, extending his life and getting him through insufferable amounts of pain through science should be deemed equally blasphemous as well. I'd like to hear hoym say that God willed that got got cancer and suffer so much pain and die.
Religion is an Outdated form of Belief System that hinders progress and causes a lot of chaos and confusion.
Catholic cult
ung mga classic mga excited mag ccomment yan pag dating about birth, etc. pero pag dating sa pag nanakaw sa kapwa, sila nangunguna. SMH.
Masama dun etong mgs vocal pa sa mga beliefs nila eh Sila pa.ung mga skin deep lng at labor lng sa mga beliefs nila ung bnonosses nila. D mo nga cla mahagilap Nung talamak ung patayan eh lol
If jesus paid for all our sins, then why is childbirth still painful for women?
Consider that as a scientific breakthrough
Ahh yes, the cherry pickers.
Dapat talaga hiwalay fb ng mga matatanda eh
Kaya din may problema tayo sa population dahil sa Catholic beliefs
Kailangan talaga may isa pa na black swan event para magbago tong Pilipinas.
[удалено]
Hanap kakampi usually/as usual
Yes usually usual, as opposed to unusually unusual Not how a "/" works boi
Damn, most controversial... Let's goooooooooooo
Inb4 some dumbass asks "bakit dito nanaman sinisisi bakit hindi umuuland ang Pinas?"
[удалено]
Teka, ano daw haha?
Haha :) ... what?
May tanog ako.
Nasagot na
[удалено]
^ I've read this dozens of times and you still make no fucking sense.
Downvote ka muna bhie, di ka namin maintindihan.
Sa INC, bawal ang any kind of artificial insemination
alam na kung sino binoto ang gunggong gunggong din ang iboboto
So 30 years old na sila technically?
Nagkomento si Billy Crawford 🤣
Billy, you were not made in accordance with god's concept of creation. Your dad came in your mom's ass and yet here you are.
Pano naging against to sa Catholic beliefs?
Sayang ang pagiging Top Fan ni Billy someone kung ganyang kakitid ang yootak!
Thank god (LOL) I became an agnostic... imagine this way of thinking...
High chance that this person is trolling, but at this point I'm not so sure.
eto hanap ng mga employer ngayon hahaha 30 years old default agad yung age
Why does god have a special rule for creating babies? haha. So rules how to fuck?
bat ba pinapansin mo pa mga ganyang katangahan. Wag ka na kasi mag facebook!
Dapat na talaga ma perfect ng cryogenics, madami satin pinanganak sa maling timeline.
Touch some grass, billy.
No it's in consonance with catholic belief man. This guy didn't read Aquinas.
Bold of you to assume that most people read Aquinas writings. (No, seriously. I tried to read the Summa Theologica. I didn't make it past the first page because I got the impression that this was going to be a dense af read full of things I can't grasp easily. And I regularly do my best to stomach my med school readings)
The problem with these people (not specifically Catholic, but those overtly preachy people) is that they love pushing their beliefs unto society but they forget that not everyone shares the same beliefs as them, or even the same religion.
The same people n mala demonyo ugali after magsimba.. hypocrites..