What disease does abortion cure?

Is the baby resulting from rape or incest still a baby? Is it only a baby in some pregnancies and not others? All life deserves a chance. The world's brightest light has shone from the darkest places.

Redcloak,

Thanks for your post.

Do you think non-Catholic hospitals should be able to perform abortions in cases of rape and incest?

In an ectopic pregnancy, the doctor removes the tube and the death of the baby is secondary. This is not an abortion as the death is a result and not the intent of the surgery. This is line with Catholic teaching. So, jb1151, you are free and welcome to go to a Catholic hospital.

In ectopic preganancies, doctors remove the tube. The death of the baby is secondary to the operation and not the intent of the operation. This is permissible under Catholic teaching. Therefore, jb1151 you are fee and welcome to go to a Catholic hspital.

DollyAngel

Iam interested in your opinion about the following?

Do you think non-Catholic hospitals should be allowed to provide abortions when there is a serious threat (over 50%) to the life of the mother?

What about in cases of rape and incest?

Thank you

dollyangel,

"I've found that when people are willing to let go and 'let God,' and put all personal biases aside, that's when God speaks the 'loudest' to them."

How, exactly, did you find that?

"Not to point specific fingers at anyone, but repeatedly on this forum, there are those who want to tear down and discredit anyone with faith, likely because they, themselves, wonder why they have no faith."

You're apparently not pointing any of your specific fingers at me, because I do not wonder why I do not have faith, I know why I do not have faith; I do wonder why other people have faith.

"The trouble is, they then close all doors, yet somehow expect faith will find THEM, when it is THEY who should be asking for faith!"

You seem to know a lot about what other people think.

Is that a gift from your god?

"Perhaps faith is more about opening your hands and just letting go instead of fighting and tearing down others' beliefs."

Perhaps; I have no idea.

"These people just might be extremely surprised to learn that wow--God is there, after all!"

I know I would be; I would be equally surprised to learn that my parents were unicorns.

"Belief in God, I feel, is praying to Him, telling Him, Lord, I may not have all the answers, but I do have an open heart, so please fill me with what I need."

Perhaps that explains why so many people do not believe in your god or any other gods.

I've found that when people are willing to let go and 'let God,' and put all personal biases aside, that's when God speaks the 'loudest' to them.
Not to point specific fingers at anyone, but repeatedly on this forum, there are those who want to tear down and discredit anyone with faith, likely because they, themselves, wonder why they have no faith. The trouble is, they then close all doors, yet somehow expect faith will find THEM, when it is THEY who should be asking for faith!

Perhaps faith is more about opening your hands and just letting go instead of fighting and tearing down others' beliefs. These people just might be extremely surprised to learn that wow--God is there, after all! Belief in God, I feel, is praying to Him, telling Him, Lord, I may not have all the answers, but I do have an open heart, so please fill me with what I need.

How can anyone justify murder?
Abortion = Killing = Murder

dollyangel,

"I recall an old saying that goes something like "I believe in God even when He is silent.""

I've never heard that one; just when I think that I've heard them all...

"The examples you show in which you seem to believe God is basically 'doing nothing' are all too common."

You might try rereading a little more carefully in the future.

I don't believe in your god, or any other gods.

I was just asking questions in the hope that you god-believers would re-examine your beliefs a little more critically.

"I've come to realize over the years that it is precisely at those times when all 'seems' quiet that we need to be the most alert and not be misled."

Sounds draconian.

"Look at all the changes going on in nature, including millions of fish, birds, and animals dying 'for reasons unknown.'"

Are you aware that that has probably been going on for billions of years?

Hint: dinosaurs, wooly mammoth, saber-tooth tigers.

"Look at the world's current unrest."

This, too, has probably been going on for as long as there have been humans on earth.

It did not start with Roe v. Wade, or with Obama's election.

"Look at the wacky weather all over the world."

Did you know that at one time, the glaciers extended to below the Great Lakes?

Did you know that at one time, the sea level was so low that humans could walk between what are now islands and continents?

That was way before Roe v. Wade, or Obama's election.

"Look at how abortion groups are suddenly being exposed for who they really are..."

All of them?

"Look at former abortion clinic worker Abby Johnson't incredible conversion and educating the public through her book "Unplanned.""

Isn't freedom to choose a wonderful thing?

"Look at the Anglicans and Protestants currently coming into the Catholic Church."

Is that a good thing, or a bad thing?

"Look at the number of vocations to the priesthood and religious life increasing."

Isn't freedom of choice a wonderful thing?

"Look at the huge unrest in Washington, the taxz evaders and back room politics and the debt we obviously will not be able to pay..."

Again, nothing that has not been going on for over 230 years; way before Roe v. Wade, or Obama's election.

"The point is we are hanging by a thread."

Really?

I don't see it.

"I, for one, would never ever say God is 'doing nothing' when it's more than obvious He's using nature, conversions, the pro-life movement, etc. etc. to get our attention."

That is unbelievable; but you are free to believe it.

"We can pretend it's not happening and bury our heads in the sand and ask "where's the problem?" but those who have been paying attention to the current signs of the times know God is VERY hard at 'work.'"

You are free to believe that; I am free not to.

"Are we listening, or will He let us hit rock bottom before we catch on and follow Him?"

You tell me.

More...

More:

"I fear it will be the latter, but I pray that doesn't happen."

We've come full circle; if you are praying to your god that it doesn't happen, isn't that supposed to guarantee that it won't happen?

"If it does, I believe people will either convert shortly or be absolutely shocked into silence."

If it does, doesn't that mean that your god does not answer prays, or, perhaps, doesn't even exist?

"We can't know God's mind, but we CAN learn lessons from history--especially from those nations which have rejected God and His followers, and the stories re this are NOT pretty."

What stories?

"The question is: will we be as foolish as they were and reject Him and his counsel??"

What do you think?

"Time will tell!"

Perhaps.

PSOLUS: I recall an old saying that goes something like "I believe in God even when He is silent."

The examples you show in which you seem to believe God is basically 'doing nothing' are all too common. I've come to realize over the years that it is precisely at those times when all 'seems' quiet that we need to be the most alert and not be misled.

Look at all the changes going on in nature, including millions of fish, birds, and animals dying 'for reasons unknown.' Look at the world's current unrest. Look at the wacky weather all over the world. Look at how abortion groups are suddenly being exposed for who they really are (see Live Action's website, as well as the 'house of horrors' abortion clinic, which, BTW, many experts say is NOT an isolated example of the deceit involved in abortion). Look at former abortion clinic worker Abby Johnson't incredible conversion and educating the public through her book "Unplanned." Look at the Anglicans and Protestants currently coming into the Catholic Church. Look at the number of vocations to the priesthood and religious life increasing. Look at the huge unrest in Washington, the taxz evaders and back room politics and the debt we obviously will not be able to pay...shall I go on??

The point is we are hanging by a thread. I, for one, would never ever say God is 'doing nothing' when it's more than obvious He's using nature, conversions, the pro-life movement, etc. etc. to get our attention. We can pretend it's not happening and bury our heads in the sand and ask "where's the problem?" but those who have been paying attention to the current signs of the times know God is VERY hard at 'work.' Are we listening, or will He let us hit rock bottom before we catch on and follow Him? I fear it will be the latter, but I pray that doesn't happen. If it does, I believe people will either convert shortly or be absolutely shocked into silence. We can't know God's mind, but we CAN learn lessons from history--especially from those nations which have rejected God and His followers, and the stories re this are NOT pretty. The question is: will we be as foolish as they were and reject Him and his counsel?? Time will tell!

dollyangel,

"Could it be God is waiting for some specific individual(s) to 'catch on' to this deceit, as well, and for that/those individuals to pray and work to educate others about abortion and its horrific consequences?"

How long do you think that he is willing to wait?

Why do you think that he isn't being more proactive?

Do you think, perhaps, that maybe he just doesn't care?

"Perhaps the person who had been selected to lead our great nation out of this horrific blight (abortion) has him/herself been aborted."

Perhaps your god in not as omnipotent as many people claim he is.

"Could it be that the Lord will allow us to suffer through rough times ahead (who knows what? starvation? deadly disease? or allow us to be overcome by some outside enemy because people are not listening to Him??"

Perhaps your god is passive/aggressive.

"He's God. He neither stands 'impotently by' nor 'ignores prayer.'"

Then, what exactly is he doing?

"He does hear prayers from the heart which are sincere and positive from the person praying."

Are you saying that patti8 may not be sincere enough in his/her prayers?

"He also asks us to follow Him, obviously meaning taking on the work He, Himself, would do to stop abortion: show love and compassion and educate others about abortion's tragedy."

Perhaps your god is just lazy.

PSOLUS: In response to your question about 'why is God standing impotently by and ignoring prayer?' regarding ending abortion, here's my response:

1) Clearly, more and more people are catching on to the deceit behind abortion, seeing this huge holocaust for what is truly is: dead babies, and their mothers damaged for life by the monetary and psychological exploitation they have experienced by abortion. Could it be God is waiting for some specific individual(s) to 'catch on' to this deceit, as well, and for that/those individuals to pray and work to educate others about abortion and its horrific consequences?

2) Perhaps the person who had been selected to lead our great nation out of this horrific blight (abortion) has him/herself been aborted. Perhaps that's also why no cure for cancer has yet been found.

3) Could it be that the Lord will allow us to suffer through rough times ahead (who knows what? starvation? deadly disease? or allow us to be overcome by some outside enemy because people are not listening to Him??
He's God. He neither stands 'impotently by' nor 'ignores prayer.' He does hear prayers from the heart which are sincere and positive from the person praying. He also asks us to follow Him, obviously meaning taking on the work He, Himself, would do to stop abortion: show love and compassion and educate others about abortion's tragedy.

patti8,

"I pray for the end of abortion everyday."

Why, do you think, is your god standing impotently by, and ignoring your prayers?

Gseeker:
You said
"I definitely think that America's greatness and freedom comes from the free exercise of religion and the protection of conscience."

Here, here! I totally agree.

How much do you think this extends to religions that diverge from Catholicism? For example, a religion that prohibits blood transfusions to children? Or, to a religion that allows abortions in the first trimester?

I am curious about how you see this.

I definitely think that America's greatness and freedom comes from the free exercise of religion and the protection of conscience. Without we would just quickly become another totalitarian regime. As long as these freedoms remain, America will remain a free country and a beacon for goodness in the world.

Fugman,

I wonder what you think about the following question.

@apoorsinner & Melissa,

I would like your take on the following:

Do you think non-Catholic hospitals should be allowed to provide abortions when there is a serious threat (over 50%) to the life of the mother?

What about in cases of rape and incest?

I am conflicted on these issues and would like to hear what people think.

Thanks,

I believe that Catholics need to listen to the Pope and try to follow what he teaches. It is not always easy but we can try. That is a starting point.

In this case abortion cured acute pulmonary hypertension.

Next question.

I just want to quickly comment on some of the comments that were against catholic clergy, in particular some of our bishops.

Catholic Canon Law, 1398 states that: “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.”

“Latae sententiae” means that a judgment or sentence is widely applied. It refers to an automatic excommunication. This particular excommunication is incurred “by the very commission of the offense,” (CCC 2272) and does not require the future particular judgment of a case by an authority, such as a Bishop.

Thus when for example Bishop Olmsted said that people involved with direct abortion were excommunicated, he just stated the facts. Excommunication had already occurred by committing the abortion.

Thank you Fr. Frank for your love and your commitment to everyone who has been hurt by the violence of abortion. So many children have died and so many mother's have been terribly wounded. I pray for the end of abortion everyday. I am so grateful to God for you and all people who stand up for those who can't speak for themselves and to help their mother's who have been so badly hurt. God Bless you.

Thank you Fr. Pavone.

~Dr. Garcia

@apoorsinner & Melissa,

I would like your take on the following:

Do you think non-Catholic hospitals should be allowed to provide abortions when there is a serious threat (over 50%) to the life of the mother?

What about in cases of rape and incest?

Thank you for expressing your views.

As you have asked ,me,Father Frank Pavone to comment on your statement's answer to the Question 'What disease does Abortion cure?' Here is my response:Destructivity is the very opposite of Creation:Yes. What is,from all the comments posted which I have read,,missing,is that, abortion represents the sanity of exclusion and throughout most of the World when push comes to shove the power card of destructivity,exclusion, is brought to bare;Everywhere there is this ongoing dance of 'elegant violence',even the 'Grade point Average'in the 'Education landscape' and really who has a choice when that 'twister of Elegant Violence' is everywhere,,x you win and x you lose,,your score is greater you win and you with your score you loose...We have known,sort of,that the Earth is Globe like and in orbit about the Sun,a body,that is also Globe like,for hundreds of years,,we found through study Atomic structure that also has structure that can be referred to as Globe like,,two structures that show indeed there are opposites however they are only polar points while the rest of the tangents,surface, give representation to the more truthful remembrance,,When I stated 'We have known,sort of,...'it is because when the 'Whole World' really understands the 'Art from God' the World represents,the 'sanity' can never again choose exclusion and destructivity...The Art from God the World represents was outdone by the Art from God that Jesus Christ represents;Creation as a Sanity is the Mathematics of Peace

I would like to respond to all of you who believe that the Catholic Church and pro-life movement does not care about the life's of women and their health. It is the abortion industry that does not care about the lives of women. You all need to look into the legal chop shop abortion clinics in this country. Many women have died or been serious injured in this country. The pro-life movement and the Catholic Church have been speaking out about the unsanitary and disgusting conditions in these clinics. The Catholic Church and the pro-life movement view them as human beings whereas the abortionists view them as dollar signs. Before you start spouting off about how Father Pavone does not care about women get the facts on the horrible things that happen to women during abortions. I heard him on the radio last week talking about the awful conditions are in these clinics and how women need to be protected from being murdered or serious injured during abortions. Father Pavone cares very deeply about women and the unborn. The abortion clinic in Philadelphia ran by Kermit Gosnell is one prime example of the horror of abortion. If any of you have not read the story, I recommend looking up the story on the Gosnell clinic. Father Pavone is standing up to stop the butchering of women and babies. He is doing what any honorable man should do, protecting women and children. If we are going to allow women and babies to butchered in the abortion clinics of America, who is next on the chopping block. The Catholic Church has compassionately been helping men and women recover from the negative effects of abortion. The Church has been doing this with out judging the victims of abortion. The Silent No More Campaign is a great example of how the Church is helping these men and women. God Bless You All. I pray that one day all of you who support abortion will come to see the truth about it.

"Freetothink" writes, "Abortion is mainly used to treat accidents."

This is exactly what the Catholic Church's position is against. The baby is not an "accident," and should never be considered so. That baby is a human being, unique, and looks the same as we did at the same prenatal age. It's not the baby's fault that his or her parents were not expecting him or her. Murder is never right to "treat" that problem.

Freetothink also says that more birth control would lessen the numbers of abortions. But the Catholic Church's position is that birth control CAUSES abortion, by creating the conditions in which people foolishly think that they can have sex without a baby, so when a baby does come, it's thought of as an accident instead of a baby: precisely the error 'Freetothink' makes.

Thank you.

As a health care professional there is one thing that astounds me in regard to abortion. It is an invasive procedure that has many potential physical as well as psychological consequences and yet there doesn't seem to be any clear indication that the women who are subject to the procedure are given a definitive explanation of what they may experience. In any ambulatory surgical facility the patients "meet" their doctors and discuss what will be happening.
They're afforded an opportunity to ask questions. The whole process is alien to proper medical and nursing CARE. The key word being care.

Thank you for shining a light in our culture of death: it starts in the womb.

Mother Teresa said it best:

"If a mother can kill her own child - what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me - there is nothing between."

"The greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion, which is war against the child."

To JB1151, What makes you say or think that the medical personnel at catholic hospitals are "non-medical" as you say? I find your comment interesting since so many abortion facilities have unlicensed non-medical personnel performing abortions. Furthermore, the ectopic pregnancies that you mention are non-existent. If you had any idea of how many people are walking this Earth today who, according to the attending physician, should have never survived the pregnancy, you would think otherwise. No one should take the doctors word for granted as the gospel truth. Doctors dont know everything, if God wants the baby and Mom to live through the pregnancy they will! Its just that simple.

Ever since there has been medical science (or science in general) and religion, the 2 have clashed. As a mother who has chosen life and as a mother who has had an abortion, I have thought long and hard and prayed even longer and even harder on the topic of abortion and it's role in my life. However, this topic has to do with the medical "necessity" of abortion to save the life of a mother. Here's what I have to say as a woman who has seen the miracles of God time and time again: Doctors never have and never will, know more than God. Medicine is a science of facts and statistics. Every single doctor has a story of something occurring that was against the rules of science, medicine, and nature. It is only in times when faith is being tested, such as a doctor telling a woman she will die unless they abort the child or something of a similar nature, that true faith in God or lack there of, surfaces in the individual. I personally know several women who were told to stop trying to conceive because it was impossible, who now have a perfectly healthy baby. I know women who were told to allow an abortion to save their life. They said they would rather die with their baby than abort. And they now also have perfectly healthy children. Some things are unseen and unknown, and that terrifies people. There is no rhyme or reason to why perfectly healthy women with healthy pregnancies die in child birth or deliver a still born. There is no explanation for why a woman who is told she will die unless she aborts delivers a healthy baby. Some things are just supposed to be left up to faith. If you are a Christian and choose to listen to a doctor over the word of the Lord, you are talking the talk, but you are not willing to walk the walk. Jesus died for us, and we should also always be willing to die doing the right thing.

Here is a link from Wiki about the story of Fatima

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_F%C3%A1tima

TTW (or anyone who wants to weigh in): I would be interested in your response to my earlier question:

Actually, I was not asking about this case. My full question was about when the pregnancy will likely cause death or serious injury to the mother:

Do the devout Catholics here think non-Catholics should have a choice to abort in the above situation in a non-Catholic hospital?

I would be interested in your (or others) response.

Thank you

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
TFRSYPM
POSTED JANUARY 29, 2011 10:39 PM
“CONSCIENCE”

IRT:
A conscience is another result of the journey we have taken on our evolutionary path. Our conscience is part of what helps us live cooperatively in small groups where we know each other.

ANS:
Conscience does help us live cooperatively, and is evolutionary in a sense as it is built upon by experience and knowledge that is truth. Since man is by nature a social being, it becomes essential that he be in harmony with society.

Being a practical thing, conscience depends in large measure for its correctness upon the proper care taken to heed its deliverances and cultivate its powers. Even where due diligence is employed, conscience will err sometimes, but its inculpable mistakes will be admitted by God to be not blameworthy.

Synderesis is supernatural knowledge; it informs man of good and evil, viz. morality. It is the Spirit Who groans in man (Romans 8:26), the Spirit who alone knows what is in man (1 Corinthians 2:11). It is the Spirit of 1 Thessalonians 5:23, “And may the God of peace himself sanctify you in all things: that your whole spirit and soul and body may be preserved blameless in the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Synderesis is innate knowledge of the basic principles of morality. It is something native, essential, indestructible in the soul, yet liable to be obscured and baffled. It resides both in the intelligence and in the will. It is identified with conscience, not indeed on its lower side.

Synderesis is deliberative and makes concrete applications on its higher side; it is wholly general in principle, intuitive, in the intellect, and has a native inclination to good in the will.

All powers, if they are not exercised become enervated; similar to a muscle that is never used becomes physically emasculated. Consequently, conscience needs food to keep it vibrant and alive or it dies, viz. it needs knowledge, or truth to mature.

The knowledge of God and for the knowledge of moral duty requires some assistance from God to make it sufficiently extensive, clear, constant, effective, and relatively adequate; and especially to put it within reach of those who are much engrossed with the cares of material life.

It would be absurd to suppose that in the order of nature God could be debarred from any revelation of Him, and would leave Himself to be searched for quite irresponsively. Consequently, God is knowable innately in man by virtue of man's conscience.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
TFRSYPM
POSTED JANUARY 29, 2011 10:39 PM
PROOFS:

IRT:
"I don’t know about this one either. I do know that sometimes when people are expected to see something, especially something as important to them as an apparition of the blessed virgin, they see it! Who wants to be the one to say, “I didn’t?” Doesn’t that discredit your faith, or prove you don’t have enough?"

ANS:
St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, “For those who have faith, no proof is necessary; for those without faith, no proof is possible.” Hence, the recalcitrant and the implacable will inevitably try to discredit the irrefutable, by using the incredible that is more unbelievable than the miracle itself.

The critics of Fatima were not at Fatima but found impracticable and unsubstantiated nonsense to explain what they would not otherwise believe themselves. Namely, no matter what kind of miracle occurred, the ones without faith will not believe even if the truth were a 2x4 and hit them between the eyes.

The problem with your skepticism is twofold. One, when has it ever occurred in history that 70,000 people experienced anything like this miracle? No one but the three children saw the Blessed Virgin. What the crowd saw was the Sun spinning out of control on a course that threatened to crash to the earth.

Moreover, critics, who were not at the site, tried to discredit it, but they never admitted to its possibility. Before, the site was drenched from torrent rains. Everyone was soaked to the bone.

After the miracle, everyone there was dry, as if the torrential rains had never fallen. You cannot have 70,000 people becoming so mesmerized that the ground around them dried up or even believed it rained when it didn't. Further, what had occurred was unexpected. The people were traumatized; they were screaming because they thought the world was ending.

The second flaw is in the argument that people wanted to believe and therefore saw what was not there. The atheists came to debunk the miracle as a fraud, but they saw it too, as did people not there.

According to contemporary reports from poet Afonso Lopes Vieira and schoolteacher, Delfina Lopes, with her students and other witnesses in the town of Alburita, saw it. That tends to debunk the mesmerizing and anticipation theories. The solar phenomena were visible from up to forty kilometers away.

“Skeptic columnist Avelino de Almeida of O Século (Portugal's most influential newspaper, pro-government in policy and avowedly anti-clerical), reported the following.”Before the astonished eyes of the crowd, whose aspect was biblical, as they stood bareheaded, eagerly searching the sky, the sun trembled, made sudden incredible movements outside all cosmic laws. The sun 'danced' according to the typical expression of the people.

In addition to the Miracle of the Sun, the seers at Fatima indicated that the Lady prophesied a great sign in the night sky which would precede a second great war—Wikipedia. Both occurred as prophesized.

“While at it, explain how 70,000 people were mass hypnotized by three little children who could not read or write and made them see the Miracle of the Sun. That crowd had atheists and agnostic media there to discredit the apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary.”
I don’t know about this one either. I do know that sometimes when people are expected to see something, especially something as important to them as an apparition of the blessed virgin, they see it! Who wants to be the one to say, “I didn’t?” Doesn’t that discredit your faith, or prove you don’t have enough?
“Then you might give us the rational why you have a conscience, (if you have one or haven’t yet killed it off) that delineates between right and wrong. Moreover, how do you explain Justice, if there is no reparation for injustice.”
A conscience is another result of the journey we have taken on our evolutionary path. Our conscience is part of what helps us live cooperatively in small groups where we know each other. BTW the ideal group size is about 150, the number of people who would be in a family group of 4 generations (great-grandparents, grand-parents, parents, & children) Justice, the same thing. If a group of apes like us don’t have a social structure the group breaks down and we lose our evolutionary advantage – predators can more easily pick us off if we are alone! Also, thanks for the dig about my lack of a conscience – again, stay classy.

“You might also explain Scripture. While at it, explain how Jesus’ life was written over 300 years before he was born and Jesus fulfilled its prophecies to the letter. Not just Jews and Catholics recorded these events, there are many sources of anti-Christian and Gentiles who have written about these occurrences.”
Please post a link for these anti-Christian and Gentile sources. There is an oft-quoted few lines from Josephus that are often quoted regarding Jesus, but those lines have been shown to be a probable forgery. I don’t think it would be difficult for an educated jew (maybe Jesus) to live up to lines that had been written prior to their birth. Also, if you read Bart Ehrman’s book “Misquoting Jesus”, you will find that the text of the New Testament was altered over time, so I’m not sure how accurate the depiction of Jesus’s life could be at this point.

@TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1
“Try by explaining the Order of the Universe.”
Lucky break for us. The universe works for us because we fit in it, not that it was made so we would fit. There could well be another universe that is entirely different where we would not belong - where effect comes before cause for example. Scientists are getting closer to an explanation every day, provided we continue to provide funding for them.

“Tell us how the intellect was created out of matter unless you deny you have an intellect as Secularists unwittingly do by being unable to explain it.”
By intellect, I am guessing you are meaning human intelligence. Again, lucky for us. We are the product of thousands of years of evolutionary adaptation. Our big brains provide us an advantage. It won’t be long though (in evolutionary terms) before our turn is up, just like the dinosaurs, and someone else will be at the top of the pyramid. Also, thanks for the dig at Secularists - you stay classy now!
“Next explain how all the Muslims, and Christians, over 3 billion people have been hoodwinked that there is a God and you are in about ten percent of the world who is brighter than the 90 percent of the world that doesn’t believes in a God.”
Daniel Dennett postulates in “Breaking the Spell” that god is the result of our big brains attributing intention to inanimate objects or forces like the wind. Our ancient ancestors noticed that if they did a dance, it rained one time. They continued to do the dance, maybe at a particular time of year, and rain fell again. If it didn’t rain after the dance, our ancestors danced faster, or killed the “witch” in their midst that was keeping the rain away! It’s a short step from there to god(s).

“Next, please explain how miracles have occurred and are still occurring.”
Name one that is documented. Please provide a link to an unbiased source.

“Explain how a panel of some 500 doctors at Lourdes, of all faiths and no faith found that miracle cures have occurred. Namely there was no other explanation but the intercession of God that can explain the cures these doctors were witness to.”
I’m sorry, I don’t know that much about this, but if the miracles are so abundant, why don’t we bottle the water and use it in hospitals instead of medicine?

Continued in next comment

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
RONGOKLUNK
POSTED: JANUARY 28, 2011 9:56 PM
“JUST MYTHS?”

IRT:
"It's just one old myth among many. History can show a thousand Gods - inventing them was what our ancestors did all the time - everywhere."

ANS:
That’s true, there were many false gods, pagan gods, fertility gods, animal gods, temple prostitutes who honored the Pagan gods. However no one has seen them. The Greek gods, because they were delusions were meant to replace the real God whom the Jews saw and engaged with. Both, Jews and Gentile saw and wrote about what they saw and many of the Jews enemies experienced the wrath of God.

Consequently, a Pharaoh didn’t believe Moses when he was told there was a God. Consequently the Pharaoh lost his entire army trying to destroy a defenseless number of Jews with no weapons. Ever wonder how that happened?

The Sodom and Gomorrah gangs didn’t think God existed and the brimstone that leveled their cities, with them in it, still lies in the desert where there used to be their cities. A number of people like you didn’t believe Noah and they all were unfortunately drowned. I imagine they shouldn't have grown up.

Have you seen any historical proof as to these pseudo gods doing miracles? What battles did Zeus and Hercules win?. They weren't God; they were imagined super humans. Are there any proofs the Pagan Temple Prostitutes were having affairs with the Pagan gods? Had anyone had the Sun God speak to them unless they were smoking pot? All the Jews saw their God; the Jews were His protégé and he delivered for them.

Moses talked to God, Paul talked to God publicly. The Egyptian Pharaoh saw his army destroyed by a God he didn’t believe in.

Moses only had a Sheppard’s crook. Was that enough to free 2,000,000 Jews? Scientist can show that the Great Flood did occur even in N. America but they never caused it, God did. So would you please demythologize these people who didn't grow up like Albert Einstein, Thomas Jefferson, and Washington, and still believed in myths.

IRT:
“But now we're all grown up and can put away childish fantasies. All the miracles of this wonderful world we now inhabit are due to science. Everything, Even the way we communicate.”

ANS:
Was Aristotle childish? Were the 70,000 who witnessed the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima all children. I believe they included a few Secularist media who went to see the miracle and debunk it but got debunked themselves . An Atheist government also got debunked.

Since you’re all grown up tell us how to debunk Aquinas’s five proofs of God’s existence from Reason and Aristotle’s Prime Mover. Ten to one you’re just babbling and can’t debunk any of them being a fraud. The real fraud is you, actually you haven’t grown up; you’ve just grown into a troglodyte.

As to science, scientists didn't make the natural laws God did, scientists only discover them.

What disease does abortion cure, Frank? Some posters have suggested a few, but mostly abortion is used to correct accidents. Perhaps if the Catholic Church would advocate effective birth control, there would be fewer accident and fewer abortions.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
RONGOKLUNK
POSTED: JANUARY 28, 2011 9:56 PM
“NO REAL GOD?”

IRT:
“In any case your point in no way suggests that there really is a God. We know better now.

ANS:
FIVE PROOFS OF GOD FROM REASON:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm

ARISTOTLE’S PRIME MOVER:
http://www.scandalon.co.uk/philosophy/aristotle_prime_mover.htm

Who is “we?” And if you know better please tell us how. Try by explaining the Order of the Universe. Tell us how the intellect was created out of matter unless you deny you have an intellect as Secularists unwittingly do by being unable to explain it. Next explain how all the Muslims, and Christians, over 3 billion people have been hoodwinked that there is a God and you are in about ten percent of the world who is brighter than the 90 percent of the world that doesn’t believes in a God.

Next, please explain how miracles have occurred and are still occurring. Explain how a panel of some 500 doctors at Lourdes, of all faiths and no faith found that miracle cures have occurred. Namely there was no other explanation but the intercession of God that can explain the cures these doctors were witness to.

While at it, explain how 70,000 people were mass hypnotized by three little children who could not read or write and made them see the Miracle of the Sun. That crowd had atheists and agnostic media there to discredit the apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Then you might give us the rational why you have a conscience, (if you have one or haven’t yet killed it off) that delineates between right and wrong. Moreover, how do you explain Justice, if there is no reparation for injustice.

You might also explain Scripture. While at it, explain how Jesus’ life was written over 300 years before he was born and Jesus fulfilled its prophecies to the letter. Not just Jews and Catholics recorded these events, there are many sources of anti-Christian and Gentiles who have written about these occurrences.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
WATCHMAKER
POSTED JANUARY 28, 2011 6:37 PM
“EQUALITY”

IRT:
“Is there some _real_ reason that the phrase "an innocent life" _NEVER_ applies to the mother in Catholic thinking? Is a fetus the only kind of "innocent" life known to Catholics? Is the mother always _GUILTY_ and therefore disposable?”

ANS:
First, Catholics believe all men are created equal even though the Court ruled otherwise. If that is repugnant, than resign yourself to live in the Secularist's world. Laws that defy the Natural and Moral Law (N&ML) are not morally licit. No one has the moral authority to defy the Natural Law; therefore no one is disposable, and that includes the unborn that are also human as well as the mother.

In the world of terrorist, dictators, and tyrants, all men are not created equal by nature. That is the view of Communist nations who use the masses as fodder to create the perfect state through the “class struggle.”

Innocent, understood in the sense of abortion, is "not to be the cause of something;" succinctly stated, it means to be “not guilty.” When we say to take the life of an innocent person intentionally, we understand it to be murder. Now since Abortion is the intentional taking of an innocent life, abortion is murder.

When we say an unborn is an innocent life in respect to Abortion, we mean this child has done nothing for which it should be murdered, and consequently because the child is an innocent person, it has a right to live.

Now Justice is to give man what is his due. The unborn is a person, contrary to the Court, but not to medical science. It is a violation of Justice to take a child’s life because by his nature he has an inviolable right to live, as does the mother who also has the same right.

All Civil Law's authority proceeds from the N&ML. Consequently, when it comes to saving the life of either, we must abide by the moral standard that “all men are created equal.” Unless you subscribe to the adage that “all men are not equal" (viz. equal meaning in dignity and value), then you subscribe to the pseudo view of a caste system. Not only is that a contradiction of the N&ML but also of our Constitution.

If some people have more rights than others, then who determines what these rights are. No one; God does. If the Court determined you have no right to live, would it be licit to kill you though you are innocent as the innocent child in the womb?

Both the mother and the child have an equal right to exists and both in a Catholic hospital must be treated equally on not remain Catholic. All life in a Catholic hospital must be viewed with equal dignity because human nature and God demands it.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
WATCHMAKER
POSTED JANUARY 28, 2011 6:37 PM
“EQUALITY”

IRT:
“Is there some _real_ reason that the phrase "an innocent life" _NEVER_ applies to the mother in Catholic thinking? Is a fetus the only kind of "innocent" life known to Catholics? Is the mother always _GUILTY_ and therefore disposable?”

ANS:
First, Catholics believe all men are created equal even though the Court ruled otherwise. If that is repugnant, than resign yourself to live in the Secularist's world. Laws that defy the Natural and Moral Law (N&ML) are not morally licit. No one has the moral authority to defy the Natural Law; therefore no one is disposable, and that includes the unborn that are also human as well as the mother.

In the world of terrorist, dictators, and tyrants, all men are not created equal by nature. That is the view of Communist nations who use the masses as fodder to create the perfect state through the “class struggle.”

Innocent, understood in the sense of abortion, is "not to be the cause of something;" succinctly stated, it means to be “not guilty.” When we say to take the life of an innocent person intentionally, we understand it to be murder. Now since Abortion is the intentional taking of an innocent life, abortion is murder.

When we say an unborn is an innocent life in respect to Abortion, we mean this child has done nothing for which it should be murdered, and consequently because the child is an innocent person, it has a right to live.

Now Justice is to give man what is his due. The unborn is a person, contrary to the Court, but not to medical science. It is a violation of Justice to take a child’s life because by his nature he has an inviolable right to live, as does the mother who also has the same right.

All Civil Law's authority proceeds from the N&ML. Consequently, when it comes to saving the life of either, we must abide by the moral standard that “all men are created equal.” Unless you subscribe to the adage that “all men are not equal" (viz. equal meaning in dignity and value), then you subscribe to the pseudo view of a caste system. Not only is that a contradiction of the N&ML but also of our Constitution.

If some people have more rights than others, then who determines what these rights are. No one; God does. If the Court determined you have no right to live, would it be licit to kill you though you are innocent as the innocent child in the womb?

Both the mother and the child have an equal right to exists and both in a Catholic hospital must be treated equally on not remain Catholic. All life in a Catholic hospital must be viewed with equal dignity because human nature and God demands it.

WHO’S RIGHTS?

“Should Catholic hospitals be able to restrict doctors from performing common and legal medical practices? Do such restrictions unfairly impinge on the rights of non-Catholic patients and doctors, particularly those in rural or underserved areas where alternative hospitals are not readily available?”

ANS:
What is the source of our rights? Does the State give them, as the Court seems to subscribe to, or does God give us these rights as the Founding Fathers (FF) state in the Declaration? If man gives us our rights, then man can take them away and they are no longer inviolable. That’s what the Court did; it took away the rights of life from the unborn. If God gives them, then the Court has no authority to take them away any more than to declare the Law of Gravity is illegal. To act against the N&ML as did the Court, is to act on the principle that “Might Makes Right.”

Further, if rights are not equal, the Court can give some certain rights, and others certain rights, and consequently, all men are no longer equal. If God gives them, all men have the same rights and therefore equal rights. I believe the FF said, “All men are created equal.”

Some State Courts have concluded that gays have rights that heterosexuals don’t have, namely the right to marry the same sex. Certain State Courts have declared that not to allow gay marriage is to discriminate against gays. However, heterosexuals have no right to marry the same sex. Both have equal rights, but to allow gay marriage on the basis of discrimination is to give gays a separate right, and that is incoherent and illogical.

The FF also declared that the inalienable rights are based on the Natural & Moral Law (N&ML). Therefore, since all men are created equal in virtue of their nature, all men have the same inviolable rights. Thus, it follows that if these rights are inviolable, only the individual can forfeit them by abusing them.

The adage that “No man is above the Law” is also relative to the N&ML. Once man starts violating the N&ML, he acts illicitly and against the tranquility of the social order. To legalize the murder of the unborn is to act above the N&ML and therefore the social order. Consequently, since moral laws are based on human nature, no hospital, Catholic or not, in the name of any religion or Secularism, can morally violate the N&ML.

Since the Catholic Church was established by the Son of God, a Catholic hospital must be in accord with God’s laws to be Catholic. These laws are voiced through God's Church, for He has given His Church authority to bind and loose on earth and therefore in Heaven what She has been given from God to determine what is morally permissible and in accord with the N&ML. Hence, it would be a violation of God’s laws to break the N&ML, and no Catholic or any other hospital can licitly do so. Hence, Catholic hospitals must act morally by obeying the N&ML, or cease to be Catholic.

I pray that our government can see the horror of the abortion laws, and reverse the Roe vs Wade decision.

Since the only government entity that can reverse the Roe v Wade decision is the Supreme Court, the commentator's prayers might be most profitably directed at the Catholics who've held a majority on that court for more than five years.

@RichardHod;

In the old days everybody believed in God. They had no choice; there weren't any options. Everybody was religious. There was no alternative hypothesis to the God one. And, a guy could end up tortured and/or burnt at the sake for NOT believing.

Bach would have written great music anyway - religious or not, and that goes for all composers of those times. Same goes for painters.

You must have noticed - composers TODAY are not hynotized by religion, neither are painters, or any other artists. It was pretty much in ancient times.

In any case your point in no way suggests that there really is a God. We know better now. It's just one old myth among many. History can show a thousand Gods - inventing them was what our ancestors did all the time - everywhere.

But now we're all grown up and can put away childish fantasies. All the miracles of this wonderful world we now inhabit are due to science. Everything. Even the way we communicate.

When faith and healing collide, Faith should go away. Faith is absurd.

@givemethat

e have this...
A question: "In the cases where having the baby will, or will almost certainly cause death for the mother, should abortion be allowed?"

"The case involved a woman with pulmonary hypertension in pregnancy. PHP does NOT "almost certainly cause death for the mother." Whereas all pregnancies involve some risk to the mother."

Actually, I was not asking about this case. My full question was about when the pregnancy will likely cause death or serious injury to the mother:

Do the devout Catholics here think non-Catholics should have a choice to abort in the above situation in a non-Catholic hospital?

I would be interested in your (or others) response.

Thank you

Is there some _real_ reason that the phrase "an innocent life" _NEVER_ applies to the mother in Catholic thinking? Is a fetus the only kind of "innocent" life known to Catholics? Is the mother always _GUILTY_ and therefore disposible?

And where exactly did the good Father attend medical school? University of Google?

I hope the Good Father never finds himself in a Jehovah's Witness hospital needing a transfusion, because they don't believe in transfusions, and he is so ardent a supporter of religious freedom.

Thank you, Father,
Our culture has come to see morals and natural law as relative. This way of thinking has become so common that our young people do not know what is right or wrong. Sexuality has actually become a common form of entertainment for our youth.

Many who have posted want to argue about individual cases where people have chosen abortion. The reality is that abortion exits for one purpose - to terminate a life. Each of us will answer to God for the decisions we make in our lives. However, I am thankful to Father Pavone for taking a stand on the side of truth. The Catholic Church opposes abortion because it is a crime against life. The Catholic Church, in her goodness, also offers tremendous opportunities for women who have been duped into having an abotion. Healing awaits for those who want it. I pray that our government can see the horror of the abortion laws, and reverse the Roe vs Wade decision.

Thank you, Father,
Our culture has come to see morals and natural law as relative. This way of thinking has become so common that our young people do not know what is right or wrong. Sexuality has actually become a common form of entertainment for our youth.

Many who have posted want to argue about individual cases where people have chosen abortion. The reality is that abortion exits for one purpose - to terminate a life. Each of us will answer to God for the decisions we make in our lives. However, I am thankful to Father Pavone for taking a stand on the side of truth. The Catholic Church opposes abortion because it is a crime against life. The Catholic Church, in her goodness, also offers tremendous opportunities for women who have been duped into having an abotion. Healing awaits for those who want it. I pray that our government can see the horror of the abortion laws, and reverse the Roe vs Wade decision.

alopias1, you are truly deluding yourself. you say that "No one wants abortions as a 'contraceptive measure', BUT THEY ARE NECESSARY". Do you have any idea of the immense number of abortions performed in this country every year? Its around a million a year. Only a tiny fraction of those were performed because for any kind of health issue regarding the mother or child. The vast majority are performed for what you are calling contraceptive measures.

By the way, your little side comments regarding catholic clergy is offensive garbage.

As a health care provider, I adhere to the Hippocratic Oath, which in essence states "First do no harm". Abortion, the taking of a life, is definitely harm. Someone who thinks otherwise, has not viewed an ultrasound or heard a 21 day old heartbeat.

Catholic Hospitals will typically offer catholic services to those who want them. But they have no right to deny treatments because of their convictions. Just like a pharmacist should not deny certain prescriptions to patients, just like any catholic or jewish or any other religious doctor cannot deny optimal medical treatment to their patients.

My wife's first pregnancy was with an anencephalic fetus. We aborted at 18 weeks. Are you to tell me I'm immoral? According to catholic and religious values she should have carried the baby to term even though he (it was male) was either to live for 1 hour, or 4 hours or 1 minute? And at the same time, continue with the burden of knowing that we were carrying a fetus incompatible with life?

A fetus is not un-human, but it is not human either. It is a human-in-development, and if it poses a risk to the mother, it should be terminated.

If a fetus is diagnosed with Down Syndrome, would you abort? IMO No. They can lead a fairly productive life.

Would I oppose a woman who chooses to abort? No. It's her choice and she has a chance to try again if she wishes.

In the same line, there are many, many conditions that are fatal during the first years of life. Again, would I abort if I found out? Probably.

Am I a bad person? I know this for sure, at the very least, I am not worse than the pedophile priests and the hypocritical cleric that have found the way to gain the trust of people under false premises and then take advantage of these very people that give 10% of their income in the hopes that they might be admitted someday to a world of wonder.

The "religious congregations" should focus their work in aiding our community by providing help to those people who need it without getting in the way of those who know what they are doing. And please, leave medical treatment to those who actually know something about it.

Pro-choice is not Anti-life. No one wants abortions as a "contraceptive measure", BUT THEY ARE NECESSARY.

Posted by: Apoorsinner "I find that many posters here who condemn the Catholic Church for supposedly allowing women to die and not caring for women really don't know anything about the true positions of the Catholic Church.
Ectopic pregnancies can be treated at Catholic hospitals, because the treatment inadvertently (not deliberately) causes the death of the unborn child. This is well established; check the Catholic Bioethics Center for more information."
---------------------
Perhaps you should take another look at them as well.

Standard care for ectopic pregnancies, which are life-threatening, is to inject the drug methotrexate or to remove the embryo surgically while leaving the fallopian tube intact, both procedures that are intended to preserve fertility. But Catholic hospitals refuse to perform either and will extract the embryo ONLY by taking out the entire fallopian tube. This greatly affects a womens fertility.

For miscarriages in which the fetus is not expelled quickly, doctors often use drugs or surgical procedures to protect the woman from potentially fatal infections and bleeding. But if the fetus still has a heartbeat (even once all brain activity has ceased and the placenta has separated from the uteran wall, most Catholic hospitals refuse to intervene. And the patient has to go to another hospital, sometimes hours away, or wait for the heart to stop, possibly bleeding to death in the mean time.

mdepietro - Thank you, that is an excellent and informative post.

We have this...
A question: "In the cases where having the baby will, or will almost certainly cause death for the mother, should abortion be allowed?"

The case involved a woman with pulmonary hypertension in pregnancy. PHP does NOT "almost certainly cause death for the mother." Whereas all pregnancies involve some risk to the mother.

All hospitals must provide emergency care. Was this an emergency? NOT AT ALL. The woman was 11 weeks pregnant. The risk for PHP is basically all in the third trimester. They sent the matter to the ethics committee which dispenses with any thought of it being an emergency. The nun who was running the hospital was telling the authorities, "I dare you." They could have told the woman,

"These are your risks...the newer literature puts mortality at 30%). Our hospital does not provide abortions. Many do. We would be happy to provide care if you would like to carry the pregnancy to term. Most likely you would need to be hospitalized your entire third trimester."

But the nun chose not to. I am sure that she knew the penalty was excommunication. A misconception is that the local bishop excommunicated her. He did not. He didn't need to. The penalty is automatic. He simply informed the nun of the fact.

Catholics and other Christians who complain about our so-called "culture of death" seem to have completely forgotten their own contributions. The culture of death has always been central in Christianity, with the crucifixion and resurrection being an, ahem, crucial issue. Heaven is bliss, therefore dying is desirable. The most revered Christian composer, J.S. Bach, certainly thought so.

From Cantata 82:

I delight in my death,
Ah, would that it had already come!
Then I shall escape the suffering
that still binds me to the world.

From Cantata 56:

Come, oh death, brother of sleep,
Come and lead me on alone;
Loosen my boat's rudder,
Bring me to a safe port!
Those who will are glad to avoid you,
On the contrary, you can give me joy;
Because, through you, I come in
To the most beautiful child Jesus.

So Christians ought to take some credit for the "culture of death," which gave rise to deathless art - incomparable and unique jewels of human creation - the absolute peak of human accomplishment. Giotto, Michelangelo, Bach, Handel, and and almost endless series of great artists - all encouraged and often supported by the Church - have left us our true cultural treasure, the only treasure of eternal value - the deathless art of Western Civilization.

Whatever they say about Christianity, it is unique among the major religions in its view of art and artists. I will always be thankful to Christianity for its contributions to art, both as inspiration and support. The study of the music of J.S. Bach - a transcendental creator of Western civilization - can easily provide a lifetime of learning and pleasure.

It is a matter of personal freedom for one to be able to offer services to others that one desires. If a person or hospital chooses to offer, or not offer, certain procedures to patients (regardless of basis of such choice) no one else has a right to demand that the person or hospital change its offerings. It is inconsistent for those who call themselves "pro-choice" to then demand to take away the choice of providers (by denying licensing for example) to perform or not perform certain procedures. This inconsistancy reveals the truth that so-called pro-choicers are really pro-abortion, and that they are willing to deny personal liberty to any medical person who refuses to perform abortions.

Some things in life are hard. It is never permitted to take the life of an innocent person even if doing so may save the life of another. Bishop Olmsted is correct in his assessment of the situation at St. Joseph Hospital. An innocent life was taken by the hospital. The reason is really immaterial. The taking of innocent life is forbidden by God, and so forbidden by the Church. If the hospital desires to oppose this teaching, they are free to do so, but they must not then claim to be Cathoic for they are not.

There are TWO patients here, the mother and the child. One may not kill one patient in preferrence to the other. One must do everything to save both patients even if one fails to save either of them.

A question:

In the cases where having the baby will, or will almost certainly cause death for the mother, should abortion be allowed?

According to Catholic teaching the answer seems to be no.

Do the devout Catholics here think non-Catholics should have a choice to abort in the above situation in a non-Catholic hospital?

I would appreciate any responses.

Thank-you.

JEANNE86,
Physicians and other health care providers want to keep both the mother and the fetus alive. If there is a case where the mother is going to die, the family with their physician should be able to choose the mother's life. The catholic administrator reviewed the case and went through whatever process it needed to and it was determined that the mother would die if she continued the pregnancy. To excommunicate this hospital official who relied on the expertise demonstrates supreme arrogance on the part of the clergy who know little about medicine. And this Fr. Frank too knows little about medicine apparently if he asserts that there isn't a condition that is deadly to a woman if she continues a pregnancy. There is ectopic pregnancies, eclampsia, placenta abnormalities (previa, accrecia, etc) and others as well. Religion should stay out of medicine.

JEANNE86,
Physicians and other health care providers want to keep both the mother and the fetus alive. If there is a case where the mother is going to die, the family with their physician should be able to choose the mother's life. The catholic administrator reviewed the case and went through whatever process it needed to and it was determined that the mother would die if she continued the pregnancy. To excommunicate this hospital official who relied on the expertise demonstrates supreme arrogance on the part of the clergy who know little about medicine. And this Fr. Frank too knows little about medicine apparently if he asserts that there isn't a condition that is deadly to a woman if she continues a pregnancy. There is ectopic pregnancies, eclampsia, placenta abnormalities (previa, accrecia, etc) and others as well. Religion should stay out of medicine.

Several people have commented about the RCC telling physicians what to do, in the sense that a religious professional isn't qualified to make decisions about abortions because the issue is a medical one. It reminds me of a "get your rosaries off my ovaries" bumper sticker.

But here's the thing. Physicians train to be physicians, and yet they have become ethicists. Who is a physician to tell me to have an abortion? She can say, "if you don't, these are your probable results" and "if you do, these are your probable results," but beyond these scientific offerings, she is no longer acting as a physician but an ethicist, dealing with choosing between goods and/or evils.

And, I just want to stand up, against the comments above, and say that

(1) I am a woman and a Catholic, and I feel very respected and loved, and not at all limited, in the Church, despite adhering to its teachings on birth control and other things. In fact, I feel this way in part because of these teachings. Don't believe me? Read this philosophical book: Man and Woman He Created Them (trans. Michael Waldstein), and then we'll talk.

(2) Even though we get much better media coverage on our Catholic priests, the rate of abuse is the same across denominations (including married clergy): appallingly as high as what? 1%? I say "better" coverage because although it's unfair, it ought to be exposed what these men did. BUT it cannot become an excuse for those displeased with anything the Church does.

(3) I support you, Fr. Pavone and all other priests and bishops who are upholding the Church's teaching. I salute you, Washington Post, for publishing this.

Pro-Life is Pro-Woman. And Pro-Child. And Pro-Human, Pro-Future - heck, even Pro-Economy. "It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you can live as you wish."

mdepietro -

No one complained about trying to save both. The problem was that Olmsted, a man who is not trained in medicine or in sciences related to health, not only complained that someone chose to save a woman, but then punished someone for doing so.

Clearly, you know that you do not have enough information to second-guess what the hospital did, yet a medical layman had the hubris to think that he knew better. I have no use for anyone with that level of arrogance. No matter what his church calls him, I call him indifferent to humanity.

I am a Catholic physician and I may be able to shed some light on this situation since there seems to be significant misunderstanding about the Arizona Hospital case. The pregnant woman suffered from a disorder called pulmonary hypertension. This is a relatively rare disease in which there are changes in the blood vessels in the lungs which make it harder for the heart to pump blood into the "pulmonary" or lung circulation. If these changes are severe enough they can lead to heart failure and death. Abortion has been recommended to pregnant women with this condition because changes that occur during pregnancy cam worsen the condition and indeed be life threatening. In recent years there have developed a large number of drugs which can effectively lower the blood pressure in the lungs such that the pregnancy is tolerated and the baby delivered such that no one must die. Obviously this is a high risk situation with uncertain outcome. Many physicians still recommend aborting the child, but one must realize that there is a bias at work. 1) most doctors are educated in an atmosphere that claims the unborn child is sub human so will tend to see aborting the child a the "right thing" 2) There is obviously a bias towards minimizing the risk to the person who is known and loved ie the mother, versus an attempt to protect the life of the person who is unknown and relatively less loved, the unborn child. This later sentiment is understandable. Still in the Catholic view both are human beings with an equal right to life, thus the child in utero can not be directly killed to save the mother. While it may seem incomprehensible to some of the posters, the fact that there are hospitals that offer an attempt to save both actually is a service to people. Imagine the state of the couple who are practicing Catholics, and who wish to remain faithful to the Church's teaching. They seek help wanting someone to assist them in an effort to save both patients. Such a couple might be reassured to find a place where the hospital was supportive without pressuring them to abort, a move that in their eyes might very well mean they were killing a child. I have seen the scenario were someone who preferred not to abort was pressured to do so by a medical staff that thought the unborn child without value. So preservation of a medical system that looks at it differently is important. In fact do this thought experiment, if the unborn child was really the same as say a 1 year old, leaving aside whether you believe this or not, Does the Bishops action make sense? The answer seems obvious. At the end of the day this once again comes down to what a human fetus "is". If its like a child, well then there can be no "good reason" to directly kill it, not rape, etc.. we do not kill innocent people directly for any reason. If it is more like a tumor or growth then the Bishop is irrational. I would invite the reader to look at the Photos on Father Pavone's website to decide

Apoorsinner said:
"What I find truly disturbing is the thought supported apparently by many posters that Catholic hospitals should be FORCED to provide abortions . . . ."

Why that would be DREADFUL! Just imagine if the Church threw its weight behind getting laws passed that used FORCE to prevent health providers from performing abortions. For example, what if the bishops told Catholics under pain of sin to withhold their votes from politicians who didn't want to criminalize abortion? Can you imagine police officers arresting abortion providers and their patients and putting them in jail so the women would be FORCED to give birth. The mind reels.

I'm sure Apoorsinner agrees that it would be equally wrong to use FORCE to make Catholic hospitals provide abortions.

There is a very good piece by Nicholas Kristop in the NYT 1-26-11 on this subject. Just one point he makes: "The National Women’s Law Center has just issued a report quoting doctors at Catholic-affiliated hospitals as saying that sometimes they are forced by church doctrine to provide substandard care to women with miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies in ways that can leave the women infertile or even endanger their lives."

Father Pavone is not right. Bishop Olmsted of Arizona is not right. Sometimes the Church is not right. Sometimes the Church gets it wrong. In order to continue to bring faith and hope to the world, the Church needs to know when it is screwing up. And this is one area.

Another quote: "... in Bend, Ore., last year, a bishop ended the church’s official relationship with St. Charles Medical Center for making tubal ligation sterilizations available to women who requested them. And two Catholic hospitals in Texas halted tubal ligations at the insistence of the local bishop in Tyler."

My very Catholic grandmother handled that problem well. When told another child would kill her, she had her tubes tied. At her next confession she told the priest what she had done, that she would confess it this one time and then expected neither of them to ever mention it again. She prayed her penance and the subject was then closed. She lived, raised the children she already had, and loved her husband. She remained a good Catholic.

The Church needs to examine the logic stream that has trapped it in an immoral position. God does not demand that women bear children until death. Only the Catholic Church makes that demand.

Not all abortions involve killing a child in the womb. About one percent of pregnancies are ectopic, i.e., occurring outside the womb. One percent seems to be insignificant, but that amounts to an annual rate in the U.S. of about 70,000. Most are tubal or fallopian pregnancies. About half of these result in miscarriages, with the remainder requiring surgery or a drug induced abortion. Is abortion permissible in such cases? A tubal pregnancy will not go to term, i.e., there will be no child, and if a miscarriage does not occur, the untreated the mother will likely die. Does the Church’s black or white position on abortion mean it knows of an alternate medical procedure allowing tubal pregnancies to proceed to term and removing the risk of death of the mother?

Throughout the centuries, the Church has stood firm against this grave sin. It has nothing to do whether clergy or laymen and women are doctors: abortion is an act that interrupts God's plan of creation. Also, the claim of "protecting the mother" is also baseless. Protection against what?

"According to the accepted teaching of theologians, it is lawful, in the defense of life or limb, of property of some importance, and of chastity, to repel violence with violence, even to the extent of killing an unjust assailant.

This is admitted to be true with the reservation included in the phrase "servato moderamine inculpatae rutelae." That is, only that degree of violence may be employed which is necessary adequately to protect one from the attack.

For example, if it were enough in the circumstances to maim an enemy it would be unlawful to kill him. It is likewise lawful to aid another to the same extent and within the same limits as are permissible for self-defense."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01210a.htm

A child, born or unborn can never be an unjust aggressor.

I agree with Fr. Pavone... and I thank The Washington Post for allowing Fr. Pavone to post his column.

I believe if people took away all labels i.e. "Catholic", "Jew", "Muslim" and focused on the human issue at hand they would see things more clearly. You cannot take away the right of life as well as dignity and respect from one human being just to save another.

As a doctor you entered the profession for life preserving and healing purposes and not to promote death. You should exhaust every possibility to save ALL life and not just what's more convenient for you or cost affective for the hospital.

If this mother's life would be at risk b/c of starvation... would the doctors advise her to kill one of her already living children so as to preserve her own life? (eliminating the need to feed someone else other than her?) This may be a poor example but the abortion doesn't make any more sense either.

Also, if you do not respect the freedom of religion that this country has provided for us (all religions) then you are gambling with the cost of your own liberty.

Thank you Father Frank, I enjoyed your clear answer to this question.

Thank you Fr Frank for speaking truth. The place to stand in the abortion issue is on the rock with the belt of truth already in place. Adopted wordly views to be friends with everyone is dangerous. The "It wouldn't be for me but I would support someone's decision" is dangerous for individuals, institutions and churches to be a part of. But tell me are all bishops reading and agreeing with you? New York has some shenanigans going on and this would be a good time for a certain bishop to speak up. My ears will be open for a listen. Praying to end abortion, always.

Thank you Father, we shouldn't play God, as our Canadian friend Suzanne Fortin says "Equality begins at conception." Amen.

Jeanne86 said: "life ain't black and white."

Indeed, it isn't. What I remember about the Arizona case is that the doctors said the woman very likely would die if the pregnancy continued; she was in very great peril. She already had three or four young children at home. The opinion of the doctors was that an abortion was necessary to save her life. The opinion of the Church - and, perhaps, you - was that they should not have performed an abortion.

I cannot understand this. I cannot understand waiting to see if "God decides" who lives. I believe God requires us to act - sometimes even in impossible situations. I believe the best people to decide if such a decision is needed (in a medical sense) are the doctors. I believe the best people to decide the action to be taken are the woman, her husband, and her doctors. Then, I believe it is the job of the Church to help reconcile us to God when we have faced such devastating situations.

Indeed, life ain't black and white. Failure to act is cowardly and a denial of our humanity. We will not reclaim Eden by standing beside the tree of knowledge and ignoring it. It is fear that makes us unwilling to make a choice when a choice is needed - it is fear that says "better to risk two lives than to choose between them." When we cannot know God's will - even after prayer - maybe God is saying "it is for you to decide."

Is that a dangerous attitude? You bet. Grow up.

Thank you Father Pavone for all that you are doing to expose the evil of abortion. I am a health care provider and agree that there are treatments for many of the disorders that supposedly "require an abortion to save the Mother's life". I also agree that a Catholic institution has the right (and the obligation) to limit the practice of medical procedures that do not conform to church doctrine and have been shown to kill another person. I personaly left a practice at a secular organization because I was being pressured to prescribe birth control pills ( listed as a class 1 carcinogen by the world health organizationn) and did not feel that my rights of conscience were at all important. thanks again, Father, for being strong in this battle and know that there are many health care providers who agree with all that you and the Church are doing on this issue...God Bless.

A wife,a mother and a doctor, St. Gianna Molla was told that to save her life she should abort her fourth child. She chose to give birth to her daughter, and soon after developed a severe infection and died. She had told her husband that in no circumstance was he to let the doctors kill the baby. She knew the value of every single human being, even those not born yet. The daughter she chose life for grew up to be a doctor like her mother.

We can all learn from St. Gianna's inspiring story. Although her husband and family were very sad at her death, they were very proud of her. God will bring good out of a bad situation, if we obey him and his teachings, which he gives us through the Catholic Church.

To Commentator3:
". . . How do any of you know whether or not this woman in Arizona was or was not in danger just because you had a relative, a friend or knew someone who knew someone with the same condition? . . ."

Please keep Fr. Frank out of this. It was me whom said that I know someone, and actually a good friend of mine whom was in similar situation. Of course that is not to say that it was the exact same case, it is just to shed light on the fact that life ain't black and white. Why do we have to sacrifice one so that other can live? The only logical thing would be to try an keep both the patients alive! We need more courageous religious leaders like Bishop Olmsted!

Thank you Father Pavone for speaking the truth in this “culture of death” that we are living in. Obviously, from the comments, many readers don’t know much about Father Pavone and the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church does condemn abortion because it destroys an innocent life. However, The Church is there to help mothers, their children and other affected by the pain of abortion. Many Catholic organizations provide housing, financial support, and life affirming education for mothers who find themselves in a difficult pregnancy. The Catholic Church and Catholic organizations are the biggest charitable givers in the world. Remember, Christ said, "The poor in your midst you will always have..." Catholic Relief services works worldwide to help people in everyday needs and also in emergencies. Catholics also are the biggest employers from Churches, universities and hospitals not to mention social services. Catholics also run more thrift shops, homeless shelters and soup kitchens than anyone else here in the US as well as abroad. Catholics also run more orphanages than any other single group in the world.

I agree, Father!

Those who support pro-abortion rhetoric and who promote it are counting on the misinformation circulating about the abortion issue, as well as their listeners/followers being uninformed and often gullible.

That's why it's so important to get your information from honest sources. Too many major media outlets--and, I'm finding, even some smaller ones-- fully support abortion. Likely it's because they know about--and are often involved in-- the financial and monetary connections to this issue. It's beyond sad that there are those (I'm thinking of voters) who nod along to certain 'news' media outlets and believe they are hearing the truth, when the real truth is that their sources have financial and political ties, and they're loaded with money, as well. Such sources will also ensure they demonize the other side where the truth is found. So, of course they're going to disguise the abortion issue carefully.

I'm even seeing this locally, in one small town newspaper which is censoring anything positive about the Church and pro-life issues. The editor in question doesn't have a clue about the issues, and frankly, is incredibly ignorant, yet is a know-it-all. He's quite elderly, yet unbelievably gullible. He only knows enough to bash the other side and repeat the same tired drivel he's swallowed for years over and over. That's why I cancelled my subscription to this supposed 'news' paper in my area (I call it the funny papers, personally!).

Don't get me wrong here; there are some good and balanced news sources out there, as well as some very fair editors, but you really have to do your homework to learn which ones you can trust.

One can make ANYthing sound positive, but it takes an intelligent person to sort fact from fiction/propaganda, and it also takes some work to find truly honest sources. They are out there though. My personal favorite is Relevant Radio. Now THEY do their homework, believe me!! They aren't afraid to look at ALL sides of an issue.

Since when does a priest, with no medical training, determine whether a medical procedure was necessary? How do any of you know whether or not this woman in Arizona was or was not in danger just because you had a relative, a friend or knew someone who knew someone with the same condition? No doubt that Catholic hospitals have the right to provide the services they choose to. But idiots like this priest and the one who excommunicated the nun who allowed the dying woman to have an abortion to save her life should stop acting like they know something about medicine.

I have read about the Arizona case also from other sources. It looks like there are experts whom agree that it was not medically necessary to do an abortion. Doctors could have waited for the pregnancy to go far enough to give the child a fighting chance, and then deliver the baby early. I have always thought that in US the medical expertise is far superior to that of Europe. Yet a friend of mine from Netherlands got similar medical problem as the woman whose child was aborted. They kept close eye on her during the pregnancy and the baby was delivered two months early and was approximately the size of a typical child born as a twin. After few days in the hospital, they were allowed to go home. I cannot understand why this was not possible in US? Surely technologically speaking US is better off than Europe when it comes to medicine.

Thanks Fr. Pavone for pointing out these things out! A lot of people think that just because the State has made some things legal that those things are morally right when in fact in really violates the dignity of man. We need the Church's voice to remind us of the inviolability of man's dignity and the to purify our reasons and wills in search for moral truths. And this is what the Catholic Church does, to remind the citizens principles that are grounded to the respect of man and respect for the truth.
It is just right for Catholic Hospital never to offer abortion procedures because, first, it violates the dignity of man that should be recognized by all people as a universal truth, and second is it goes against the faith on which the identity of the Catholic is founded.

Father Pavone, you wrote:

"....there may be interventions necessary on the mother that carry risk for the child, but none of that is prohibited by Catholic teaching. What is never either morally permissible nor medically necessary, however, is to directly kill the child in order to save the mother. Nor is it permissible or necessary to directly kill the mother in order to save the child."

Father, if I understand you correctly, this seems perfectly clear, reasonable and moral. The Doctor has two patients: the Mother and the pre-born child. While intending to treat one he may, even knowingly, do harm to the other, but as you say, this is not his intention. I believe this is called the law of double effect. Assuming my understanding is correct, I suggest your critics slowly re-read the quote from you I entered at the beginning of this post. The law of double effect - it is not complicated.

>>No person or institution is forced to be Catholic. But if you don't want to be, please don't claim that you are.

AMEN!!!!!!

Hi, Fr. Frank. I've been Catholic for 15 years and no priest or bishop has ever treated me with anything other than respect. Which is more than I can say for many doctors. The perfect combination for me would be a Catholic doctor, someone who realizes that I am a human person, a union of body and soul, and that healing, true healing, takes both body and soul into account. I also want a doctor who doesn't think that sacrificing someone else's life for one's self is a good thing. What would stop him from doing the same to me?

Thank you for your article, Fr. Frank, and anyone else on here who speaks up for life. That takes courage these days. Peace be with you. God bless.

There is simply no lack of ignorant, bigoted, anti-Catholic rhetoric in this thread. The common accusations, made without any footnotes or proof, are of the "Catholic Church killing millions of people" (who please?) and the statement that an abortion is the same as terminating an ectopic pregnancy. A first year med student knows the difference between the willing murder of an unborn child in the womb and the saving of a mother's life by taking out that which is killing her, which in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, is the child. It is lamentable that such must happen, but the mother's life in this case must be protected, and the child must be removed from the fallopian tube, causing its unintended death. Too bad that the anti-Catholic bigots here, in their zeal to discredit the Church, don't understand the difference between a willing termination of an innocent life and a medical procedure which ends a life without the desire to do so.

One wonders what the Church has done over the centuries to accrue such a steady stream of venom from people? Was it our leper colonies where our priests cared for the dying? Or perhaps it was our orphanages? Maybe our taking care of the dying in hospices. Surely something we did has aggravated these people.

There seems to be an assumption from a lot of the responses that since abortion is legal that it is a good health choice for women. You might want to check out www.afterabortion.org and read some of the studies done on the long range effects.
It looks to me that those who favor abortion do so more out of support for an ideology than what is truly good for a woman's health.

Fr. Pavone is exactly correct in all that he stated. It's quite apparent that many of the posters are liberal, non-believers, and that is your right. But you have attempted to harshly twist the words of this priest. The Catholic Church does not believe for a nano-second in deliberately allowing or causing the death of the mother in order to save the baby. It believes in doing the best it can to save both. The bottom line is to not DELIBERATELY and with certainty set out to take the life of an innocent baby through the barbaric act of abortion! Women with ectopic pregancies are not simply allowed to die, rather than removing as humanely as possible the unborn child. There are many instances where the baby will die due to unavoidable health circumstances, either involving the mother or because of an illness or disease within the baby. That is the big difference here. Abortion is done with the sole intent to destroy the life of the unborn. It is the only reason for the "procedure" in the vast majority of cases. I worked in hospitals for over 20 years, so you might say I have medical experience. Hundreds of thousands of abortions have been "botched", and the baby born alive. Many of these infants are smothered by the placenta or simple left crying on a metal gurney in a room alone until it dies alone. Where are your hearts? Do you have any souls? I don't care at all what religion you belong to, or even IF you adhere to any religion. The purposeful killing of an unborn baby is torturous for the child, and it is cold, unfeeling, and a grievous sin toward humanity! There are MANY options other than abortion if a mother does not want the child. These options need to be spelled out loud and clear to all women and girls. My last experience with a "botched" abortion was this....walking into a room where the tiny aborted baby boy was lying naked on a metal table, softly sobbing. His eyes were open. He was looking around. I was told to leave him. I stayed for a few minutes. He tried to cry again, but was too weak. He closed his eyes and died. His crime? His mother didn't want him. He was an 8th month abortion. Our country is sick and broken, and if we don't return to the values and faith of our fathers we are going to continue our slipperty slope to self-destruction, the likes of which we've never imagined!

"whether those practices involve the killing of innocent human beings."

My, my, how sensitive we've become. The Catholics used to be far less reluctant to kill people, having amassed quite a record of burning and otherwise eviscerating their victims over the centuries - scientists, "witches," Jews, and others targeted by the clergy. But they must all have been "guilty," clearly.

I suppose we should be thankful the Catholics don't rip people's hearts out to please their particular god, since there seems to be no limit to the atrocities committed in the name of religion.

It is so ignorant that the previous statement that made the claimed,"The Roman Catholic Church does not care if it kills women in its zeal to undermine the rights of women in America. It's not as if the Pope or any of the bishops are afraid that they will be held criminally liable for causing a woman to die. They know they can get away with it."

In fact the Catholic Church does care and want what is best for the woman's health. Abortion carries health risks even though the percentage of those risk are low including the risk of infertility and hemorraging. Many Pro-Choice politicians insist that they want to make abortion rare and safe. A false misconception since abortion rates up.

A few weeks ago, an abortion doctor from West Philadelphia was charged with the death of a woman during a failed abortion procedure. Dr. Kermit Gosnell, is his name. He aborted babies using scissors. Fr. Pavone does know what abortion is. David and other pro-aborts don't know what they are talking about. Their Anti-Catholic bigotry is will noted.

johnturkal1 -

The Roman Catholic Church does not care if it kills women in its zeal to undermine the rights of women in America. It's not as if the Pope or any of the bishops are afraid that they will be held criminally liable for causing a woman to die. They know they can get away with it.

Clearly Fr. Pavone does not let his vast ignorance of medicine stop him from speaking about medical treatment because he appears to be under the misapprehension that his religious training is an adequate substitute. It is clearly not, as he so richly demonstrated in this column.

He also seems not to understand that in many places, particularly smaller cities, the hospital that might be affiliated with the RCC is often the only community hospital and that those who made donations made it to their local hospital not to the Vatican and its minions. If the RCC wants to run their hospitals in a special way, they need to return the non-religious donations they received. Maybe the next step is to make sure that hospitals that refuse to engage in proper medicine for religious reasons should not be allowed to collect Medicare and medicaid payments.

Too bad the RCC is so ignorant about women. For some reason, there are still a large number who attend their churches even if the bishops and priests routinely treat them with no respect.

More than 40 years ago my wife had a twin tubular pregnancy in which the fetuses had already died. She was in a Catholic Hospital under a Catholic Doctors care. The hospital and Dr. kept telling us they weren't sure the babies were dead. Finally a young intern from India/Pakistan took me aside and told me the truth. Told me if I loved my wife to get her out of there and to another doctor. I did, my wife lived, barely had anything left in her uterus to conceive by, but we did have two sons before her doctor told us no more. The Catholic Hospital and the Doctor never billed us. Our new Doctor and Hospital had told us they would testify in court for us if they did. We always considered our two sons miracles as the odds were 1 in 10 million we have more children. We had lost 3 children in child birth/ pregnacy. I think old bachelors and spinsters should keep their opinions to themselves even if they have exhalted titles. When I think of all the harm my church has committed against youngsters these past 50 years or more, I don't believe it is qualified to determine proper medical care for Americans.

I find that many posters here who condemn the Catholic Church for supposedly allowing women to die and not caring for women really don't know anything about the true positions of the Catholic Church.

Ectopic pregnancies can be treated at Catholic hospitals, because the treatment inadvertently (not deliberately) causes the death of the unborn child. This is well established; check the Catholic Bioethics Center for more information.

As for the charge that Catholics see women as just property, nothing could be further from the truth. Catholics run more homes for pregnant women and more poverty programs than any government. Over and over again there are teachings from within the church to "love them both" (that is, the mother as well as the baby). My church regularly canvases members to donate food, money, baby clothes. formula and so on for single mothers. And so on.

If Catholic hospitals were forced to close because they could no longer accept tax funds, many people in this country would find themselves underserved in health care, because Catholics run so many hospitals. And did you know that Catholics invented hospitals?

What I find truly disturbing is the thought supported apparently by many posters that Catholic hospitals should be FORCED to provide abortions or close, apparently simply because the posters disagree with and don't like Catholics and Catholic positions in this area. So to get their way, many posters seem willing to trample on Catholics' right to practice their religion. How un-American.

I agree with Father Pavone that Catholics and Catholic hospitals have the right to practice in a way that upholds our religious beliefs, beliefs that care for the child as well as the mother.

Thank you.

I agree with previous comments, interesting the the Church has more concern on giving live to non-born, than the crimes of rapes towards minors that has plague them until now. I will admire those people that fight so hard in keeping and unborn non desire child if also they decided to promote to take those children in adoption. Many of those children will never see a family again, and will spent years in foster homes with traumatic past that some will never get over that. So the job does not finish by allowing them to be born, take action.

Aborting for convenience or because a woman is just plain selfish is wrong. Aborting for valid medical life threatening reasons may be, in some cases, justified by doctors. If Catholics don't want abortions in their hospitals, that's fine but they shouldn't accept taxpayer money to then dictate their own civil policy upon others.

Catholics, especially American Bishops, hypocritically want to dictate civil policy at the same time they want to be above it al la my "usual beef" with the Catholic Church.

Actually, there are several diseases (and conditions) that abortion cures, including ectopic pregnancy, premature rupture of the membranes, and preeclampsia.

Catholic hospitals are not exempt from federal laws requiring all hospitals to provide the standard of care, emergency care and adequate information on patients' treatment options. These horrible practices of delaying or denying treatment to women in need are finally seeing the light of day, and will hopefully soon be a thing of the past.

Visit http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/nwlcbelowtheradar2011.pdf to find out more.

Just Saying,

There are places where there is only one hospital in the area, and it's a Catholic one.
Would it have been better, and within the moral parameters allowed by the church to let the woman die? After all, if she died, so would the fetus.

First of all, no one is forced to go to a Catholic hospital. Let's keep that in mind. I could not agree more that the Catholic Church should not be forced to perform acts which are against its teachings, which, for instance, tubal ligation is.

I am not pro-life. But I disagree so much with everyone who wants to hate on a Catholic hospital for refusing to do something it considers wrong.

Furthermore, by applying the Catholic Principle of Double Effect, it is permissible to do something which indirectly terminates the fetus in order to save a mother's life. I don't know all the details of the Arizona case, but the doctor had things he could and couldn't do to save the woman, per Catholic teaching, and he chose to do what he couldn't do.

Smugly says the man who will never have his body treated as the property of someone else, will never have health risks or permanent damage to his body dismissed as "unimportant" relative to someone else's right to live off his organs at his expense, will never have it be considered a trivial inconvenience to have someone live inside him and use his body parts to survive.

The trouble with "pro-lifers" is that they don't really think of the woman involved as a human life to be considered. She's property, something to be used, a sinner to be punished, but never a real person. If she were, it would be understood that she would have the right to say no at any time to the use of her own body and her own internal organs, just as Father Pavone is.

"What disease does abortion cure?"and "What is never either morally permissible nor medically necessary, however, is to directly kill the child in order to save the mother."

In the case of the woman at the Arizona hospital, the doctors said the woman would die if the pregnancy continued. I don't know the medical condition, but the "disease" was death. And the cure was the abortion. So your statement that it is never medically necessary is incorrect.

I understand that the Bishop in Arizona made a call on something that other Bishops do not necessarily agree with. But, there is also no place for the rest of us who are appalled at the Bishops decision to go to discuss how very wrong we think the Bishop is. If I had been the young mother of four who faced death, I would have had the abortion and told the Bishop to eat dirt.

God sometimes requires us to make terrible decisions, decisions between two things neither of which is good. (Have you ever read Orson Scott Card's books?) A failure to decide is also evil, and that is where the Church leaves those who face a life or death decision when an abortion will save a life. This "leave it in God's hands" is a cowardly response to a bad situation.

While pregnancy is not a disease, it is highly stressful to a woman's body, even if there are no complications.
Depending on the pregnant woman's circumstances, it can contribute to depression, malnutrition, poverty, or unemployment.
Certain pregnancies can be quite dangerous to the health of the pregnant woman. Ectopic pregnancies have been mentioned several times already. There is NO way to deal with an ectopic pregnancy except to terminate it.
Pregnancy in women with certain pre-existing health problems cannot always be safely carried to completion, even with oversight by the most conscientious and competent of doctors. And sometimes the health problems become dangerous for the woman long before the baby can be delivered prematurely.

"What is never either morally permissible nor medically necessary, however, is to directly kill the child in order to save the mother."

And just what medical education and/or experience do you use to back this opinion of yours? Another poster has brought up ectopic pregnancies, and I am sure there are other instances where the pregnancy has to be terminated to save the life of the mother.

I could not disagree more. If a church opens a hospital to serve all citizens, there should be no guessing game on the part of the patient whether or not they will get the care they need. Such hospitals should never have been issued a license by the state. If a procedure is legal, then it should be available. And in public hospitals, doctors and nurses should not have the right to impose their personal beliefs on caregiving. They gave up that right when they accepted the state license. I have begun to detest organized religions more and more every day.

Fine, then the solution is obvious! No so-called religious institution should not have any business functions or any other operations not explicitly religious such as hospitals, nursing homes, food providers, housing shelters, clothing outlets, bingo parlors, parking facilities, schools, non religious consoling, day care not for parents attending religious services or instruction, etc. I for one refuse to allow any religious superstition or dogma to have any influence directly on any governmental or business law, service, or action! Religions only have a right to advise their members on actions by their members for their members; they may argue for society to change its behavior, but no government or business should be allowed to impose any actions based solely on religious grounds. To do so, makes us no better than other theologies such as Israel, the Vatican or Saudi Arabia!

Hello Father, I absolutely agree with you on your point that Catholic hospitals should be allowed to be Catholic.

However, you are wrong when you state there is no proven medical benefit to abortion. You overlook ectopic pregnancy, a condition that is deadly to a woman if allowed to continue.

I wish not to receive my medical treatment from non-medical personnel, and for this reason I will never, ever go to a Catholic hospital.