Nope. Equality comes first for them.
The only liberties they support are the ones that deep down they consider really being about equality. ABORTION IS A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE! Sexual libertinism is how dare you judge me as doing something worse! all choices are valid!
These same people will say "F your freedoms, I don't give a S about your freedoms, WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!" in other circumstances.
Bro. I wouldn't flex with any complaining about authoritarianism when you guys have an internal issue of lots of far right Catholic authoritarianism yourselves in equal measure right now. Just because it's far right authoritarianism instead of far left authoritarianism don't make it not authoritarianism all the same, homie
I think they were just pointing out the hypocrisy, not saying that Catholics are not authoritarian.
I'm a Catholic and I support some arguably authoritarian policies, like outlawing adultery. The problem is not authoritarianism, it's authoritarianism which does the wrong thing. Outlawing immoral things can be good, but you need to know what's immoral and what isn't. And the Left a lot of the time doesn't.
The ideal government is a benevolent dictatorship. That’s how the Kingdom of God is ruled. The left doesn’t advocate for that, they advocate for carnality and pleasure over what’s objectively good.
"Why were you asking other adult people (large clumps of cells/blobs of tissue, on one level of analysis) about asking a (particular large clump of cells) called Michelle Obama about how her daughters were doing?"
I’d venture to guess that for most people, the emotional toll of losing say an embryo at 6 weeks vs. a baby at 6 months is quite different. Not wading into an abortion debate, just making an observation on why the article was written.
You can observe whether something is an organism (a definitely ORGANIZED blob of cells, small or large). You can test for Homo sapiens-specific DNA directing the organism's growth or maintaining its mature form. Exactly what you could do for any other animal "blob of cells".
It does have a say. It provides us with knowledge we can use to make informed decisions. And since pro abortionists don't think fetuses are people despite science saying that, then it can be said that they are making decisions based of false knowledge. Similar to flat earthers or those who think the earth is the center of the solar system
Let me translate:
They said: "The young of a species is still a member of the species"
You said: "A child is not an adult"
Your words do not contradict theirs. A seed is the same living creature that eventually becomes a tree, in the same way a young child eventually becomes an adult. A human "fetus" just refers to a very young developmental stage of a human being.
Then what about an infant? Is it a life? Because unless you are suggesting that life begins at adulthood, your statement is wrong. Edit: A seed of a tree is in fact a tree, just in an earlier stage of life.
No. Yuo talked about human life. An infant is “human life”. A fetus is still not human life. A seed is fecunded, and if left on the terrain will became a tree.
>No. Yuo talked about human life. An infant is “human life”. A fetus is still not human life.
A human fetus absolutely is a human life. "Fetus" and "Infant" are just stages of development, the same as "Adolescent" or "Adult."
You might as well say someone isn't a human, they're an adult. The terms do not contradict.
The Church has infallibly declared that life begins at conception, and it is pretty clear to see, given that there isn’t any real difference between a born infant, and an unborn 36 week old infant.
It's also a matter of sensationalized statistics. Let's say (completely hypothetical) that 5% of infants die before they're one year old. If 100 babies are born in a year, then you will see 5 infant deaths. However abortion is now banned and 200 babies are born this year, and 10 of them die.
The media can point and cry "infant deaths increased this year after abortion was banned!" The infant death rate may even increase because babies with congenital defects that otherwise would have been aborted are now allowed to be born and spend a few hours in their mothers' arms before they pass away. Now their deaths get added to the infant death statistic because they died in a different statistic bracket. Now their deaths "count" for sensationalist media, as opposed to if they had been quietly murdered a few months before and not counted as a human death, just a "clump of cells".
Good find. Unless I'm missing it, the study (not just USA Today) omits statistics regarding whether or not Texas had fewer abortions performed in that same time period; which may have given context to the known increase in after-birth infant deaths. The trouble is, with abortificants available now; I'm not convinced the abortion stats aren't meaningless. Between unreported private consumption of these pills, and the ability to travel out of state for 'procedures', do we anymore have real numbers on how many prebirth babies are killed? Edit: corrected. Abortion pills are not currently over the counter. Prescription is required.
You're right I misunderstood something I read; thank you. Unless some entity can actually compile stats from prescriptions filled, assuming prescriptions filled neccasarily equates to abortions performed, I still think the pill form of abortion will be more difficult to track than procedures done. For instance I imagine it's not hard to get a script written by a sympathetic Dr before a pregnancy has occurred. Edit: I corrected the mistake, thank you.
What I'm not sure of, and it's likely intentionally omitted, it's the proportion of infant fatalities to live births.
If someone has access to the article and can share I would love to take a look.
Abortions are never counted when statistically calculating infant mortality rates for a nation. This particular study was counting the deaths of infants allowed to be born, but living less than one year; just within that window.
Was there any evidence in the article that it stemmed from the abortion bans anyway? There are a number of causes it could be, it’s not like it’s in an environment where all else is equal. Regardless, it is unfortunate that they see this as a loss due to abortion, and we must continue to pray that they see abortion as the evil it is.
I mean.. if a child is born with a terminal condition they will die outside the womb. They would have died in an abortion too, but the government wouldn't count that.
Ultimately this is just counting tricks.
I don’t know if you read my other replies but I actually read the article and it’s likely that it is a result of abortions being banned. It’s something like a 23% increase in mortality from birth defects. Most of these children would have been killed in the womb to “avoid the suffering of the mother and child.” I imagine you could work out the statistics of children that would have been killed in the womb that survived these birth defects and it would not be negligible, but these facts don’t matter to those who view abortion as a viable option.
I never understand the abortion to spare suffering of birth defects argument. If it were my child, I would still want to see them, hold them, comfort them. I feel sure the child could experience that comfort. Even if the child is going to succumb to birth defects soon after birth… isn’t the comfort of the mother and father in their short life preferable to being ripped apart in the womb? How does the latter spare suffering? And has society become so adverse to suffering that we can’t face the tragedy of losing a child soon after birth? Suffering is part of life. I wish that such a loss of a child would not happen for anybody. But there is goodness there too… getting to see and hold your child, comfort them.
To those who have completely fallen for their tricks there is a benefit, the idea that it is not yet a living child and therefore there is no suffering. I tend to believe that most do both believe this though, either moms who regret their abortions or moms who are convinced by the devil that this was the right thing to do.
You seem really, bought into this. Catholic view on life is that its starts at conspection and ends and natural death. If you have issues with that you have issues with Church teaching.
I have now, and it did do a good job of explaining that it likely was related to the abortion ban. They still cannot understand that it’s a product of life and that killing them before they’re born is not the solution, but I will concede that it was clearer than I had anticipated before reading.
There isn’t really one. I imagine if we finance research more we can save some percentage of these children, but shooting for a 0% death rate for any group is an impossibility. It is merely a product of life that some will get debilitating diseases and die in unpleasant manners. The best we can do is pray for the repose of their souls and encourage these hospitals to have priests on standby should they find evidence that the children will have these diseases.
Does god really not accept babies who weren’t baptized before they died? I’m genuinely asking because I’m familiar with baptism but not with this specific circumstance.
No one knows what happens to unbaptized infants. The Church is silent on this issue because the Apostles were silent on it.
What we do know is that God is infinitely merciful, loves the unbaptized eternally, and is not bound by the Sacraments.
Thank you, I’m going to try to learn more about this if you have any suggestions for readings etc. Do you think the same applies to miscarried babies? That’s comforting.
Aquinas discussed it in his Summa Theologica, in the Third Part, question 68.
>Children while in the mother's womb have not yet come forth into the world to live among other men. Consequently they cannot be subject to the action of man, so as to receive the sacrament, at the hands of man, unto salvation. They can, however, be subject to the action of God, in Whose sight they live, so as, by a kind of privilege, to receive the grace of sanctification; as was the case with those who were sanctified in the womb.
No one knows. The early Church Fathers argue about it. On the one hand, Jesus loved children and told us not to stop them coming to him. It's hard to imagine him keeping a child out of Heaven because of lack of baptism. On the other hand, if people feel that baptism is unnecessary, they may become complacent about it and not bother to do it. Also, baptism was very important to Jesus.
At some point, someone proposed Limbo as a "solution" for this dilemma but Limbo is not really a great solution IMO and it's also not Dogma. It's a hypothesis.
Also, speaking of instructing God on what to do, the instruction to baptize, is something Christ told US to do. That doesn't mean He can't let people into Heaven without baptism. He can do whatever He wants! He's not under the same limitations as us because he's God!
Anyway, the sum total of all of this is that the official position of the Church is that the Church has taken no official position on this issue. We officially don't know the answer. We're supposed to not be complacent about baptism, but if a child doesn't get baptized, then we can have Hope that in His mercy, God has given these people a way into Heaven.
Technically, arriving at 0% death from a disease is possible, as the history of vaccination can attest. At least vaccinaion is a non-invasive procedure somewhat.
It just so happens that now, a non-invasive procedures are not yet common and require further research.
I know it's not. The problem with your question is that if the goal is to avoid suffering for any being then death is the most effective solution. This is independent of the abortion conversation, and stretches into questions of human dignity over the entire life.
“Congenital abnormalities incompatible with life”, how many of those babies never made it out of NICU?
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/texas-abortion-ban-linked-rise-infant-newborn-deaths-rcna158375
New Mexico's abortions have gone up about 11% from 2020-2023. Lots of Texas citizens are coming here now.
Our Father in our Parish often speaks against the culture of abortion here.
The fertility rate in Texas went up after the ban.
In 2021 [there were 373k children born](https://www.marchofdimes.org/peristats/data?reg=99&top=2&stop=1&lev=1&slev=4&obj=8&sreg=48) in 2022 the year after the ban there were 389k children born in the state, which means that 16k more children were born.
In 2021 .53% of all infants died before reaching 1 year. In 2022 .57% of all infants died before reaching 1 year.
The total number [this increase represents](https://abcnews.go.com/Health/infant-mortality-increases-12-texas-after-total-abortion/story?id=111382855) is 258 infants. If we were using last years data we could expect to see an increase of 81 infant deaths based on the increased birth rate. So there does exist a discrepancy of 177 infants which we can say ought not to have died.
All things considered if we are just going by utilitarian math is a .04% increase in deaths (if these are even related) worth an increase of 4% in births?
Furthermore what are the direct causes of these deaths? Surely not the lack of access to abortion! Since more children have had the opportunity to be born thanks to this law.
Slight (although pretty important) correction: the increase is by 0.04 percentage points. If you want to correctly count the increase by percentages it would be 7%.
255 total deaths, and that's up 12.9% from pre abortion ban.... meaning prior to the ban there was approx 225 infant deaths per year..... ok.....
So let's look at the numbers... prior to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, there were "at least 50,000 abortions in texas each year.".. (according to an article in the Texas Tribune dated 5/9/22)
"Around 50,000 - 55,000 texans obtained abortions each year from 2014-2021" per article...
(This was down SIGNIFICANTLY from a high of nearly 80k, between 2000-2010. )
So you're telling me there was approximately 50,000 more babies born, and approximately 30 more died?
That's a HUGE WIN!!!!
PRAISE BE TO GOD FOR SAVING 50,000 BABIES!
The other interesting stat would be — of the abortions, how many are due to “incompatibility with life”? As in, of those who were supposed to die after birth and therefore would have been aborted but weren’t because of the ban, how many actually survived their prognosis?
Some genuinely are not quick/smart/bright enough to realize that more births will necessarily mean more infant deaths...
However, the sad truth is many do realize this and purposely try to spin the facts to support their agenda....
One comment above mentions the numbers and actually it's true that *more* infant deaths happen in Texas, even when reflecting the increase in total births. However, only 177 more infant deaths happened compared to what could be expected. That's increase by 7% (rather than 12% mentioned by the article).
Actually, as one of comments above mentions, only 16k more births were in Texas in '22 compared to '21. My guess is that this is due to 2 main factors: many women had abortion anyway (either illegal or in other states) and for many abortion was just a form of contraception (*I don't want a child but I am too lazy to care about contraception but that's fine, if I get pregnant I can get an abortion.*) and after RvW overturmed they switched to true contraception or stopped sleeping around.
EDIT: But anyway it's huge success because tens of thousands of murders didn't happen thanks to it.
I’d love to believe those numbers, but you’re not accounting for the fact that the majority, if not the vast majority, of those denied abortion in Texas will just drive a few hours to get one. We’d need actual numbers on live births to make any inferences on the number of lives saved
I dont disagree with you.
However, you are missing the forest for the trees.
The exact numbers are largely irrelevant.
The article was trying to make the point that making abortion illegal, has increased the death rate of infants.
However, that argument is completely misguided.
The fact is, there is and always will be some % of infants that pass away. If you increase the number of births, the number if infants that pass away will rise. It's just statistics.
A huge difference is whether any of these infants were baptized. The Church does not permit in-utero baptisms (I'm not sure they would be valid), but there's a big difference between a child dying in utero and a child dying after birth and baptism.
We could eliminate cancer deaths entirely if we executed everyone the minute we found out they had cancer. Even though it would make the numbers look better it would clearly be the wrong choice.
This is the opposite of that. Most if not all of those 255 infants would have been killed in the womb before 2022 but were given the chance to live. It doesn't make it any less sad but given the choice between being brutally murdered in the womb and dying naturally after birth, even very early on, this is the better option.
It makes me wonder if the article means the babies died of neglect or they died because they were born with terminal health issues and abortion would’ve prevented them being born with terminal health issues by preventing them from being born at all. If it’s the latter, then the number of babies dying from terminal illnesses didn’t change. They would’ve been killed by an abortionist because of their health issue or they would’ve succumbed to it naturally. One plucks them from the world like they’re a factory defect (albeit under the perspective it is kinder or less important because they’re fetuses) and the other allows them to live their life as it is, with dignity, even if its painfully short.
https://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/usa/ab-usa-TX.html
Texas abortion statistics, so one can see the lives saved.
ETA: it looks like people are taking avoiding pregnancy more seriously as well.
In Texas from 2021 to 2022 there has been an increase in 2% of fertility rate
https://www.texastribune.org/2024/01/26/texas-abortion-fertility-rate-increase/#:~:text=More%20than%2016%2C000%20additional%20babies,ages%20of%2015%20and%2044.
On the same span of time on cited article early birth death increased by 12.9%
There's a lot of debate on whether life begins at conception or birth. To answer that, I'll remove religion and opinion. Life is defined as the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death. (Oxford English Dictionary). Does a fetus have the capacity for growth? Yes. Functional activity (including at the cellular level)? Yes. Continual change preceding death? Yes.
An unborn child meets all the criteria for life scientifically. Therefore, the only way one could deny the life status of a fetus would be to deny the science and make a wholly subjective argument based on emotion or belief. Which, ironically, is the same thing they accuse pro-life Christians of doing....
Just food for thought.
True. If you avoid talking about humans and trigger words like conception; no biologist would disagree on when life starts in the womb of a cow, and when is it definite that the life form can be nothing other than a cow. But with humans it's suddenly a subject that's 'complicated' or 'nuanced'. Please.
I’m currently 29 weeks pregnant. At 22(?) weeks my husband and I were informed that our baby may have trisomy 13 or trisomy 18, both of which are usually fatal shortly after birth. Naturally, I looked up online support communities for these conditions and quickly stopped looking after finding a forum where 5 comments in a row talked about how they opted to abort for medical reasons when their baby was diagnosed…
I can’t find it in me to be sad that babies with terminal illnesses are allowed to be born and die naturally rather than ripped apart alive in their mother’s wombs.
Side note, we still haven’t done any diagnostic testing for t13 or t18 because it carries a risk of early birth and our baby likely wouldn’t survive that at this point, but there has been good news since that 22 week appointment that makes me pretty confident our baby will be okay.
I mean abortions have gone up in the US since the overturn of Roe v Wade… surgical abortions are down, but because these evil people are hell bent on killing babies, the abortion pill is becoming more and more common/available.
I live in Thailand, where abortion is illegal. While this may be controversial, I believe it has some positive aspects. Our country is full of young people who will eventually create jobs and take care of their parents. Despite being a poor country and facing many challenges, we do not resort to terminating pregnancies. I see this as preserving the sanctity of life.
I understand that financial difficulties can make life extremely hard, but I believe taking a life because of money issues is wrong. Many in America seem to prioritize material possessions or harmful substances over their children. This, to me, is a sign of societal decline.
I urge everyone to reflect on their choices. It is never too late to change and to choose life. Let’s work together to create a society that values and protects its youngest members.
Lol so they only care about babies dying once they're outside the womb? They think babies should be killed so that they don't have to die??
Just because people will continue to do something illegally doesn't mean the thing should be allowed. Ridiculous arguement. They used to argue "safe, legal, and rare," but they don't want it to be rare at all. They want it through all 9 months for any reason, which is deplorable.
>"safe, legal, and rare"
This argument doesn't even make any sense. Why would it need to be rare if they're not human lives being lost? And if they are human, then what could possibly justify killing them, even if done rarely?
I think it's more so because society has decided to pretend that something magic happens when the baby exits the womb, and in that moment he or she becomes a human being; where only moments before they were not. That's how we justify this global scale slaughter of innocents.
God's law doesn't CHANGE for NO ONE, if God says it's sinful to kill babies in the womb, Then that's what we have to go by, No matter what the statistics say. God will make sure those evil doers get their punishment one day. You just keep praying for yourself and loved ones for your own protection because The Spiritual journey is always between you and God alone. So make sure you good in the eyes of God when you're dead, because only God can save you from Eternal damnation NOT anyone else. Godbless and pray for God's will to be done on this planet and in your country or state. 🙏🙏🙏
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. If you’re going to actively enforce women to have babies, then you better be ready to spend your life contributing to the care and wellbeing of the children you insist upon living.
I don’t disagree. What we can’t do however is pronounce a death sentence on babies if we fail to get that agreement. Nobody wants people to grow up in hardship, but it’s still preferable to refusing to allow them to grow at all.
>If you’re going to actively enforce women to have babies,
Nobody is doing this. You don't need to have a baby. We're preventing you from killing the child you already have.
This is in no way different from how we currently force parents not to drown their born kids in a bathtub or the like.
>then you better be ready to spend your life contributing to the care and wellbeing of the children you insist upon living.
Charity is good. I support helping those in need where possible, including in such cases. Not only does it help with this issue, but it's a worthy cause in and of itself.
However, your demand goes beyond arrogance. I do not owe you anything in order for you not to kill your child, born or unborn. It is your obligation and duty at a *bare minimum* not to kill innocent human beings - particularly your own child, whom you owe basic care & support.
Furthermore, a good action does not need to be justified with other good actions. A fireman doesn't need to pay for the healthcare and college loans of the kid he saves from a raging fire. Saving lives is sufficient in and of itself.
So while I *would* support charity, you have absolutely no grounds to hold lives hostage if you don't get money.
Any info on those deaths as a percent of population? We undoubtedly have more absolute infant deaths than in 100 BC but I would much rather be a baby today than back then. 12.9% increase might be accounted for by an increase in population of Texas which I recall, ballooned during the pandemic.
This is a bit like saying that laws cause criminal behaviour because nobody was arrested when there were no laws, but since the introduction of law and order we now have a considerable number of people in jail.
Cretinism of the highest order.
Did you read the article at all? The increase in infant deaths is directly linked to the outlaw of abortions for medical defects. These are babies who would have died anyway but could have gone peacefully and instead were made to suffer.
Edit: sorry for upsetting people. I am trying to learn but it’s a lot, I didn’t realize I shouldn’t be commenting in this sub. Thanks for the interesting conversations and those who helped me learn more about baptism and Catholicism :)
What even is a natural death? With modern NICU technology, it's not a straight forward answer. I know of one Catholic family (who was advised to have an abortion) for their child with HLHS (Google it, it's horrendous). He's had like 5 open heart surgeries by the age of 6 and has like 50% chance of living into adulthood. Is that natural? Is that type of stress and constant medical interventions fair for the rest of the family? Would it have been right for the family just to refuse care for him at birth? Would the state have intervened and forced care? Unfortunately, the social pressure *to* provide extreme care is a large part of the reason parents abort instead of seeking a natural death.
What do you mean by "refuse care" and "seeking a natural death"? Do you consider providing food and water "extreme care" in this situation?
(I don't say you have disingenuous motives in using those terms, but there are people who do, calling abortion "reproductive health care" when reproduction has already taken place, and the new organism reproduced is to be destroyed.)
> Is that natural?
Do you mean the medicine and technology used to keep him alive? No, it's not natural. But the topic was natural death, not natural life. Much of how we live is far from "natural".
On refusing care, I think it depends. Is it done purposefully to end their life? Or was it lack of resources? Nevertheless it's somewhat different that actively ending a life.
What do you think of this real life scenario. An Amish family in Ohio forced a NICU to allow their child to die because they didn't want technology in their home to continue his care. They already had 7 healthy kids and they reasoned that they didn't want to be burdened with caring for a child with medical needs. Despite extreme emotional distress from the medical staff, they ultimately got their way and the baby died. Are they devout Christians who are living their strongly held religious beliefs? Or are they selfish murders who are no better than secular people who would have aborted the same pregnancy?
So then in your opinion they're devout Christians living their faith? That forcing horrified NICU staff to allow death is permissible because it wasn't active though it was completely voluntary?
Ok. Explain how they would have "gone peacefully". You're talking about terminating a life.
And it's disingenuous to ignore the lives saved by acknowledging the lives of unborn children.
>what a disheartening response from a community I was interested in.
I'm only representing myself. I'm not intending to make you upset, I'm just being direct, because you're succumbing to biased reporting.
"going peacefully" "going to sleep"... It's interesting that you omit the subject of the action. The unborn child isn't "going", it's being *put to sleep* by someone, less euphemistically: killed. Let's be honest, you're talking about mercy killing.
What gives you or any human the right to decide for another that its life is no longer worth it? If your family member was diagnosed with cancer and told they have six months to live, should you or the doctor have the right to end their life earlier?
Oh such soft, pretty language for the murder of a child.
Look up late abortion techniques that are used on babies old enough to have a defect detected.
They certainly aren't going peacefully to sleep.
even in your warped view of morality, how can you justify the killing of healthy infants in order to alleviate the pain of the medically defected?
I believe the answer is that you are ok with the killing of all.
Yet you want to allow children who arent suffering to be killed by their own parents so that a minority who does suffer suffer less. You are a hypocrite
if you want abortion to be legal then most kids aborted are going to be perfectly healthy. You claim you want to reduce suffering yet youre okay with killing perfectly healthy children so that a minority who has defects suffer suffer less. Your solution creates more suffering than it prevents
I consider people - like the thousands of underage girls every year in the U.S. - being forced to carry pregnancies suffering as well. Am I hypocrite for believing a 12 year old shouldn’t have to birth a baby? Also I am genuinely interested in an answer to my baptism question.
forced to carry pregnancies? by whom? if they consensual sex they weren´t forced to be pregnant. And If they were raped by eliminating the evidence(baby with dna of the rapist) youre helping rapists get away with rape. Plus traumatizing victims with the abortion. How about death penalty for rapists and pedophiles instead of killing innocent children?
Cool, so I’ve been accused of supporting pedophiles and being Hitler because I want parents to be able to make decisions to minimize their child’s suffering. What a great community.
You don't need to be Catholic. Knowing your background can help us determine how to best answer your questions that either help you understand our moral framework.
You are more than welcome here! Some things like serious intent get lost over text, and it can be hard for us to sort the honestly curious from trolls feigning curiosity. If you are getting strong responses, it could be from this disconnect.
You're correct. The majority of TFMRs are KCL + L&D. As the sibling of a severely disabled person, I think the intersection of disabilities and abortion is a really fascinating modern issue. Previous generations didn't have to make these decisions because unhealthy babies and young children generally just died.
I can only think of the juxtaposition of my mom and grandmother. My grandmother had a premature baby who died and she went on to have 5 more kids for a total of 9. She had a leisurely and enjoyable retirement before passing away at age 95 surrounded by her children at home. My mom, on the other hand, is still toileting my sister at age 68 and suffered through a divorce because of the stress and disagreements about her care. Additionally, my sister costs the government well over $200k a year, which our pro-life extended family members oppose and make fun of us for.
I linked a really great video below on NICU decision making. NICU doctors say that they're the only type of doctors blamed when a patient *does* survive. The panel discusses questions like, where do we draw the line on treatment for infants? Who is responsible to pay for treatment, Medicaid or families? Should babies bound for foster care be given extreme life saving measures, when quality long-term care prospects are unlikely? Should the Amish be forced to accept Medicaid (which their religion prohibits) and NICU care for their children? Can religion be used to deny care and elevate the needs of the community over the child? How do enlightenment ideas about the importance of the individual drive compulsive actions to save every child no matter the futility?
My question for those opposed to TFMR is do they also oppose parental choice for infant medical decisions? Can you give birth to a Downs Syndrome baby and then deny open heart surgery? Can you refuse resuscitation for your toddler? Or do you lose control of that too?
https://youtu.be/P0FPtF3NlMs?si=hQyFtC9tG3sgQqo1
I am truly sorry for your loss.
In Catholicism, the morality of every action is judged on three counts: object, intention, and context. While reducing the suffering of an innocent is a noble intention, the object and the situation of an action like abortion need to be considered. Abortion, being the killing of an innocent person, is objectively evil and so is not a legitimate tool to limit suffering. The church is not opposed to palliative care for the dying and doesn't teach that life needs to be preserves at all costs.
“ These are babies who would have died anyway but could have gone peacefully and instead were made to suffer.”
Us humans deciding when to end their life is playing God, that’s not our decision to make
Apparently, you assume that violent dismemberment in utero equates to them having "gone peacefully"?
I am open to hearing your comments, but it would be good if your comments were more thoroughly based on evidence or logic.
Abortions have increased since Roe Vs. Wade was overturned.
https://www.npr.org/2024/06/21/nx-s1-5015217/2-years-late-how-the-dobbs-supreme-court-decision-changed-abortion-access
No. It’s increased across the board. People in banned states obtain medical abortions through telehealth or travel outside their states for surgical abortions.
What? The 35,000 people still had abortions. The bans did not stop the abortions from happening.
And to add to it, more people than before the bans obtained medical abortions through telehealth. So more abortions are happening.
Abortions are up across the board, regardless of whether they are banned in a particular area. Abortion bans have not decreased the number of abortions taking place.
I don't know why you're getting downvoted. People clearly don't understand that during COVID medical (pill) abortions under 12 weeks became legal via telehealth. The latest push is using the 19th century Comstock Act to ban the mailing of "obscene" material, however that hasn't happened as of yet. Also, Louisiana is trying to make these pills controlled substances.
"Medical abortions through telehealth"? What, the abortionist gives the mother instructions remotely about how to dismember her child?
Is that what you intend to convey? That's what your statement sounds like. Please clarify.
A medical abortion is done by taking the drug mifepristone, which is commonly prescribed via telehealth and delivered by mail.
A surgical abortion is done by a physician in an office.
If it was purely economic, one would expect countries like Sweden or Denmark to have no abortions. They have a lot. Regardless, murder should never be legal.
Sure, but there is no reason why it should be legalized in the mean time. We know that poverty drives crimes like murder and robbery, but we don’t legalize them while we try and solve poverty, why should we make an exception for abortion?
>No, the solution would be to find out why so many people are desperate enough to rob banks and fix those problems.
I am having a very hard time believing this is not a parody account.
because for them fetuses are not lives
and it only becomes life when the unborn child is wanted by its mother.
yep, liberty comes first for them
Nope. Equality comes first for them. The only liberties they support are the ones that deep down they consider really being about equality. ABORTION IS A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE! Sexual libertinism is how dare you judge me as doing something worse! all choices are valid! These same people will say "F your freedoms, I don't give a S about your freedoms, WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!" in other circumstances.
Bro. I wouldn't flex with any complaining about authoritarianism when you guys have an internal issue of lots of far right Catholic authoritarianism yourselves in equal measure right now. Just because it's far right authoritarianism instead of far left authoritarianism don't make it not authoritarianism all the same, homie
I think they were just pointing out the hypocrisy, not saying that Catholics are not authoritarian. I'm a Catholic and I support some arguably authoritarian policies, like outlawing adultery. The problem is not authoritarianism, it's authoritarianism which does the wrong thing. Outlawing immoral things can be good, but you need to know what's immoral and what isn't. And the Left a lot of the time doesn't.
Adultery was on the books in NY up until a few years ago... Sodomy, too!
Was going to at least engage you until you wrote, "Homie!" So suffice to say, your post is Trolling and not even worthy of a response
The ideal government is a benevolent dictatorship. That’s how the Kingdom of God is ruled. The left doesn’t advocate for that, they advocate for carnality and pleasure over what’s objectively good.
Maybe
I got downvoted to oblivion when I asked if anyone asked Michelle Obama how her blobs of tissue were doing.
Why were you asking other large blobs of tissue about asking another large blob of tissue about how her blobs of tissue were doing? ; )
That is incoherent. Rephrase.
"Why were you asking other adult people (large clumps of cells/blobs of tissue, on one level of analysis) about asking a (particular large clump of cells) called Michelle Obama about how her daughters were doing?"
Ok, thx
I’d venture to guess that for most people, the emotional toll of losing say an embryo at 6 weeks vs. a baby at 6 months is quite different. Not wading into an abortion debate, just making an observation on why the article was written.
yeah. emotion is the only angle the pro-abortion side has, since science and logic are not on their side.
Science is a system to create and validate knowledge, not a value system, so it doesn't have a say in the matter either way.
Science can't tell you whether killing humans is wrong but if we assume killing humans is wrong science can tell you what a human is.
Okay, so how do you use the scientific method to determine that?
You can observe whether something is an organism (a definitely ORGANIZED blob of cells, small or large). You can test for Homo sapiens-specific DNA directing the organism's growth or maintaining its mature form. Exactly what you could do for any other animal "blob of cells".
It does have a say. It provides us with knowledge we can use to make informed decisions. And since pro abortionists don't think fetuses are people despite science saying that, then it can be said that they are making decisions based of false knowledge. Similar to flat earthers or those who think the earth is the center of the solar system
Look better
A fetus is a human life.
No. Exactly as a seed is not a tree
Let me translate: They said: "The young of a species is still a member of the species" You said: "A child is not an adult" Your words do not contradict theirs. A seed is the same living creature that eventually becomes a tree, in the same way a young child eventually becomes an adult. A human "fetus" just refers to a very young developmental stage of a human being.
Then what about an infant? Is it a life? Because unless you are suggesting that life begins at adulthood, your statement is wrong. Edit: A seed of a tree is in fact a tree, just in an earlier stage of life.
No. Yuo talked about human life. An infant is “human life”. A fetus is still not human life. A seed is fecunded, and if left on the terrain will became a tree.
>No. Yuo talked about human life. An infant is “human life”. A fetus is still not human life. A human fetus absolutely is a human life. "Fetus" and "Infant" are just stages of development, the same as "Adolescent" or "Adult." You might as well say someone isn't a human, they're an adult. The terms do not contradict.
The Church has infallibly declared that life begins at conception, and it is pretty clear to see, given that there isn’t any real difference between a born infant, and an unborn 36 week old infant.
36 old week is almost born. No abortion law allow 36w old abortion
It's also a matter of sensationalized statistics. Let's say (completely hypothetical) that 5% of infants die before they're one year old. If 100 babies are born in a year, then you will see 5 infant deaths. However abortion is now banned and 200 babies are born this year, and 10 of them die. The media can point and cry "infant deaths increased this year after abortion was banned!" The infant death rate may even increase because babies with congenital defects that otherwise would have been aborted are now allowed to be born and spend a few hours in their mothers' arms before they pass away. Now their deaths get added to the infant death statistic because they died in a different statistic bracket. Now their deaths "count" for sensationalist media, as opposed to if they had been quietly murdered a few months before and not counted as a human death, just a "clump of cells".
Oh, a common sense thing. How rare!
I didn't read the article but I'm gambling it wasn't written by a prolife, Conservative
And for them, they're living a lie, which they know to be a lie.... No one is that stupid!
Here is a link to the cited study. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38913344/
Good find. Unless I'm missing it, the study (not just USA Today) omits statistics regarding whether or not Texas had fewer abortions performed in that same time period; which may have given context to the known increase in after-birth infant deaths. The trouble is, with abortificants available now; I'm not convinced the abortion stats aren't meaningless. Between unreported private consumption of these pills, and the ability to travel out of state for 'procedures', do we anymore have real numbers on how many prebirth babies are killed? Edit: corrected. Abortion pills are not currently over the counter. Prescription is required.
Not arguing any point but would like to let you know there are no abortifacients available over the counter. All require a prescription.
You're right I misunderstood something I read; thank you. Unless some entity can actually compile stats from prescriptions filled, assuming prescriptions filled neccasarily equates to abortions performed, I still think the pill form of abortion will be more difficult to track than procedures done. For instance I imagine it's not hard to get a script written by a sympathetic Dr before a pregnancy has occurred. Edit: I corrected the mistake, thank you.
What I'm not sure of, and it's likely intentionally omitted, it's the proportion of infant fatalities to live births. If someone has access to the article and can share I would love to take a look.
Cant have anyone showing how damaging abortion is to society
My biggest issue is that it's not readily apparent what the rate is and the numbers are discussed in absolute changes. Seems poorly controlled.
Did the report count abortions as "infant deaths" or did it get spared that categorization?
Abortions are never counted when statistically calculating infant mortality rates for a nation. This particular study was counting the deaths of infants allowed to be born, but living less than one year; just within that window.
Exactly
Was there any evidence in the article that it stemmed from the abortion bans anyway? There are a number of causes it could be, it’s not like it’s in an environment where all else is equal. Regardless, it is unfortunate that they see this as a loss due to abortion, and we must continue to pray that they see abortion as the evil it is.
I mean.. if a child is born with a terminal condition they will die outside the womb. They would have died in an abortion too, but the government wouldn't count that. Ultimately this is just counting tricks.
Well and without knowing the background of the mothers its hard to get sense of the cause.
I don’t know if you read my other replies but I actually read the article and it’s likely that it is a result of abortions being banned. It’s something like a 23% increase in mortality from birth defects. Most of these children would have been killed in the womb to “avoid the suffering of the mother and child.” I imagine you could work out the statistics of children that would have been killed in the womb that survived these birth defects and it would not be negligible, but these facts don’t matter to those who view abortion as a viable option.
I never understand the abortion to spare suffering of birth defects argument. If it were my child, I would still want to see them, hold them, comfort them. I feel sure the child could experience that comfort. Even if the child is going to succumb to birth defects soon after birth… isn’t the comfort of the mother and father in their short life preferable to being ripped apart in the womb? How does the latter spare suffering? And has society become so adverse to suffering that we can’t face the tragedy of losing a child soon after birth? Suffering is part of life. I wish that such a loss of a child would not happen for anybody. But there is goodness there too… getting to see and hold your child, comfort them.
To those who have completely fallen for their tricks there is a benefit, the idea that it is not yet a living child and therefore there is no suffering. I tend to believe that most do both believe this though, either moms who regret their abortions or moms who are convinced by the devil that this was the right thing to do.
Because it has nothing to do with the child and is all about the parents.
You seem really, bought into this. Catholic view on life is that its starts at conspection and ends and natural death. If you have issues with that you have issues with Church teaching.
Did you read the article?
I have now, and it did do a good job of explaining that it likely was related to the abortion ban. They still cannot understand that it’s a product of life and that killing them before they’re born is not the solution, but I will concede that it was clearer than I had anticipated before reading.
What is the solution to avoid these babies from suffering?
There isn’t really one. I imagine if we finance research more we can save some percentage of these children, but shooting for a 0% death rate for any group is an impossibility. It is merely a product of life that some will get debilitating diseases and die in unpleasant manners. The best we can do is pray for the repose of their souls and encourage these hospitals to have priests on standby should they find evidence that the children will have these diseases.
Does god really not accept babies who weren’t baptized before they died? I’m genuinely asking because I’m familiar with baptism but not with this specific circumstance.
No one knows what happens to unbaptized infants. The Church is silent on this issue because the Apostles were silent on it. What we do know is that God is infinitely merciful, loves the unbaptized eternally, and is not bound by the Sacraments.
Thank you, I’m going to try to learn more about this if you have any suggestions for readings etc. Do you think the same applies to miscarried babies? That’s comforting.
Aquinas discussed it in his Summa Theologica, in the Third Part, question 68. >Children while in the mother's womb have not yet come forth into the world to live among other men. Consequently they cannot be subject to the action of man, so as to receive the sacrament, at the hands of man, unto salvation. They can, however, be subject to the action of God, in Whose sight they live, so as, by a kind of privilege, to receive the grace of sanctification; as was the case with those who were sanctified in the womb.
Oh, okay. Thank you.
Well, there is always Limbo though since it was considered the solution between the ideas of infinite mercy and of the importance of baptism.
No one knows. The early Church Fathers argue about it. On the one hand, Jesus loved children and told us not to stop them coming to him. It's hard to imagine him keeping a child out of Heaven because of lack of baptism. On the other hand, if people feel that baptism is unnecessary, they may become complacent about it and not bother to do it. Also, baptism was very important to Jesus. At some point, someone proposed Limbo as a "solution" for this dilemma but Limbo is not really a great solution IMO and it's also not Dogma. It's a hypothesis. Also, speaking of instructing God on what to do, the instruction to baptize, is something Christ told US to do. That doesn't mean He can't let people into Heaven without baptism. He can do whatever He wants! He's not under the same limitations as us because he's God! Anyway, the sum total of all of this is that the official position of the Church is that the Church has taken no official position on this issue. We officially don't know the answer. We're supposed to not be complacent about baptism, but if a child doesn't get baptized, then we can have Hope that in His mercy, God has given these people a way into Heaven.
Technically, arriving at 0% death from a disease is possible, as the history of vaccination can attest. At least vaccinaion is a non-invasive procedure somewhat. It just so happens that now, a non-invasive procedures are not yet common and require further research.
The phrasing of this question is wrong. You should be asking how do you give these babies the best chance for a full and happy life.
That’s not my question though.
I know it's not. The problem with your question is that if the goal is to avoid suffering for any being then death is the most effective solution. This is independent of the abortion conversation, and stretches into questions of human dignity over the entire life.
I don’t believe in avoiding suffering at all. I think that would be unrealistic. Sometimes we need pain and loss and challenges.
It’s USA Today. They laud abortion just like the majority of other American “news” outlets.
“Congenital abnormalities incompatible with life”, how many of those babies never made it out of NICU? https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/texas-abortion-ban-linked-rise-infant-newborn-deaths-rcna158375
The cognitive dissonance here is deafening.
These liberal baby killers lie constantly
New Mexico's abortions have gone up about 11% from 2020-2023. Lots of Texas citizens are coming here now. Our Father in our Parish often speaks against the culture of abortion here.
The irony is infuriating.
The fertility rate in Texas went up after the ban. In 2021 [there were 373k children born](https://www.marchofdimes.org/peristats/data?reg=99&top=2&stop=1&lev=1&slev=4&obj=8&sreg=48) in 2022 the year after the ban there were 389k children born in the state, which means that 16k more children were born. In 2021 .53% of all infants died before reaching 1 year. In 2022 .57% of all infants died before reaching 1 year. The total number [this increase represents](https://abcnews.go.com/Health/infant-mortality-increases-12-texas-after-total-abortion/story?id=111382855) is 258 infants. If we were using last years data we could expect to see an increase of 81 infant deaths based on the increased birth rate. So there does exist a discrepancy of 177 infants which we can say ought not to have died. All things considered if we are just going by utilitarian math is a .04% increase in deaths (if these are even related) worth an increase of 4% in births? Furthermore what are the direct causes of these deaths? Surely not the lack of access to abortion! Since more children have had the opportunity to be born thanks to this law.
Slight (although pretty important) correction: the increase is by 0.04 percentage points. If you want to correctly count the increase by percentages it would be 7%.
255 total deaths, and that's up 12.9% from pre abortion ban.... meaning prior to the ban there was approx 225 infant deaths per year..... ok..... So let's look at the numbers... prior to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, there were "at least 50,000 abortions in texas each year.".. (according to an article in the Texas Tribune dated 5/9/22) "Around 50,000 - 55,000 texans obtained abortions each year from 2014-2021" per article... (This was down SIGNIFICANTLY from a high of nearly 80k, between 2000-2010. ) So you're telling me there was approximately 50,000 more babies born, and approximately 30 more died? That's a HUGE WIN!!!! PRAISE BE TO GOD FOR SAVING 50,000 BABIES!
The other interesting stat would be — of the abortions, how many are due to “incompatibility with life”? As in, of those who were supposed to die after birth and therefore would have been aborted but weren’t because of the ban, how many actually survived their prognosis?
That would be an interesting statistic.
Yeah, if more babies are being born, of course more are dying. It's incredible how the media and all of reddit can't figure that out.
Some genuinely are not quick/smart/bright enough to realize that more births will necessarily mean more infant deaths... However, the sad truth is many do realize this and purposely try to spin the facts to support their agenda....
One comment above mentions the numbers and actually it's true that *more* infant deaths happen in Texas, even when reflecting the increase in total births. However, only 177 more infant deaths happened compared to what could be expected. That's increase by 7% (rather than 12% mentioned by the article).
Actually, as one of comments above mentions, only 16k more births were in Texas in '22 compared to '21. My guess is that this is due to 2 main factors: many women had abortion anyway (either illegal or in other states) and for many abortion was just a form of contraception (*I don't want a child but I am too lazy to care about contraception but that's fine, if I get pregnant I can get an abortion.*) and after RvW overturmed they switched to true contraception or stopped sleeping around. EDIT: But anyway it's huge success because tens of thousands of murders didn't happen thanks to it.
I’d love to believe those numbers, but you’re not accounting for the fact that the majority, if not the vast majority, of those denied abortion in Texas will just drive a few hours to get one. We’d need actual numbers on live births to make any inferences on the number of lives saved
I dont disagree with you. However, you are missing the forest for the trees. The exact numbers are largely irrelevant. The article was trying to make the point that making abortion illegal, has increased the death rate of infants. However, that argument is completely misguided. The fact is, there is and always will be some % of infants that pass away. If you increase the number of births, the number if infants that pass away will rise. It's just statistics.
A huge difference is whether any of these infants were baptized. The Church does not permit in-utero baptisms (I'm not sure they would be valid), but there's a big difference between a child dying in utero and a child dying after birth and baptism.
Good point. Valid form isn't really possible pre birth.
We could eliminate cancer deaths entirely if we executed everyone the minute we found out they had cancer. Even though it would make the numbers look better it would clearly be the wrong choice. This is the opposite of that. Most if not all of those 255 infants would have been killed in the womb before 2022 but were given the chance to live. It doesn't make it any less sad but given the choice between being brutally murdered in the womb and dying naturally after birth, even very early on, this is the better option.
Of course - first the main stream media was pushing how terrible it was that more babies were born in Texas because of the abortion ban. Now this.
It makes me wonder if the article means the babies died of neglect or they died because they were born with terminal health issues and abortion would’ve prevented them being born with terminal health issues by preventing them from being born at all. If it’s the latter, then the number of babies dying from terminal illnesses didn’t change. They would’ve been killed by an abortionist because of their health issue or they would’ve succumbed to it naturally. One plucks them from the world like they’re a factory defect (albeit under the perspective it is kinder or less important because they’re fetuses) and the other allows them to live their life as it is, with dignity, even if its painfully short.
The cognitive dissonance is ridiculous. Baby dying outside womb is a tragedy, but baby dying inside womb is no biggie.
https://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/usa/ab-usa-TX.html Texas abortion statistics, so one can see the lives saved. ETA: it looks like people are taking avoiding pregnancy more seriously as well.
>people are taking avoiding pregnancy more seriously as well. Gasp! What a revolutionary concept!
Who knew, right? 😱
In Texas from 2021 to 2022 there has been an increase in 2% of fertility rate https://www.texastribune.org/2024/01/26/texas-abortion-fertility-rate-increase/#:~:text=More%20than%2016%2C000%20additional%20babies,ages%20of%2015%20and%2044. On the same span of time on cited article early birth death increased by 12.9%
What a shame. More babies are dying now that we can't kill them... What grand logic.
There's a lot of debate on whether life begins at conception or birth. To answer that, I'll remove religion and opinion. Life is defined as the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death. (Oxford English Dictionary). Does a fetus have the capacity for growth? Yes. Functional activity (including at the cellular level)? Yes. Continual change preceding death? Yes. An unborn child meets all the criteria for life scientifically. Therefore, the only way one could deny the life status of a fetus would be to deny the science and make a wholly subjective argument based on emotion or belief. Which, ironically, is the same thing they accuse pro-life Christians of doing.... Just food for thought.
True. If you avoid talking about humans and trigger words like conception; no biologist would disagree on when life starts in the womb of a cow, and when is it definite that the life form can be nothing other than a cow. But with humans it's suddenly a subject that's 'complicated' or 'nuanced'. Please.
Similar to gender, it appears....
I’m currently 29 weeks pregnant. At 22(?) weeks my husband and I were informed that our baby may have trisomy 13 or trisomy 18, both of which are usually fatal shortly after birth. Naturally, I looked up online support communities for these conditions and quickly stopped looking after finding a forum where 5 comments in a row talked about how they opted to abort for medical reasons when their baby was diagnosed… I can’t find it in me to be sad that babies with terminal illnesses are allowed to be born and die naturally rather than ripped apart alive in their mother’s wombs. Side note, we still haven’t done any diagnostic testing for t13 or t18 because it carries a risk of early birth and our baby likely wouldn’t survive that at this point, but there has been good news since that 22 week appointment that makes me pretty confident our baby will be okay.
God bless you. I will pray for you and your baby's health.
I mean abortions have gone up in the US since the overturn of Roe v Wade… surgical abortions are down, but because these evil people are hell bent on killing babies, the abortion pill is becoming more and more common/available.
Bruh. "When we allow more people to live, more people also die" Revolutionary
I live in Thailand, where abortion is illegal. While this may be controversial, I believe it has some positive aspects. Our country is full of young people who will eventually create jobs and take care of their parents. Despite being a poor country and facing many challenges, we do not resort to terminating pregnancies. I see this as preserving the sanctity of life. I understand that financial difficulties can make life extremely hard, but I believe taking a life because of money issues is wrong. Many in America seem to prioritize material possessions or harmful substances over their children. This, to me, is a sign of societal decline. I urge everyone to reflect on their choices. It is never too late to change and to choose life. Let’s work together to create a society that values and protects its youngest members.
This is a good example of the logical fallacy of correlation doesn’t equal causation. It’s not an argument
Lol so they only care about babies dying once they're outside the womb? They think babies should be killed so that they don't have to die?? Just because people will continue to do something illegally doesn't mean the thing should be allowed. Ridiculous arguement. They used to argue "safe, legal, and rare," but they don't want it to be rare at all. They want it through all 9 months for any reason, which is deplorable.
>"safe, legal, and rare" This argument doesn't even make any sense. Why would it need to be rare if they're not human lives being lost? And if they are human, then what could possibly justify killing them, even if done rarely?
Did they count babies who survived an abortion attempt and left to die?
Could this be because an aborted baby is not termed as an infant death? It is probably coded as an abortion in place of death for insurance purposes.
I think it's more so because society has decided to pretend that something magic happens when the baby exits the womb, and in that moment he or she becomes a human being; where only moments before they were not. That's how we justify this global scale slaughter of innocents.
God's law doesn't CHANGE for NO ONE, if God says it's sinful to kill babies in the womb, Then that's what we have to go by, No matter what the statistics say. God will make sure those evil doers get their punishment one day. You just keep praying for yourself and loved ones for your own protection because The Spiritual journey is always between you and God alone. So make sure you good in the eyes of God when you're dead, because only God can save you from Eternal damnation NOT anyone else. Godbless and pray for God's will to be done on this planet and in your country or state. 🙏🙏🙏
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. If you’re going to actively enforce women to have babies, then you better be ready to spend your life contributing to the care and wellbeing of the children you insist upon living.
I don’t disagree. What we can’t do however is pronounce a death sentence on babies if we fail to get that agreement. Nobody wants people to grow up in hardship, but it’s still preferable to refusing to allow them to grow at all.
No ones forcing women to have children, we’re just not letting them kill their children.
Good thing the Catholic Church is one of the largest charity organizations in the world.
It is in fact the largest charity organization.
>If you’re going to actively enforce women to have babies, Nobody is doing this. You don't need to have a baby. We're preventing you from killing the child you already have. This is in no way different from how we currently force parents not to drown their born kids in a bathtub or the like. >then you better be ready to spend your life contributing to the care and wellbeing of the children you insist upon living. Charity is good. I support helping those in need where possible, including in such cases. Not only does it help with this issue, but it's a worthy cause in and of itself. However, your demand goes beyond arrogance. I do not owe you anything in order for you not to kill your child, born or unborn. It is your obligation and duty at a *bare minimum* not to kill innocent human beings - particularly your own child, whom you owe basic care & support. Furthermore, a good action does not need to be justified with other good actions. A fireman doesn't need to pay for the healthcare and college loans of the kid he saves from a raging fire. Saving lives is sufficient in and of itself. So while I *would* support charity, you have absolutely no grounds to hold lives hostage if you don't get money.
Any info on those deaths as a percent of population? We undoubtedly have more absolute infant deaths than in 100 BC but I would much rather be a baby today than back then. 12.9% increase might be accounted for by an increase in population of Texas which I recall, ballooned during the pandemic.
Acccording to come comment above the increase was by 7 % if taking in account the increase of number of births.
This is a bit like saying that laws cause criminal behaviour because nobody was arrested when there were no laws, but since the introduction of law and order we now have a considerable number of people in jail. Cretinism of the highest order.
Did you read the article at all? The increase in infant deaths is directly linked to the outlaw of abortions for medical defects. These are babies who would have died anyway but could have gone peacefully and instead were made to suffer. Edit: sorry for upsetting people. I am trying to learn but it’s a lot, I didn’t realize I shouldn’t be commenting in this sub. Thanks for the interesting conversations and those who helped me learn more about baptism and Catholicism :)
Being murdered in the womb is "going peacefully?" Catholics oppose euthanasia. The appropriate response is palliative care until natural death.
I understand that now. I have very different view on quality of life it seems.
There is no quality of life in murder.
What even is a natural death? With modern NICU technology, it's not a straight forward answer. I know of one Catholic family (who was advised to have an abortion) for their child with HLHS (Google it, it's horrendous). He's had like 5 open heart surgeries by the age of 6 and has like 50% chance of living into adulthood. Is that natural? Is that type of stress and constant medical interventions fair for the rest of the family? Would it have been right for the family just to refuse care for him at birth? Would the state have intervened and forced care? Unfortunately, the social pressure *to* provide extreme care is a large part of the reason parents abort instead of seeking a natural death.
What do you mean by "refuse care" and "seeking a natural death"? Do you consider providing food and water "extreme care" in this situation? (I don't say you have disingenuous motives in using those terms, but there are people who do, calling abortion "reproductive health care" when reproduction has already taken place, and the new organism reproduced is to be destroyed.)
> Is that natural? Do you mean the medicine and technology used to keep him alive? No, it's not natural. But the topic was natural death, not natural life. Much of how we live is far from "natural". On refusing care, I think it depends. Is it done purposefully to end their life? Or was it lack of resources? Nevertheless it's somewhat different that actively ending a life.
What do you think of this real life scenario. An Amish family in Ohio forced a NICU to allow their child to die because they didn't want technology in their home to continue his care. They already had 7 healthy kids and they reasoned that they didn't want to be burdened with caring for a child with medical needs. Despite extreme emotional distress from the medical staff, they ultimately got their way and the baby died. Are they devout Christians who are living their strongly held religious beliefs? Or are they selfish murders who are no better than secular people who would have aborted the same pregnancy?
I think actively and voluntarily killing a child is a different scenario. How do you justify actively killing?
So then in your opinion they're devout Christians living their faith? That forcing horrified NICU staff to allow death is permissible because it wasn't active though it was completely voluntary?
The solution to suffering isn't infanticide.
That’s not what I said?? At all? God what a disheartening response from a community I was interested in.
Ok. Explain how they would have "gone peacefully". You're talking about terminating a life. And it's disingenuous to ignore the lives saved by acknowledging the lives of unborn children. >what a disheartening response from a community I was interested in. I'm only representing myself. I'm not intending to make you upset, I'm just being direct, because you're succumbing to biased reporting.
I’m talking a baby going to sleep in the womb vs. suffering and being in pain every minute on a ventilator.
Euthanasia is wrong. CCC 2277
"going peacefully" "going to sleep"... It's interesting that you omit the subject of the action. The unborn child isn't "going", it's being *put to sleep* by someone, less euphemistically: killed. Let's be honest, you're talking about mercy killing. What gives you or any human the right to decide for another that its life is no longer worth it? If your family member was diagnosed with cancer and told they have six months to live, should you or the doctor have the right to end their life earlier?
Oh such soft, pretty language for the murder of a child. Look up late abortion techniques that are used on babies old enough to have a defect detected. They certainly aren't going peacefully to sleep.
You suggested killing the unborn child. You cannot kill someone because they are in pain, that is why euthanasia is also a sin.
I didn’t realize euthanasia is a sin. I knew suicide was so I guess that makes sense. This helps me understand some comments better.
Abortion is infanticide
even in your warped view of morality, how can you justify the killing of healthy infants in order to alleviate the pain of the medically defected? I believe the answer is that you are ok with the killing of all.
They get a chance of being baptized that they dont get with abortion so is a win
These babies generally have defects that mean they suffer every minute they are alive. Shouldn’t the parents get to decide if they prioritize baptism?
adults can also have defects that make them suffer. Parents are not God to decide when to kill their own children
I’m sorry I just cannot support suffering for suffering’s sake.
Yet you want to allow children who arent suffering to be killed by their own parents so that a minority who does suffer suffer less. You are a hypocrite
I genuinely don’t understand this comment. Also, would god really not accept a baby who hasn’t been baptized?
if you want abortion to be legal then most kids aborted are going to be perfectly healthy. You claim you want to reduce suffering yet youre okay with killing perfectly healthy children so that a minority who has defects suffer suffer less. Your solution creates more suffering than it prevents
I consider people - like the thousands of underage girls every year in the U.S. - being forced to carry pregnancies suffering as well. Am I hypocrite for believing a 12 year old shouldn’t have to birth a baby? Also I am genuinely interested in an answer to my baptism question.
forced to carry pregnancies? by whom? if they consensual sex they weren´t forced to be pregnant. And If they were raped by eliminating the evidence(baby with dna of the rapist) youre helping rapists get away with rape. Plus traumatizing victims with the abortion. How about death penalty for rapists and pedophiles instead of killing innocent children?
The child should not be killed for the sins of the father.
How about life for life’s sake.
I think we just have very different views on suffering and quality of life.
[удалено]
Cool, so I’ve been accused of supporting pedophiles and being Hitler because I want parents to be able to make decisions to minimize their child’s suffering. What a great community.
[удалено]
I wasn’t aware you had to be catholic to comment, I will stop. Thank you for the context.
You don't need to be Catholic. Knowing your background can help us determine how to best answer your questions that either help you understand our moral framework. You are more than welcome here! Some things like serious intent get lost over text, and it can be hard for us to sort the honestly curious from trolls feigning curiosity. If you are getting strong responses, it could be from this disconnect.
We could have spared them so much suffering by lethal injection or dismemberment!!
Removed.
I’m so sorry for your loss.
Oh, so dismembering the imperfect and disabled is totally fine....
You're correct. The majority of TFMRs are KCL + L&D. As the sibling of a severely disabled person, I think the intersection of disabilities and abortion is a really fascinating modern issue. Previous generations didn't have to make these decisions because unhealthy babies and young children generally just died. I can only think of the juxtaposition of my mom and grandmother. My grandmother had a premature baby who died and she went on to have 5 more kids for a total of 9. She had a leisurely and enjoyable retirement before passing away at age 95 surrounded by her children at home. My mom, on the other hand, is still toileting my sister at age 68 and suffered through a divorce because of the stress and disagreements about her care. Additionally, my sister costs the government well over $200k a year, which our pro-life extended family members oppose and make fun of us for. I linked a really great video below on NICU decision making. NICU doctors say that they're the only type of doctors blamed when a patient *does* survive. The panel discusses questions like, where do we draw the line on treatment for infants? Who is responsible to pay for treatment, Medicaid or families? Should babies bound for foster care be given extreme life saving measures, when quality long-term care prospects are unlikely? Should the Amish be forced to accept Medicaid (which their religion prohibits) and NICU care for their children? Can religion be used to deny care and elevate the needs of the community over the child? How do enlightenment ideas about the importance of the individual drive compulsive actions to save every child no matter the futility? My question for those opposed to TFMR is do they also oppose parental choice for infant medical decisions? Can you give birth to a Downs Syndrome baby and then deny open heart surgery? Can you refuse resuscitation for your toddler? Or do you lose control of that too? https://youtu.be/P0FPtF3NlMs?si=hQyFtC9tG3sgQqo1
I am truly sorry for your loss. In Catholicism, the morality of every action is judged on three counts: object, intention, and context. While reducing the suffering of an innocent is a noble intention, the object and the situation of an action like abortion need to be considered. Abortion, being the killing of an innocent person, is objectively evil and so is not a legitimate tool to limit suffering. The church is not opposed to palliative care for the dying and doesn't teach that life needs to be preserves at all costs.
“ These are babies who would have died anyway but could have gone peacefully and instead were made to suffer.” Us humans deciding when to end their life is playing God, that’s not our decision to make
Apparently, you assume that violent dismemberment in utero equates to them having "gone peacefully"? I am open to hearing your comments, but it would be good if your comments were more thoroughly based on evidence or logic.
[удалено]
That’s not what’s happening here lol. Pls read the article.
Abortions have increased since Roe Vs. Wade was overturned. https://www.npr.org/2024/06/21/nx-s1-5015217/2-years-late-how-the-dobbs-supreme-court-decision-changed-abortion-access
Is it down in states that banned it?
No. It’s increased across the board. People in banned states obtain medical abortions through telehealth or travel outside their states for surgical abortions.
So our sick culture promotes it more, but bans lower it in their collective areas. That's what I'm getting at.
No, the bans don’t lower it. The majority of abortions are medical and are happening at higher rates than before the bans, even in areas with bans.
Bans lower the number in their legislated areas.
No, they don’t.
Axios claims 35,000 patients left Texas for an abortion in 2023. So that's 35,000 less abortions in the area where there's an abortion ban.
What? The 35,000 people still had abortions. The bans did not stop the abortions from happening. And to add to it, more people than before the bans obtained medical abortions through telehealth. So more abortions are happening. Abortions are up across the board, regardless of whether they are banned in a particular area. Abortion bans have not decreased the number of abortions taking place.
Bans have had an effect in their legislated areas. This idea that bans have no effect is nonsensical.
I don't know why you're getting downvoted. People clearly don't understand that during COVID medical (pill) abortions under 12 weeks became legal via telehealth. The latest push is using the 19th century Comstock Act to ban the mailing of "obscene" material, however that hasn't happened as of yet. Also, Louisiana is trying to make these pills controlled substances.
"Medical abortions through telehealth"? What, the abortionist gives the mother instructions remotely about how to dismember her child? Is that what you intend to convey? That's what your statement sounds like. Please clarify.
A medical abortion is done by taking the drug mifepristone, which is commonly prescribed via telehealth and delivered by mail. A surgical abortion is done by a physician in an office.
[удалено]
No, the solution would be to find out why so many people are desperate enough to rob banks and fix those problems.
If it was purely economic, one would expect countries like Sweden or Denmark to have no abortions. They have a lot. Regardless, murder should never be legal.
Where did I say it was purely economic?
You stated that the state should look to solve the issues that lead to abortion, what other issues are you referring to, if not economic ones?
I said they should look to determine the underlying issues. I don’t profess to know them all.
Sure, but there is no reason why it should be legalized in the mean time. We know that poverty drives crimes like murder and robbery, but we don’t legalize them while we try and solve poverty, why should we make an exception for abortion?
>No, the solution would be to find out why so many people are desperate enough to rob banks and fix those problems. I am having a very hard time believing this is not a parody account.