Pelosi misrepresents the Catholic Faith

[DCJenn]

Nancy has lots of issues. I'm so not in like with her.

J.

[SuzySunshine]

Re: Pelosi misrepresents the Catholic Faith

Tara, I had it on but with so much else going on I missed that. I'm going to go see if I can find a clip - that is totally wrong of her to do. Don't try to justify your own opinion by saying the church is waivering on it - total BS! The church has always held by their stance that it begins at conception.

[SuzySunshine]

Re: Pelosi misrepresents the Catholic Faith

MR. BROKAW: Senator Obama saying the question of when life begins is above his pay grade, whether you're looking at it scientifically or theologically. If he were to come to you and say, "Help me out here, Madame Speaker. When does life begin?" what would you tell him?

REP. PELOSI: I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator--St. Augustine said at three months. We don't know. The point is, is that it shouldn't have an impact on the woman's right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child--first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. There's very clear distinctions. This isn't about abortion on demand, it's about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and--to--that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god. And so I don't think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins. As I say, the Catholic Church for centuries has been discussing this, and there are those who've decided...

MR. BROKAW: The Catholic Church at the moment feels very strongly that it...

REP. PELOSI: I understand that.

MR. BROKAW: ...begins at the point of conception.

REP. PELOSI: I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy. But it is, it is also true that God has given us, each of us, a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions. And we want abortions to be safe, rare, and reduce the number of abortions. That's why we have this fight in Congress over contraception. My Republican colleagues do not support contraception. If you want to reduce the number of abortions, and we all do, we must--it would behoove you to support family planning and, and contraception, you would think. But that is not the case. So we have to take--you know, we have to handle this as respectfully--this is sacred ground. We have to handle it very respectfully and not politicize it, as it has been--and I'm not saying Rick Warren did, because I don't think he did, but others will try to.

So off base!

[Cumberland]

Re: Pelosi misrepresents the Catholic Faith

On a local board here, a woman was discussing how she is a lesbian, raising her kids with her partner and they are both devout Catholics. Someone commented on why she would choose to be a devout Catholic when her lifestyle is directly against Catholic teachings. That person got hammered big time for being closeminded, people can believe what they want to, etc. But I do think it is true- why call yourself an ardent Catholic if you are going to hold beliefs that are directly opposite to the teachings of the church. I was raised Catholic and my family left the church for these same reasons- that my parents chose to believe in things the church didnt and they couldnt reconcile their beliefs to be those of the church ( although my dad says it was because a priest told my mom she couldnt wear pants to mass).

[PrincessFiona]

Re: Pelosi misrepresents the Catholic Faith

I saw it too. I thought she gave a very weird non-answer.

Kris

[mommax3]

Re: Pelosi misrepresents the Catholic Faith

I saw it, and I didn't think it was weird OR a non-answer, considering the source. She is a high-ranking democrat.....she's touting the party line.

I really, really find it hard to belive that anyone who has ever seen an ultrasound has a hard time determining when life begins. :huh:

The double-talk makes me furious. Let's see.....we have "that's above my pay-grade" from Obama and "the doctors of the church (who are they, exactly?) have not been able to make that definition" from Pelosi. I have some doctors at my church who would be happy to make that definition.....actually, doctors who don't even go to church can tell you if a baby in an ultrasound is alive or not.

I mean no disrespect for the Catholics here when I say that no matter what the Chruch has said/says/will say, the Bible is my authority on this matter, and I believe that life is a gift that absolutely begins at conception.

I can handle it much better when people are straight up and say that they believe a mother's right to abortion trumps a baby's right to life. I don't agree AT ALL, but I appreciate the honesty of it.

[PrincessFiona]

Re: Pelosi misrepresents the Catholic Faith

Well, by non-answer, I guess I just meant that she was stepping around the subject...and I absolutely agree with you about how Obama handled the question too. I also wish that there could be more honesty on the topic.

And not to spark a debate...I also believe that life starts at conception...but since God isn't stepping in saving the lives of moms diagnosed with cancer when they're pregnant (he IS omnipotent, right>) and family's of severely handicapped children are often without resources and the lives of the parents and children of severely handicapped children are sometimes ruined because of lack of resources, help and money...I can't deny women the right to an abortion in certain circumstances. I know that flies in the face of many people's beliefs here...and I respect the fact that you believe differently.

Obviously, this is my response to the last few years of my life...but I have definitely come to terms with some conflicting views on this topic in light of things that I experienced and have seen.

Kris

[Sheherezade]

Re: Pelosi misrepresents the Catholic Faith

Having little religious training, I am treading very carefully. My impression of this debate is that it has taken an interesting turn with the latest moves from the Bush administration. The question of when life begins becomes an issue not only for abortion but also for some forms of contraception that function by stopping implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterus. Those forms of contraception could be deemed "abortive" and made illegal if the abortion debate goes that way and the start of life is defined as "egg meets sperm". I guess that's what I'm hearing in all this "when does life begin" debate. What contraception can we allow? :huh: Does anyone else have a concern about that? I think IUD and OCPs would both be at issue if life was defined as beginning at conception. I think we'd have a serious lawsuit against some pharm companies for all the "murders" they've committed via these medical intervention. (At least, a technical case could be made in the extreme.)

As for what you see on an ultrasound, I can see how a one month ultrasound would say "baby" to most - but a few hours after fertilization, not so much. I'm not seeing a ball of cells or a neural tube as crying out "life" to most people. Obviously, JMHO. I believe some other cultures define life as beginnning at birth or at various points in fetal development - so there is also a cultural concern if the USA is to remain a melting pot and respect the thinking of other religions. (I'm basing this on purely social conversations with Asian friends....so possibly this is urban myth! )

Once again, we run into the issue of religion vs. law. Abortion is the stickiest of issues. Frankly, if I was a politician or a lawmaker, I'd want as little to do with making these decisions (where life begins) as possible. I think a cultural definition of "when life begins" that stands for the USA in general is probably the best determinate for when the death of a fetus is unacceptable. I think the second trimester is under heavy debate. Most people seem to agree that in the last trimester, the fetus has "rights". First trimester, more people feel the rights lean towards mom. This probably reflects the high miscarriage rate an the total inability for the fetus to survive without mom. Second trimester is a huge battleground. Conception as the definition of life would be very hard for me to swallow LEGALLY because I'd be concerned about all the ramifications of that definition. Scientifically, OK - I guess - but which step is conception? The start of the developmental cascade? If so, BC beyond barrier methods would definitely be on the table. As would tubal pregnancies, etc....

Re: Pelosi misrepresents the Catholic Faith

Question - does the Catholic Church allow for terminating pregnancies when the mother's life is at risk?

[SuzySunshine]

Re: Pelosi misrepresents the Catholic Faith

My understanding is that yes, the church allows abortions in cases where its one or the other. This article gives a little more detail.

http://www.cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=57

[Rapunzel]

Re: Pelosi misrepresents the Catholic Faith

I'm curious about the answer to Deb's question as well. - edited thanks Suzy for that answer

I am primarily in agreement with Sally on the entire issue. And, I can definitely see how devout Catholics would get bent out of shape over Pelosi's (yes, odd) answer.

How often are people who publicly undermine Catholic theology excommunicated? Just wondering about that as well.

Anyway, going back to what was being discussed about when life begins and when it is morally OK to terminate that life:

For me, if there are functioning major organs then there is life. That life may require "support" just like someone in a coma. But, if there is brain activity, a heart beat, and, later, deliberate movement that says "life" to me.

Conception is a tricky area. People who truly stick to the "life begins at conception" model also generally do not participate in birth control that could be seen as an abortificant (sp?) such as an IUD. I've even heard some insist that birth control pills could be considered in that vein. :huh:

There is also the issue of rape. And, that gets into issues of if a life produced by a person who does not value life (and, a rapist definitely puts his own desire for power and control ahead of the very lives of his victims) is worthwhile on its own? Is the trauma to the mother (physical and psychological) so great that she would suffer further incalculable harm by progressing with the resultant pregnancy?

With the issue of the mother's life being at stake: If the mother dies she will deprive her existing and future children of her parenting. She will affect not only herself but those around her who depend upon her. Is it fair to her other charges (current and potential) for her to sacrifice her life?

Those are issues I've pondered. My own church takes a very strong stance on abortion: You may not participate in one as the patient or as a medical provider, give financial support for one, or otherwise aid in an abortion procedure unless the mother's life is at stake or the pregnancy is the product of rape - and only then after praying about it and consulting ecclesiastical leadership. How is this alike or different from the Catholic church? Just curious on that as well. edited - I will read Suzy's article but I'm curious for any other views on the answer to this.

Re: Pelosi misrepresents the Catholic Faith

Thanks, Cheri!

I'm going WAY over onto the spiritual/theological side of things here, completely ignoring politics or law.

IMO, Kris has a good point about the difficulty of being cut & dried right/wrong on this issue. It seems like it could get Pharisaical pretty fast - e.g., you can remove part of the offending fallopian tube, incidentally ending the pregnancy, but you can't remove the embryo directly and save the fallopian tube - did I misread that? I can see the reasoning behind this - if you start removing the embryo directly, you're heading down a slippery slope toward abortion, but when you look at the specific case, it doesn't make sense, IMO.

To dive completely into theology (you can quit reading if you're of the type who thinks heaven sounds like science fiction!) - It seems like one of the major points of the New Testament is that this world is so systemically screwed up that no one can possibly do perfectly right. (Ok, so Jesus did it, but look what happened to him! Sorry - not funny.) When we have to make a decision to end a baby's life to save the mother, there is something more wrong with the world than one individual person's moral choices. It seems that Jesus' agenda was to offer a way of disentangling oneself from points of law, in order to be free to receive grace and extend it to others - being more concerned with the heart than with dos & don'ts.

So, what is the best way to extend grace here? I don't think ANYONE would say the best solution is to increase the number of abortions performed in this country. Abortions are traumatic for mothers, and I think they do end precious lives. But I also think there's a place for using common sense, for recognizing that there's not just an easy answer, and mostly for trying to address the systemic problem of why people are needing elective abortions.

In terms of law-making - this offers no help at all!! (...unless you apply this to mean more focus on prevention and less on lobbying.) I'm an incurable idealist, but I still think that how people respond on an individual level, to other individuals, has the potential to make as important a difference as a law, if that makes any sense at all.

Coming down off my :soapbox: now. (And yes, feel free to make me clarify if you like. I'm ok with it on this one.)

Re: Pelosi misrepresents the Catholic Faith

I just asked DH about this, and he said that a Catholic resident he worked with did remove embryos, not just tubes, in ectopics.

As a side note, another Catholic resident worked it out with the program/other residents so she wouldn't have to do tubals anymore. I don't know what the case was against tubals, but I admire her willingness to say she wasn't comfortable with the procedure. She apparently wouldn't make as good a politician as Pelosi is trying to be.

[SuzySunshine]

Re: Pelosi misrepresents the Catholic Faith

DH was mistakenly put on an abortion when he was in medical school. The OB/Gyn chief thought the resident had told him what the case was, she apologized profusely and promised it would never happen again. My understanding is that most medical schools will work with catholic students if they know.

My whole issue with this is the fact that Pelosi tried to manipulate the church's stance to her benefit. Politicians agree and disagree with abortion, that is their prerogative just like they agree and disagree with all policies but come on - admit your stance don't try to skirt the issue.

[rainbabies]

Re: Pelosi misrepresents the Catholic Faith

As a side note, another Catholic resident worked it out with the program/other residents so she wouldn't have to do tubals anymore. I don't know what the case was against tubals, but I admire her willingness to say she wasn't comfortable with the procedure. She apparently wouldn't make as good a politician as Pelosi is trying to be.

a tubal is a type of birth control (obviously .) i believe the church is against ANY type...yes???? :huh: