Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

During Baltimore assembly, bishops to consider revised directives on withdrawal of food, water
Catholic News Service ^ | 10/30/09 | Nancy Frazier OĺBrien

Posted on 10/31/2009 4:31:41 PM PDT by wagglebee

WASHINGTON – A proposed revision to the directives that guide Catholic heath care facilities would clarify that patients with chronic conditions who are not imminently dying should receive food and water by “medically assisted” means if they cannot take them normally.

“As a general rule, there is an obligation to provide patients with food and water, including medically assisted nutrition and hydration for those who cannot take food orally,” says the revised text of the “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services” proposed by the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Doctrine.

“This obligation extends to patients in chronic conditions (e.g., the ‘persistent vegetative state’) who can reasonably be expected to live indefinitely if given such care,” the new text adds.

Deleted from the directives would be a reference to “the necessary distinctions between questions already resolved by the magisterium and those requiring further reflection, as, for example, the morality of withdrawing medically assisted hydration and nutrition from a person who is in the condition that is recognized by physicians as the ‘persistent vegetative state.’“

The proposed revision to the directives will come before members of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops for debate and vote at their fall general assembly Nov. 16-19 in Baltimore. A majority vote by those present and voting is required for passage.

In an introduction to the revised text, Bishop William E. Lori of Bridgeport, Conn., chairman of the doctrine committee, said the directives, last revised in 2001, “were written long before” Pope John Paul II’s March 2004 address to an international conference on “Life-Sustaining Treatments and the Vegetative State” and the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s August 2007 reply to questions raised by the USCCB on artificial nutrition and hydration.

The current directives based their teaching on documents by “some state Catholic conferences, individual bishops and the USCCB Committee on Pro-Life Activities,” the bishop noted.

Bishop Lori said the changes were needed “particularly since the recent clarifications by the Holy See have rendered untenable certain positions that have been defended by some Catholic ethicists.”

Much of the ethical discussion of the nutrition and hydration question in recent years has focused on the case of Terri Schindler Schiavo, a brain-damaged Florida woman whose husband successfully fought for the right to discontinue her feeding tube. Schiavo died March 31, 2005, 13 days after doctors withdrew nutrition and hydration.

Some Catholic ethicists had argued that, because doctors consider a persistent vegetative state irreversible, artificial nutrition and hydration can be withdrawn from those patients.

“While medically assisted nutrition and hydration are not morally obligatory in certain cases, these forms of basic care should in principle be provided to all patients who need them, including patients diagnosed as being in a ‘persistent vegetative state,’ because even the most severely debilitated and helpless patient retains the full dignity of a human person,” the proposed revised directives read.

“Medically assisted nutrition and hydration become morally optional when they cannot reasonably be expected to prolong life or when they would be ‘excessively burdensome for the patient or (would) cause significant physical discomfort,’“ they add. “For instance, as a patient draws close to inevitable death from an underlying progressive and fatal condition, certain measures to provide nutrition and hydration may become excessively burdensome and therefore not obligatory in light of their very limited ability to prolong life or provide comfort.”

The proposed wording also would delete a reference to hydration and nutrition not being morally obligatory “when they cannot be assimilated by a person’s body,” replacing it with the “significant physical discomfort” language.

The revision was drawn up in collaboration with the USCCB Committee on Pro-Life Activities and in consultation with the Task Force on Health Care Issues, Catholic Health Association, Catholic Medical Association, National Catholic Bioethics Center and National Catholic Partnership on Disability, Bishop Lori said.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: catholic; euthanasia; moralabsolutes; prolife; terri; terridailies; terrischiavo; whiterose
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-108 next last
To: EternalVigilance; Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; ...
Prayers for ALL of the innocent Fort Hood victims.

Thread by EternalVigilance.

The child of Francheska Velez: The Fourteenth Victim at Ft. Hood


w_velez125x150.jpg

Francheska Velez, 21, had just finished a tour in Iraq and returned to Ft. Hood three months pregnant. The Army granted Velez, a 2006 graduate of Kelvyn Park High School, a maternity leave of absence and she was set to return to Chicago in just two weeks.


21 posted on 11/08/2009 10:49:11 AM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: taxcutisapayraise; EternalVigilance; Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; ...
The vote last night WAS NOT a victory for the pro-life movement.

Thread by taxcutisapayraise.

With Friends Like Right-to-Life, Who Needs Enemies?

I have my pro-life credentials. I’ve fought in the trenches, so shut-up.

Too many times while in the trenches, Right-to-Life national leaders have been there wiping out our side, handing victory to the pro-aborts.

Today, I lament and pray for and with Rep. John Shaddegg (AZ) who knew that if he could have received just a little bit of Right-to-Life’s cooperation, Pelosi’s health care bill would have gone down. Instead, Shaddegg got a Right-to-Life knife in the back.

The battle lost in the House over the government health care takeover rests in large part on the shoulders of the national Right-to-Life leaders. They are pinheads and they must resign now.

As the political dynamics tightened around the health care vote, liberal pro-aborts had to concede to a vote on the pro-life amendment in order to shave off enough pro-life democrats for victory. A bitter political pill for their side, but they saw the bigger victory and could spin the pro-life amendment as “just acknowledgement of existing law contained in the long-standing Hyde Amendment.” (Hyde Amendment = No federal funds for abortions)

Well, Shaddegg had a plan to throw sand in the gears and likely ruin the political machinery grinding out a victory for the government takeover of health care. He was rounding up the votes to kill the pro-life amendment (by voting “present”) and thereby killing the whole bill and quite possibly the entire effort. This would have caused such a train wreck, it is doubtful the liberals could have recovered, i.e., Waterloo.

But, NO ... as this plan was quietly being put together, Right-to-Life issues a noontime letter on the day of the vote stating a “present” vote will be scored as a NO vote, elevating it as the “most important vote” since the 1997 vote on the Hyde Amendment.

KABOOM! Right-to-Life once again snatches defeat from the jaws of victory. Good for Shaddegg being the lone “present” vote on the amendment.

This screw-up is so historic and monumental that the Right-to-Life leadership must take the honorable actions and resign, immediately.

Shaddegg has a 100% rating from Right-to-Life. He is not a mystery or a double-dealer. After all the work he has done on their behalf, a little help would have gone a long way.

Instead, it is clear ... Right-to-Life is more concerned about fundraising by “getting the win” on the pro-life amendment. How long do you think that amendment will hold as the bill makes its way through Congress?

Go away Right-to-Life leadership. Your actions are pitiful.


22 posted on 11/08/2009 10:52:41 AM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

**“As a general rule, there is an obligation to provide patients with food and water, including medically assisted nutrition and hydration for those who cannot take food orally,” says the revised text of the “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services” proposed by the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Doctrine.

“This obligation extends to patients in chronic conditions (e.g., the ‘persistent vegetative state’) who can reasonably be expected to live indefinitely if given such care,” the new text adds.**

BTTT for the Bishops in including the persistent vegetative state!


23 posted on 11/08/2009 2:07:33 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Prayer for Those Who Are Terminally Ill

 
Lord Jesus, you healed so many people during your public ministry. I bring before you now, in prayer, all those who are terminally ill -- those afflicted with cancer, AIDS, and other illnesses.
 
Look lovingly and compassionately upon them. Let them feel the strength of your consolation. Help them and their families to accept this cross they are asked to carry.  Protect them from euthanasia, Lord.
 
Let them see you carrying their cross with them, at their side, as you once carried yours to Calvary. May Mary be there, too, to comfort them. 
 
Lord Jesus, I know and believe that, if it is your will, you can cure those I pray for (especially N.). I place my trust in you. I pray with faith, but I also pray as you did in Gethsemane: your will be done. 
 
Bless us, Lord, and hear my prayer. Amen.
 
Reprinted from "Queen of Apostles Prayerbook" with permission of copyright holder, Pauline Books & Media,

24 posted on 11/08/2009 2:11:15 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
I'm sure this case will have George Felos salivating.

Thread by me.

Horseheads woman battling for guardianship of vegetative husband

It's a custody battle that rages on in Horseheads. Sara Harvey is fighting to be the guardian of her husband, Gary, who has been in a vegetative state since 2006. But a judge has ruled she is unfit to take care of him properly. Our Vince Slomsky tells us just some of this complex story and what might happen next.

 

HORSEHEADS, N.Y. -- Sara and Gary Harvey met at work. They married each other in 1998.

“We had a beautiful relationship. Just loving," said Sara Harvey.

Gary was a relatively healthy person, until January 21st, 2006. He had a heart attack inside their home in Horseheads and fell down these stairs suffering a severe brain injury. From that day on, he's been in a vegetative state relying on others to keep him alive. The majority of his time has been spent in the Chemung County Nursing Facility, but Sara says they do not provide him with the care he needs.

"I feel that he gets inadequate care. I mean with over four dozen ER trips, how would you think," said Sara.

But Sara is actually not even her husband's guardian, the county of Chemung is. A judge ruled she was unfit to care for her husband in 2007, and she says it all stems from an incident on September 16th, 2006. She said her husband's tracheotomy tube was defective, but the nurse at the nursing facility would not replace it.

"I cut it, and I used their scissors, and I told her I was going to do that and she didn't stop me. I wasn't trying to harm him in any way, I was trying to bring the matter to attention," she said.

A few hours later, the tube was replaced. But Chemung County Attorney Bryan Maggs says there were other incidents as well, such as wheeling him outside and placing flavors in his mouth.

“There were other instances where she was acting completely inappropriately, in a, well I'll just leave it at that, in an inappropriate way trying to do things with her husband that he was obviously incapable of doing physically," he said.

Sara says on May 29th of this year, the county and the ethics committee at St. Josephs Hospital decided to end Gary's life by removing his feeding tube.

"The doctors consulted and discussed what his medical needs were and what course of procedure would be most appropriate given his very severe needs and they came out with a course of action," said Maggs.

Sara says she was able to get the decision overturned but fears that it may happen again. She wants to care for Gary herself at their home and she has everything he needs to do so.

"I want my husband home for the holidays. He's a veteran. He's fought for freedom and he's denied his freedom," she said.

It is a matter likely headed back to the courts. The county attorney tells us they never wanted to be the guardians but after Sara was found unfit no other family members stepped forward. He also says Gary's condition is so severe that she would never be able to provide the care he needs.

Both sides are anticipating a court hearing soon on the guardianship battle.

"We will not be silent.
We are your bad conscience.
The White Rose will give you no rest."

25 posted on 11/09/2009 4:00:54 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
More on Gary Harvey.

Thread by me.

Wife’s Visitation in Jeopardy: The Isolation of Gary Harvey

garyharvey
 
Gary Harvey is the brain injured man from New York, who seems to have his own private “death panel” determined to kill him off and to make his and his wife’s life as miserable as possible, until the sentence is carried out.  One might think it could get no worse than it has been.  One should never think such thoughts, lest one (or more) be shown that — for however bad — things can actually get worse!

Though it wasn’t Sara sitting on the so-called ethics committee that determined Gary should be starved and dehydrated to death — the Guardian and County (who actually were involved in the attempted death of an innocent person) — have suggested she is a danger to her husband.

Huh?  Did I miss something there?

Hasn’t a DNR been placed on Gary?  If something does go wrong — that’s it, isn’t it?  Those in charge have made it clear they have no intention of lifting a finger to save his life, but yet, it is Gary’s wife, Sara, that is considered the danger to him?

The Twilight Zone has competition!

Let’s see…

It is the Guardian, County, and So-Called Ethics Committee that decided Gary should die, but Sara needs to be supervised when visiting him?  So, what do they think she is going to do to Gary that they need to protect him from?

Certainly can’t be death!

Certainly can’t be torturing him to death by starvation and dehydration!

So just what are the supervised visits suppose to be accomplishing?  What protection are they allegedly providing?  What are they supposedly preventing?

I’m with you — I don’t know either!

I did get word though, that the bills for these questionable supervised visits are being charged to Gary and he is either out of money or running out of money to pay for them.  What does this mean?  No more visits with his wife?  And this is in Gary’s best interest how?

I don’t know who these people are that think they are looking out for Gary Harvey’s best interests, but I certainly wouldn’t want them in charge of looking out for my best interests under any circumstances.

Isolation is a form of torture.  It causes failure to thrive.  So now, when those in control of Gary didn’t get him starved and dehydrated to death, and have not been able to implement the DNR — they are going to deny him his wife’s visits?  Who are they trying to punish?  Gary for being disabled or Sara for fighting to bring her husband home?

One can only wonder!

Author’s Note: Brief interviews with Sara Harvey can be found at WENY-TV (Dying With Dignity, Emma Wright  June 3, 2009)  and at Family Life (”FLN News/The Gary Harvey Story” , Sarah Harnisch – July 9, 2009) and (”FLN News/The Gary Harvey Story:  An Update” , Sarah Harnisch — October 28, 2009) as well as articles by The Corning Leader’s John Zick and Star Gazette’s Ray Finger and ongoing coverage by National Association to Stop Guardian Abuse (NASGA). 


26 posted on 11/09/2009 4:35:49 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Is any group helping Gary Harvey retain his liberty?


27 posted on 11/11/2009 5:32:25 PM PST by floriduh voter (Marco Rubio is Florida's Man of the Year imo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: pillut48; Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; ...
This story is absolutely devastating.

Thread by pillut48.

Goodbye,my beloved son:Father gives up court battle to keep his disabled boy alive-

In the end the young father could fight no longer.

For more than a year he had made daily visits to the hospital bedside of his chronically-disabled son.

For six emotional days in the High Court he had battled against the hospital - and the baby's mother - who were reluctantly seeking the right to withdraw life support.

Finally, faced with overwhelming evidence, he made the 'agonising' decision to let his beloved son go.

Both parents wept as the court was told he no longer opposed the hospital's application.

They said later they wanted to spend 'what little time remains with their beloved son'.

The father's heart-breaking move came after an independent expert said his son's quality of life was not good enough to justify prolonging it.

The 13-month-old boy, identified only as RB, has an extremely rare disorder that has robbed him of almost all muscle control.

His brain is undamaged, but trapped in an almost immovable body, unable to speak or even smile.

Incapable of breathing, he has been dependent on a ventilator since he was born.

Now it will be turned off within days. Doctors will administer a large dose of sedative to ensure the little boy does not suffer as he dies. . .


28 posted on 11/15/2009 10:48:12 AM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance; Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; ...
Thank God that Judie Brown and others continue to tell the truth.

Thread by EternalVigilance.

Judie Brown, "National Right to Life Committee: The Wayward Weigh In"

The problematic nature of pandering to politicians with half-measures while announcing to pro-life troops that a victory has been achieved is not a new malady. It has been a relatively consistent pattern woven into National Right to Life Committee politics for many years now.  Having said that, the problem with what is currently being said about the Stupak Amendment to the Pelosicare bill is the most egregious I have seen in my 40 years of pro-life activism.

For starters, on Saturday, November 7, NRLC sent a letter to each member of Congress in which the following statement was made: 

“As NRLC’s congressional scorecard for the 111th Congress will clearly explain, a vote against the Stupak-Pitts Amendment only be construed as a position-defining vote in favor of establishing a federal government program that will directly fund abortion on demand, with federal funds, and a second federal program that will provide government subsidies to private insurance plans that cover abortion on demand. NRLC regards this as the most important House roll call on federal funding of abortion since the House last voted directly on the Hyde Amendment in 1997. If you do not wish to go on record in support of creating major new federal programs that will both fund abortions directly and subsidize private abortion coverage, please vote for the Stupak-Pitts Amendment. NRLC will regard a “present” vote as equivalent to a negative vote on the Stupak-Pitts Amendment.”

While it could appear that NRLC is threatening members of Congress with a bad score if they vote against the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, the fact is that the amendment itself is halfhearted and fraught with problems. And if one examines the actual text of H. R. 3962, the Pelosicare bill, one finds the following:
 

 

This should make it obvious to anyone with a heart for the principles upon which the pro-life movement was founded to see right through the smoke and mirrors that NRLC is now using to deflect criticism from its political misjudgment.

To make matters worse, as if they could get worse, Lifenews.com published an article entitled “Pro-Life Movement Must Unify After Strategy Difference on Stupak Abortion Amendment.” Its simply unbelievable observations, pitting Congressman John Shadegg of Arizona’s strategy against that of the Stupak supporters, defy logic. Steven Ertelt describes what Shadegg attempted to do to ensure the abominable Pelosicare bill’s failure and then defends the Stupak strategy, claiming that with or without the Stupak Amendment, the bill would have passed. Interesting how he defends the NRLC strategy as the only real game in town.

But the most troubling comments come toward the end of the article, where we find these Ertelt insights: 

The aftermath of the Stupak amendment vote hasn’t been pretty. I’ve read countless comments on Twitter and Facebook from pro-life people who are livid at one side or the other.

But attacking pro-life groups, lawmakers or people for supporting one strategy or the other is not productive. We have so many battles ahead that a divided pro-life movement only leads to losing the battles on abortion funding and stopping this pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia health care bill.

Even with Stupak added, every pro-life group admits that rationing and conscience issues remain and that the bill still has concerns or the pro-life movement. No pro-life group -- and even the bishops despite some mis-reporting in the mainstream media -- are supporting the House bill as approved.

Let’s cease the attacks on one another. This is only a strategic debate between people who wholeheartedly want to see abortion end immediately if not sooner and not a matter of one side or the other abandoning pro-life principles. We all want to get the ball in the end zone and some of us want to pass and some to run the ball.

There are too many unborn children and elderly and disabled at risk in the health care bill to let this one inning (excuse the mixed sports metaphors) define where we go as a pro-life community. There is an entire game to be played and adopting Stupak has riled and motivated the pro-abortion forces. Divided, they win, but united we can stop abortion funding and defeat this pro-abortion, pro-rationing bill.

Ertelt’s description of the pro-abortion forces is, of course, correct. NARAL Pro-Choice America has described the Stupak Amendment as “extreme anti-choice politics.” Of course it’s riled; not a single baby should be protected by law, according to its strategic plan. And it’s united with its fellow pro-deathers, including Planned Parenthood, which claims the Stupak Amendment is an “unacceptable addition to the health care reform bill that, if enacted, would result in women losing health benefits they have today.”

In fact, Planned Parenthood is so upset it even forgot to mention that if this bill passes, with or without the Stupak language, Planned Parenthood’s already-huge government subsidies will increase dramatically. Gee whiz! How could it have been so absentminded?

I hope my point has been made. Regardless of who is riled, who is playing politics with babies’ lives or who is running for cover as they try to make lemonade out of the lemons they’ve tossed at principle, nobody should be pleased at the prospect of government-run health care. In case we have forgotten, dear friends at NRLC, this is the very government that thirsts for the blood of the innocent in unimaginable quantities!

Obama supporters’ “health care reform” bills, regardless of their title or bill number, are so fatally flawed that wise pro-life strategists would have withheld any 11th-hour efforts, including the back-room meeting orchestrated by the USCCB and NRLC that led to the Stupak fiasco. The concerns that Ertelt now mentions about rationing and conscience protections were a concern before Stupak and still are. And, of course (though curiously absent from his analysis), increased funding for PP, abortive birth control and the like, which have been included in every version of this “health care reform” effort and are equally disquieting. All of these provisions should have been sufficient for pro-life activists of every stripe to simply walk away, continue to preach the full pro-life message and let the bill go down in flames.

Instead, we have this silly argument about how we all have to go along, now that the Stupak language is in the bill, and do our best, tra la, tra la, tra la la la.

Well, sorry, but I don’t buy it! When people fail to be honest in their interpretations of pro-life philosophy before a major political effort, what will they do afterward? Now we know. They will spin a tale, whether valid or not, about uniting forces and pressing on.

Agreed. Now that the water is over the dam and the damage is done, we all must do one simple thing! We must demand that the following be included in any health care reform proposal:

Respect for human personhood, respect for human personhood and respect for human personhood.

If this single principle were the cornerstone of reasonable health care reform—a reform based on justice for all—there would be no anti-life provisions in at all. As of this writing and regardless of which bill we read, none measure up to this standard, and thus all should be opposed.

But this is probably why American Life League does not get invited to those closed-door, 11th-hour meetings wherein some individuals negotiate away principle in order to rush out celebrating a fictitious success. Frankly, we at American Life League get on our knees and thank God that we are not invited to such events, as we would prefer to serve the best interest of the human person—who deserves equal protection under the law at all stages of life—rather than serve the special interests of Democrats and/or Republicans who are convinced that playing games with human lives is acceptable practice.

NRLC has exposed its agenda. While it’s surely no surprise, it is also deplorable. The good news is that this is not the final act in the “health care reform” drama.

So … now that the wayward have weighed in, the rest of us better get busy focusing on human personhood.

Judie Brown

29 posted on 11/15/2009 10:51:57 AM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
The Vatican has made it very clear that a fetus IS HUMAN LIFE.

Thread by me.

If the Embryo is Human, It is a Person: Vatican Doctrine Official

ROME, November 13, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - If an embryo is human, it is a person - this is the golden rule for bioethics if it wants to uphold the full dignity of the human person, said the secretary of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) on Tuesday.

The "concept of person" and its application to all human beings at every stage of their development is the key to understanding the Catholic teachings on the life issues Archbishop Luis Ladaria told a conference in Rome. 

Archbishop Ladaria was speaking to an audience of students at a conference sponsored by the Lay Centre at Foyer Unitas, on the document, "Dignitas Personae" ("The Dignity of the Person"), an instruction from the CDF published in 2008 on "certain bioethical questions." These included developments in artificial reproductive technologies, such as genetic manipulation of embryos and cloning. Ladaria noted that when US President Barack Obama was visiting Rome, he was presented with a copy of the document by Pope Benedict XVI.

Pope Benedict, while Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and Prefect of the CDF, was responsible for the 1987 publication of the landmark document Donum Vitae, upon which Dignitas Personae was based. The much-ignored "Donum Vitae" ("The Gift of Life"), laid down the Church's teaching on the moral inadmissability of nearly all artificial reproductive technologies currently in use around the world.

Both documents emphasize that the fundamental moral objection to such practices as genetic manipulation, artificial insemination, cloning and in vitro fertilization is that they invariably result in the deaths of innumerable human beings at the embryonic stage and that they deny the fundamental right of the child to be conceived and nurtured naturally in the context of marriage.

Archbishop Ladaria spoke of the "new approach" the document presents for bioethicists based on the nature of the human person and the special relationship of man to God who was incarnate in Jesus Christ.

Human beings cooperate with God when they reproduce, he said.  "Procreation is a special cooperation. Only in human love, which is a reflection of divine love, in mutual donation, is found the context for cooperation with the love of God the creator."

This teaching, Ladaria said, holds that human dignity is "not granted" by human agency, but "is recognized as a previous fact."

The Church's teaching is based on the now-scientifically proved fact that human life begins in its entirety at the moment of conception. The basic rule for ethicists, he said, is, "If it is a human, it is always a person." This includes the zygote, the single-cell product of the union of ovum and sperm.

From the first moment, he said, the embryo "has a full anthropological qualification; there is a continuity; there are no leaps that have in them substantial mutations; the embryonic body develops. One can see the decisive reason to accept the very dignity of the person."

(With files from Zenit News Agency)


30 posted on 11/15/2009 10:56:37 AM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
It was only a matter of time before they started talking about "coat hangers" and "back alleys".

Thread by me.

Members of Congress Claim Back Alley Abortions Will Happen Without Tax Funds

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- To hear pro-abortion members of Congress tell the story last weekend, women will head to the back alleys to have abortions unless they can get taxpayer funding for their abortions. Those were the unfounded claims presented during the House debate on the Stupak amendment.

Rep. Barbara Lee, a California Democrat, said during the debate, "This amendment takes us one step back to those dark days of back-alley abortions"

Jane Harmon, another California Democrat, added, "I am old enough to remember the days of back alley abortions. Some women I know had them. I cannot bear the idea that the 111th Congress would restore that horror."

Even men such as Florida Democrat Alcee Hastings said he foresaw a "a return to the dark ages."

Then, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, speaking on the Senate floor in the days after the Stupak amendment was adopted, also claimed it would force women to "return to back-alley providers."

Terry O’Neill, the president of the National Organization of Women, echoed the false claims by saying that it is "not acceptable' to have a bill with an abortion funding ban that is "pushing women back into the back alleys to die.”

The Stupak amendment, she claims, “does just that.” . . .


31 posted on 11/15/2009 10:59:25 AM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: All

I will be out of the country all next week and won’t be able to post the Terri Dailies. Some others may help out, if not I will post when I return.

God Bless.


32 posted on 11/15/2009 11:01:46 AM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Prayers for all concerned.


33 posted on 11/15/2009 2:23:50 PM PST by Sun (Pray that God sends us good leaders. Please say a prayer now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Thank God!!! :*)


34 posted on 11/15/2009 5:30:43 PM PST by pillut48 (CJ in TX --"God help us all, and God help America!!" --my new mantra for the next 4 years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Image and video hosting by TinyPic
35 posted on 11/15/2009 6:21:37 PM PST by pillut48 (CJ in TX --"God help us all, and God help America!!" --my new mantra for the next 4 years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Thanks for the ping!


36 posted on 11/15/2009 7:49:00 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
BykrBayb here, filling in for Wagglebee. Nobody can fill his shoes, but here's my best attempt at helping out with the Terri's Dailies Ping List.

Here's a thread Wagglebee started before he went on vacation.

The reality of abortion - YouTube-style
Fr. Pavone is a great educator. In this video, he leaves out any emotionalism, and just tells it like it is.

- - -

Thread by Kaslin...

Abortion, health care, and socialism
Contrary to a popular fallacy that science and religion are at odds with each other, it's quite the opposite.

Science and religion are the best of friends. And like good friends, they complement each other and produce beautiful music together.

Take the recent incident of the young woman in Bryan, Texas -- the director of the Planned Parenthood abortion mill down there -- who had a change of heart and quit her job when she saw, for the first time, an unborn child on an ultrasound screen.

~snip~

- - -

Thread by Salvation

A Reality Check from the Discipleship Front, (Anti-Catholics meet the Bishops -- Healthcare Bill)

What the hell don’t you understand about the term separation of Church and State. Keep your evil hands off of our Health Care Bill. Mind your own business. We don’t care about your beliefs, and if you want to meddle in our affairs, we will be coming for you. If that’s how you want to play, we will come for your pedophile priests, your ill-gotten money you stole for decades. The Catholic church is just another organized crime syndicate that should be put out of business. Get the f–k away from Congress, or you will regret it … .

That’s a real e-mail from a real person. The man who sent it last week was either very candid or very foolish about his anger: he added his real name and e-mail address. I’ve withheld them here because I like to hope that most people, or at least many of them, are better than the poisonous things they sometimes write. But this e-mail does teach a useful lesson, because it’s not just a case of a random bigot getting in touch with his inner bully. Instead, it’s a snapshot of the anti-Catholic bitterness that drives some of the loudest voices in the current health-care debate.

~snip~

- - -

Here's an off-site article (Lancaster Eagle Gazette) about a four month old baby boy. We now have county commissioners voting on who gets to live and who must die. I hope a FReeper will start a thread about this and ping me to it.

County faces decision over brain-dead child's fate

LANCASTER -- County authorities are weighing a decision about whether or not to remove a brain-dead child, who is under the county's custody, from life support at Nationwide Children's Hospital in Columbus.

Fairfield County commissioners discussed the topic during their meeting on Tuesday and later confirmed they had been briefed about the situation during the past couple of weeks by Fairfield County Child Protective Services and the county prosecutor's office. It's unclear who is responsible for making the decision.

Authorities are being tight-lipped about the case.

"From what we understand the child was transported to Fairfield Medical Center and then taken to Children's Hospital, where it remains on life support," County Commissioner Jon Myers said. "Custody of the child has been turned over to JFS. From what we have been told, it is brain-dead."

~snip~

The "it" the county commissioner refers to is a four month old baby boy. If he is truly brain dead, as the politician claims, his body will decompose, making the life support vote moot. There is no debate over whether or not to keep dead bodies on life support. The debate is over how disabled a person can be before society ceases to recognize them as human. I suspect this is another case of someone calling someone else "brain-dead" when in fact he is still alive with brain injuries that make the politician queasy.


37 posted on 11/19/2009 6:26:06 AM PST by BykrBayb (Somewhere, my flower is there. ~ ├×)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb

Thanks for the ping!


38 posted on 11/19/2009 8:21:18 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb

Good job. Interesting pieces.


39 posted on 11/19/2009 12:21:22 PM PST by Sun (Pray that God sends us good leaders. Please say a prayer now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb

BykrBayb - you are beautiful! Thank you!


40 posted on 11/20/2009 10:03:34 PM PST by jackibutterfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-108 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson