What is even worse is seemingly "engaged" and "in the know" Catholics who apparently can't see a difference between what the two sides are proposing to do about abortion. One side is not particularly robust and even lacking, but the other is outright evil and will prosecute peaceful, praying grandmas outside of abortion clinics.
Because Trump wants to give the enemy some territory, he gets equated with Harris, who endorses surrender.
If the libs have taught us anything about the sordid game of courting the American electorate, it's that you *say* "This is all I want" - and come back for more next time.
With this strategy in mind, we should shiver that "all" they want is abortion at any time. The killing will not stop there.
Do you support court-ordered cesareans? As a Christian mother who just had a VBAC, I found myself unexpectedly growing more sympathetic to the pro-choice cause. Pro-life OBs are the most likely to endorse this practice in surveys, as they believe women who choose home birth, deny cesarean for things like twins, breech, or vbac, are putting their baby’s life at risk and must be sectioned for the baby’s own good.
Of course, twins, breech, and VBAC, as well as home births with less-skilled providers (not all midwives, just some), DO in fact put baby’s life at risk, sometimes risk that leads to their deaths. It is only from a position that aligns with the pro-choice movement’s rhetoric that I found myself able to defend my desire for a vaginal birth. It is hard for me to square the circle here.
These are not common but occur when it is determined that the woman’s decision to decline a cesarean puts her baby at risk. She is therefore legally obligated to have surgery.
Under the framework of body autonomy, it would be assault and battery to force a surgery. If the fetus is a separate person, the legally obligated cesarean is permissible.
I would like to understand a pro-life stance. Would you oppose these cesareans?
For instance, I would oppose a 38-week abortion. But many women, including many Christian women, choose births that explicitly put their babies at risk of death - and often, these babies do die. These include home births (twice the rate of neonatal death), VBACs, breech, multiples, etc. Court-ordered, forced cesareans save babies’ lives. Is this acceptable? If not, why not?
Your argument about VBAC etc is an argument about the degree of risk allowable under law to an unborn human child.
This is fundamentally different from the "pro-choice" stance on abortion, which is direct action to end the life of an unborn child.
Your thoughts on whether court ordered Caesareans are government overreach ought not to put you into the camp of people who advocate for the deliberate killing of unborn infants.
Liz, you mentioned the right to bodily autonomy, which the abortion movement distorts beyond its rightful application. You may find this video helpful in explaining that right and why their reasoning is flawed: https://youtu.be/RGPudL_GQ3Y?si=zBfDsb5EiwPRUBaU
It's very simple. The baby has bodily autonomy as well, being a human being. The mother makes decisions about her child, but no one can make a decision to kill another innocent human being.
The thing that people can't get over is that uniquely among other relationships in this world, the baby is inside the mother. However, that is just the way it is. That has to be accepted. To fight against it is to destroy our ground of being, which is in the givenness of it.
It's not a bodily integrity issue per se it's an issue of the mother having the right over choosing what is best for her child -- assessing risks and making an informed choice. For instance, parents, not doctors, should choose for the child what medical interventions such as shots or surgery the child will get. It has always been the case that if the parents lose sight of the good of the child, the state can intervene (e.g. if the parents have a mental illness). But it's also been usually the case that this intervention is sparing because the state is presumed not to have as much at stake regarding the best interest of the child.
(No one can choose another's death so it's not applicable to abortion -- this is an important point -- abortion is not a matter of the MOTHER'S bodily integrity but of the CHILD's -- no one can stand athwart the basic fact of life that the child grows inside the mother, nor can we pit one life against another but must always try to save both.)
The rise of c-sections is taking place under the abortion regime, so I don't see the connection with pro-life. I don't know where you got that survey and I don't want to get into it. And even that link admits the situation you cite is rare to the point of non-existent, statistically speaking, although I myself know cases where the practice has "fired" the mother due to criteria they may or may not be transparent about. But those criteria are always about some insurance or sketchy legal entity in the background requiring certain protocols, not about any principles involved.
Instead, I see the whole question as part of the larger issue of the corruption of our medical system by many factors, including professional gate-keeping (in this case against midwives) and risk-aversion due to hyper-litigiousness, which OBs bear the brunt of.
The whole issue of assessing risk is something I've tackled a lot here. In an emergency, we hope medical people do their best and we ought to be forgiving about that. In the gray area of deciding what treatment or course is best in a tricky situation, the patient has to be able to choose based on being well informed. The assumption is that the mother is choosing what is best for her child -- that's how motherhood works -- but that doesn't mean she has to follow arbitrary standards set out by the medical establishment.
By the way, in both home and hospital births, infant mortality is in absolute terms very low. One factor about VBAC as written about by Ina May Gaskin is the faulty suturing used by OBs in C-sections -- I highly recommend that expectant mothers read her on this topic so they can insist on the safer procedure for the sake of future deliveries. A lot of our statistics of rupture have to do, according to Gaskin, with the way the surgery is carried out.
The fact that in general, the medical profession is going away from looking at the individual case and applying general knowledge based on what is best for the patient(s) vs. what makes them most judgement-proof is something we have to address -- but the pro-life principle that each person has bodily integrity and a right to life will help, not harm, that important project.
There are SO MANY factors going into the risks of birth. It's impossible to issue a blanket protocol the way the obstetrics profession is trying to do (and midwives, seeking professional status or sometimes pushed into it, are doing it as well).
That is why midwifery is so important. The traditional kind. Pregnancy and childbirth are not illnesses, though sometimes illness or problems can be wrapped up in them. OBs can't be allowed to muscle into this territory. Their services are needed -- when they are needed! Otherwise, not.
There are some women who are so at risk their outcomes will be iffy, no matter what. There are some who are so healthy they could give birth out in the wilderness by themselves.
A good caregiver can help them. Our system is not helping anyone.
Liz--congratulations on your VBAC, that's amazing! A good friend of mine also just had a VBAC in the spring and she had such a hard time finding care to support her in trying to seek a more natural route for her second birth.
I second Leila's recommendation to read Ina May's Guide to Childbirth which is so excellent and really changed my views of childbirth. I also highly recommend "Made for This" by Mary Haseltine, which discusses very thoroughly the Catholic view of human dignity and how this relates both to the mother and the child in the process of childbirth. I recommend this book to everyone I know who is pregnant (even those not Catholic, I've recommended it to Protestant and Easter Orthodox friends)--my sister just read it before having her 4th!
“Sec. .2 2 MRSA §1598, sub-§1, as amended by LP 2019, .c 262, 84, is further amended to read:
1. Policy. It is the public policy of the State that the State not restrict a woman's exercise of her private decision ot terminate a pregnancy before viability except as provided in section 1597-A. After viability an abortion may be performed only when it is necessary in the professional judgment of a physician licensed pursuant to Title 32, chapter 36 or 48. It is also the public policy of the State that all abortions may be performed only by a health care professional, as defined in section 1596, subsection 1, paragraph C.”
So, as long as a physician oks the abortion after viability, it is ok in Maine to get an abortion. There are NO restrictions mentioned.
And how do they define health care professional? Some states are trying to allow any licensed health care professional to be able to do an abortion! Insanity. Will not only kill the baby but will be extremely dangerous for the mother.
“Sec. 3. 22 MRSA §1598, sub-§3, as amended by PL 2019, c. 262, 85, si further amended to read:
3. Persons who may perform abortions; penalties.
A. Only a person licensed under Title 32, chapter 36 or 48 to practice in the State as an osteopathic or medical physician or physician assistant or a person licensed under Title 32, chapter 13 to practice in the State as an advanced practice registered nurse may perform an abortion on another person.”
What’s also scary is that right now in Maine, ERs have been introduced to the IPASS device for RNs to begin assisting OB/GYNs with evacuating products of conception. The overseers of this process claim it is only for miscarriage, not induced abortions. This is one more step towards what democrats claim as the right to “emergency abortion.” There is no such thing as an “emergency abortion!”
There are however pregnancy emergencies like ectopic pregnancies, hemorrhaging, trauma, placenta previa, preeclampsia, etc which have processes in place to manage.
Liz--congratulations on your VBAC, that's amazing! A good friend of mine also just had a VBAC in the spring and she had such a hard time finding care to support her in trying to seek a more natural route for her second birth.
I second Leila's recommendation to read Ina May's Guide to Childbirth which is so excellent and really changed my views of childbirth. I also highly recommend "Made for This" by Mary Haseltine, which discusses very thoroughly the Catholic view of human dignity and how this relates both to the mother and the child in the process of childbirth. I recommend this book to everyone I know who is pregnant (even those not Catholic, I've recommended it to Protestant and Easter Orthodox friends)--my sister just read it before having her 4th!
What is even worse is seemingly "engaged" and "in the know" Catholics who apparently can't see a difference between what the two sides are proposing to do about abortion. One side is not particularly robust and even lacking, but the other is outright evil and will prosecute peaceful, praying grandmas outside of abortion clinics.
I totally agree.
Because Trump wants to give the enemy some territory, he gets equated with Harris, who endorses surrender.
If the libs have taught us anything about the sordid game of courting the American electorate, it's that you *say* "This is all I want" - and come back for more next time.
With this strategy in mind, we should shiver that "all" they want is abortion at any time. The killing will not stop there.
Do you support court-ordered cesareans? As a Christian mother who just had a VBAC, I found myself unexpectedly growing more sympathetic to the pro-choice cause. Pro-life OBs are the most likely to endorse this practice in surveys, as they believe women who choose home birth, deny cesarean for things like twins, breech, or vbac, are putting their baby’s life at risk and must be sectioned for the baby’s own good.
Of course, twins, breech, and VBAC, as well as home births with less-skilled providers (not all midwives, just some), DO in fact put baby’s life at risk, sometimes risk that leads to their deaths. It is only from a position that aligns with the pro-choice movement’s rhetoric that I found myself able to defend my desire for a vaginal birth. It is hard for me to square the circle here.
I don't understand the connection.
What in pro-choice rhetoric indicates a position against court-ordered C-section (which I've never heard of)?
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1536504217714259
These are not common but occur when it is determined that the woman’s decision to decline a cesarean puts her baby at risk. She is therefore legally obligated to have surgery.
Under the framework of body autonomy, it would be assault and battery to force a surgery. If the fetus is a separate person, the legally obligated cesarean is permissible.
I would like to understand a pro-life stance. Would you oppose these cesareans?
For instance, I would oppose a 38-week abortion. But many women, including many Christian women, choose births that explicitly put their babies at risk of death - and often, these babies do die. These include home births (twice the rate of neonatal death), VBACs, breech, multiples, etc. Court-ordered, forced cesareans save babies’ lives. Is this acceptable? If not, why not?
Your argument about VBAC etc is an argument about the degree of risk allowable under law to an unborn human child.
This is fundamentally different from the "pro-choice" stance on abortion, which is direct action to end the life of an unborn child.
Your thoughts on whether court ordered Caesareans are government overreach ought not to put you into the camp of people who advocate for the deliberate killing of unborn infants.
I do not have an argument. I don’t know what I think.
Liz, you mentioned the right to bodily autonomy, which the abortion movement distorts beyond its rightful application. You may find this video helpful in explaining that right and why their reasoning is flawed: https://youtu.be/RGPudL_GQ3Y?si=zBfDsb5EiwPRUBaU
It's very simple. The baby has bodily autonomy as well, being a human being. The mother makes decisions about her child, but no one can make a decision to kill another innocent human being.
The thing that people can't get over is that uniquely among other relationships in this world, the baby is inside the mother. However, that is just the way it is. That has to be accepted. To fight against it is to destroy our ground of being, which is in the givenness of it.
To Liz:
It's not a bodily integrity issue per se it's an issue of the mother having the right over choosing what is best for her child -- assessing risks and making an informed choice. For instance, parents, not doctors, should choose for the child what medical interventions such as shots or surgery the child will get. It has always been the case that if the parents lose sight of the good of the child, the state can intervene (e.g. if the parents have a mental illness). But it's also been usually the case that this intervention is sparing because the state is presumed not to have as much at stake regarding the best interest of the child.
(No one can choose another's death so it's not applicable to abortion -- this is an important point -- abortion is not a matter of the MOTHER'S bodily integrity but of the CHILD's -- no one can stand athwart the basic fact of life that the child grows inside the mother, nor can we pit one life against another but must always try to save both.)
The rise of c-sections is taking place under the abortion regime, so I don't see the connection with pro-life. I don't know where you got that survey and I don't want to get into it. And even that link admits the situation you cite is rare to the point of non-existent, statistically speaking, although I myself know cases where the practice has "fired" the mother due to criteria they may or may not be transparent about. But those criteria are always about some insurance or sketchy legal entity in the background requiring certain protocols, not about any principles involved.
Instead, I see the whole question as part of the larger issue of the corruption of our medical system by many factors, including professional gate-keeping (in this case against midwives) and risk-aversion due to hyper-litigiousness, which OBs bear the brunt of.
The whole issue of assessing risk is something I've tackled a lot here. In an emergency, we hope medical people do their best and we ought to be forgiving about that. In the gray area of deciding what treatment or course is best in a tricky situation, the patient has to be able to choose based on being well informed. The assumption is that the mother is choosing what is best for her child -- that's how motherhood works -- but that doesn't mean she has to follow arbitrary standards set out by the medical establishment.
By the way, in both home and hospital births, infant mortality is in absolute terms very low. One factor about VBAC as written about by Ina May Gaskin is the faulty suturing used by OBs in C-sections -- I highly recommend that expectant mothers read her on this topic so they can insist on the safer procedure for the sake of future deliveries. A lot of our statistics of rupture have to do, according to Gaskin, with the way the surgery is carried out.
The fact that in general, the medical profession is going away from looking at the individual case and applying general knowledge based on what is best for the patient(s) vs. what makes them most judgement-proof is something we have to address -- but the pro-life principle that each person has bodily integrity and a right to life will help, not harm, that important project.
Thank you! This is very helpful. I’ve been trying very hard to work out how I think about this.
There are SO MANY factors going into the risks of birth. It's impossible to issue a blanket protocol the way the obstetrics profession is trying to do (and midwives, seeking professional status or sometimes pushed into it, are doing it as well).
That is why midwifery is so important. The traditional kind. Pregnancy and childbirth are not illnesses, though sometimes illness or problems can be wrapped up in them. OBs can't be allowed to muscle into this territory. Their services are needed -- when they are needed! Otherwise, not.
There are some women who are so at risk their outcomes will be iffy, no matter what. There are some who are so healthy they could give birth out in the wilderness by themselves.
A good caregiver can help them. Our system is not helping anyone.
Liz--congratulations on your VBAC, that's amazing! A good friend of mine also just had a VBAC in the spring and she had such a hard time finding care to support her in trying to seek a more natural route for her second birth.
I second Leila's recommendation to read Ina May's Guide to Childbirth which is so excellent and really changed my views of childbirth. I also highly recommend "Made for This" by Mary Haseltine, which discusses very thoroughly the Catholic view of human dignity and how this relates both to the mother and the child in the process of childbirth. I recommend this book to everyone I know who is pregnant (even those not Catholic, I've recommended it to Protestant and Easter Orthodox friends)--my sister just read it before having her 4th!
Looks like maybe the wrong side won the Civil War.
Last year, Maine passed this monstrosity….
“Sec. .2 2 MRSA §1598, sub-§1, as amended by LP 2019, .c 262, 84, is further amended to read:
1. Policy. It is the public policy of the State that the State not restrict a woman's exercise of her private decision ot terminate a pregnancy before viability except as provided in section 1597-A. After viability an abortion may be performed only when it is necessary in the professional judgment of a physician licensed pursuant to Title 32, chapter 36 or 48. It is also the public policy of the State that all abortions may be performed only by a health care professional, as defined in section 1596, subsection 1, paragraph C.”
So, as long as a physician oks the abortion after viability, it is ok in Maine to get an abortion. There are NO restrictions mentioned.
And how do they define health care professional? Some states are trying to allow any licensed health care professional to be able to do an abortion! Insanity. Will not only kill the baby but will be extremely dangerous for the mother.
“Sec. 3. 22 MRSA §1598, sub-§3, as amended by PL 2019, c. 262, 85, si further amended to read:
3. Persons who may perform abortions; penalties.
A. Only a person licensed under Title 32, chapter 36 or 48 to practice in the State as an osteopathic or medical physician or physician assistant or a person licensed under Title 32, chapter 13 to practice in the State as an advanced practice registered nurse may perform an abortion on another person.”
So based on this section, MDs, DOs, PAs & NPs.
What’s also scary is that right now in Maine, ERs have been introduced to the IPASS device for RNs to begin assisting OB/GYNs with evacuating products of conception. The overseers of this process claim it is only for miscarriage, not induced abortions. This is one more step towards what democrats claim as the right to “emergency abortion.” There is no such thing as an “emergency abortion!”
There are however pregnancy emergencies like ectopic pregnancies, hemorrhaging, trauma, placenta previa, preeclampsia, etc which have processes in place to manage.
It would be terrible and maybe fatal to have a nurse dealing with one's ectopic pregnancy...
Liz--congratulations on your VBAC, that's amazing! A good friend of mine also just had a VBAC in the spring and she had such a hard time finding care to support her in trying to seek a more natural route for her second birth.
I second Leila's recommendation to read Ina May's Guide to Childbirth which is so excellent and really changed my views of childbirth. I also highly recommend "Made for This" by Mary Haseltine, which discusses very thoroughly the Catholic view of human dignity and how this relates both to the mother and the child in the process of childbirth. I recommend this book to everyone I know who is pregnant (even those not Catholic, I've recommended it to Protestant and Easter Orthodox friends)--my sister just read it before having her 4th!