article 30 coverage plus constitutional questions

[suarezn]

...and this ladies and gentlemen if who The DR is changing the constitution to include this article for.

Afirma Presidente recibe presiones por aborto - Hoy Digital

It sounds like Leonel is receiving pressure from women groups and the international community to change his stance on this asinine law and it looks like he was willing to compromise, but now our famous cardinal is coming out publicly and basically indirectly telling Leonel he better does as he was told to do. The article says that the cardinal said that "The church does not accept pressure from anybody..." and that in The DR "Mandamos nosotros" - His words.

Whichever way you want to translate that last phrase it basically means that in The DR the church is all powerful and hey decide what's good for the country and if you don't like it tough sh$t.

[A.Hidalgo]

A few weeks ago I thought this article was a done deal, but I do think there will be modifications to it after all. Thanks be to rational thinking.

[Chip]

Originally Posted by ExtremeR

You could guarantee that, everybody, each and one of them, "some" sounds a bit apologist to those guys. To think that conception is done at the time of ejaculation is ignorant at best, there is no conception in the first 24 hours after a sexual intercourse. I am catholic but these radicals guys makes me harder to believe in them.

Note: I am not in favor of an abortion law that allows people to have abortions at will, you got pregnant without protecting yourself, you be responsible and pay the consequences. But I am in favor of abortion in special circumstances.

Don't get worked up about pure speculation primo. BTW, I don't understand your point about ejaculacion and conception - it is basic biology - y que?

[Chip]

When all you guys want to finally step down from that high horse, (high horse indeed - defending genocide), you should take that time to investigate the facts and quit blaming this just on the Catholic Church - good grief. Unbeknownst to you guys apparently, there are many, many Catholics and Christians alike on this fair island who are opposed to abortion.

There are a lot of things I don't like about the DR, but at least an innocent child's life and family are taken seriously and valued.

[domilinguist]

People are angry about this because it basically states that terminating a pregnancy, for whatever reason, would be against the Constitution.

For example, say I were to have an ectopic pregnancy. The new article would mean that as I could not be operated on, this condition would almost certainly kill me and the fetus growing inside me. I would literally be given a death sentence and my husband would lose both his wife and his future child at the same time. What good can come of that?

Think what you like about abortion but this new article is truly radical, especially when it's not taking into account the health of the mother over the health of a fetus that has not even developed into a baby yet.

[Chip]

Originally Posted by domilinguist

People are angry about this because it basically states that terminating a pregnancy, for whatever reason, would be against the Constitution.

For example, say I were to have an ectopic pregnancy. The new article would mean that as I could not be operated on, this condition would almost certainly kill me and the fetus growing inside me. I would literally be given a death sentence and my husband would lose both his wife and his future child at the same time. What good can come of that?

Think what you like about abortion but this new article is truly radical, especially when it's not taking into account the health of the mother over the health of a fetus that has not even developed into a baby yet.

How ironical is it that you guys always pick the obscure and rare medical cases to defend clinical homocide. You ain't fooling anybody, this is just another way to open the door to bringing down the social barriers and stigmatism of abortion here, plain and simple. Nice try though.

[windeguy]

Originally Posted by Chip

How ironical is it that you guys always pick the obscure and rare medical cases to defend clinical homocide. You ain't fooling anybody, this is just another way to open the door to bringing down the social barriers and stigmatism of abortion here, plain and simple. Nice try though.

Your are absolutely correct. Anything that can break down those barriers is a great idea. There are way too many unwanted children in this world.

[A.Hidalgo]

Originally Posted by Chip

How ironical is it that you guys always pick the obscure and rare medical cases to defend clinical homocide. You ain't fooling anybody, this is just another way to open the door to bringing down the social barriers and stigmatism of abortion here, plain and simple. Nice try though.

Primo what's interesting is that Catholic teaching does not condemn "indirect abortion" (the church calls it a procedure) as in the case of ectopic pregnancy, but then again you knew that.

4. Medical necessity. What about the argument that the Church must make exceptions to its teaching when abortion is medically necessary for the mother’s health or a child’s disability?

First, while the Church opposes all direct abortions, it does not condemn procedures which result, indirectly, in the loss of the unborn child as a "secondary effect." For example, if a mother is suffering an ectopic pregnancy (a baby is developing in her fallopian tube, not the womb), a doctor may remove the fallopian tube as therapeutic treatment to prevent the mother’s death. The infant will not survive long after this, but the intention of the procedure and its action is to preserve the mother’s life. It is not a direct abortion.

Catholic Update ©1998 - Abortion: What the Church Teaches by Helen Alvaré

[Chirimoya]

But Hidalgo, doesn't the law as set out in Article 30 go further than that by banning abortion in all circumstances without exceptions, or would there be room for interpretation? I get the impression that the Catholic Church in the DR (and in Brazil, El Salvador, Nicaragua where there have been some high-profile cases involving rape, incest and underage girls who were said to be too young for their bodies to take a pregnancy to term without threatening their lives) is not that pragmatic.

[A.Hidalgo]

Totally agree that there is no room for pragmatism in the Article 30. I was just pointing out to my primo Chip the fine details of his Catholic religion. The point brought up by domilinguist about ectopic pregnancy should not have upset him, as the procedure is considered licit in the church's moral code.