Pope urges breastfeeding in Sistine Chapel

[marmitecat]

news.sky.com/story/1194030/pope-urges-breastfeeding-in-sistine-chapel

Go Pope Francis

I have to admit I felt a bit awkward feeding in church with dc1 so this is pretty much the ultimate way of dispelling that worry.

I get your point Freddo, but tbh I'm not so sure you get mine .... which is basically that it's a nonsense to only look at the issue of abortion from a theoretical (or theological if you like), perspective.
It needs to be considered with some acceptance of realities, and with a much greater degree of humanity and compassion.

I do indeed get your point Juggling. But if you really think about mine, the view of Catholic doctrine is that abortion is basically killing a completely innocent and unprotected BABY then anyone who believes that would have most of their humanity and compassion focussing towards that baby! I think all Catholics would be encouraged to show compassion towards a mother with an unwated pregnancy (I'm sure Pope Francis would definitely encourage it) but no amount of circumstances or realities could condone killing the 'Baby' if that is what you believe the foetus is.
I appreciate that you might have the view that this is ridiculous, and you may believe that a baby and a foetus are completely different. But as I said in my earlier post Catholic doctrine says they are morally the same. Whilst you may not have this view, it is wrong to dismiss it as 'stupid' or ignorant, as for anyone who really thinks about it it is very hard to determine when a foetus does become a baby. Is it at 12 weeks? 24 weeks? if so, why is it then? Babies are born all the time who are not fully developed or 'perfect' and they are classed as being handicapped but they are still obviously human beings... so it's wrong to say a foetus is not human simply because it's not fully formed.
Anyway, I've said quite enough on this subject...just wanted to add that I do appreciate your viewpoint which is I think based on compassion towards the mother, whereas the Catholic one is based on compassion towards the foetus/ child.

Just because the foetus changes gradually every day during the 9 months of pregnancy from a collection of cells to a fully formed baby at birth, it seems crazy to me not to acknowledge that the baby is fundamentally different from the collection of cells.
I haven't used the words "stupid" or "ignorant" I've simply said that to me it is a nonsense - to look at the issue purely in absolutist, theoretical terms.
And my main point was to pick up on your use of the phrase "absolutely no difference" (in relation to Catholic doctrine on this)

nth is country SOME people are so odd about breast feeding thinking it should not be done in public etc

So respect and thanks to the pope

Actually I don't think what he said in relation to breast feeding is that radical and fits quite comfortably with the church's traditional on the role of women as being baby incubators and rearers. He is just saying that women can practise part of their maternal role in the church.

It doesn't challenge the view that women are second class citizens in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

I initially read the synopsis as 'Pope encourages bling' and thought 'What is the connection?', I have read the thread and I still don't get it.

Sorry, I know this might not go down well, but I can never respect the Pope and I don't understand why anyone else does. It's all just a bit silly, isn't? A man in a dress claiming to be God's representative on Earth? Who would believe such a thing? It's an obvious con.

Actually I don't think what he said in relation to breast feeding is that radical and fits quite comfortably with the church's traditional on the role of women as being baby incubators and rearers. He is just saying that women can practise part of their maternal role in the church.

Wow! I argue for a living (I love it) and I get to see some really far fetched arguments to suit people's cases. I'd put this in that category.

On the point of theology, I would be interested to know where it indicates that killing a 2 week old fetus is the same as killing a 2 week old baby. I'm not denying that this is the case, I am genuinely interested in where the particular choice of words "the same" comes from. I know both deeds are against doctrine but I would like to know more about the comparison or lack of. Presumably killing is killing no matter what the circumstances? I have a feeling though that the Catholic church does not condone the death penalty.

I think that "there's no moral difference" thing was one posters way of explaining things aciddrops - it was just something I picked up on and felt I wanted to challenge.
Whether explicitly stated or not it does seem that Catholic doctrine fails to acknowledge the differences (between early pregnancy and an actual baby) with it's argument that life begins at conception and therefore that abortion is always wrong.

freddobaggymac

"in Catholic doctrine there is morally no difference between killing a two week old foetus and a new born baby because they are both regarded as human beings in their own right created by God."

And if you argue for a living I'm really surprised you find any problem with ComposHat's post - seems entirely logical to me.

Yes, weacid please tell me which bit of my post is problematic or or inaccurate.

Because you are drawing such a big conclusion based on something so simple as him saying "Let your children feed in church". Suddenly, these words infer an endorsement of female repression.

If I owned a cafe and put a sign up saying "Mothers welcome to feed their babies" would that sit well with my misogynistic attitude or would it be me just being laid back and saying "yeah that's fine, get on with it sisters"?

acid- but it is to do with context isn't it.

If a cafe owner put up a sign saying breastfeeding welcome then we take that at face value.
The same cannot be said of the pope representing the catholic church.

If a Gestapo went around prisoners giving each a biscuit we wouldn't assume he was a really nice guy.
( Note I am not comparing the pope or church to Gestapos- this is merely an illustration)

No, but then the cafe owner doesn't head an organisation that prevents women from holding positions of power, controlling their own fertility, condemns them as murderers if these choose not to continue with a pregnancy and tells them the only 'proper' role for them is to produce child after child.

The difference is quite crucial and easy to grasp.

Exactly compost.

As compos so wisely says.

Feeding a baby is a traditional "womanly" thing to do- and therefore fits into the traditional role the Catholic Church usually expects of women.

"Suddenly, these words infer an endorsement of female repression."

I don't think it necessarily implies an endorsement of female repression. It just doesn't imply the opposite. You can't extrapolate from that comment to a liberal modernizing pope.

The RC church keeps very quiet about the fact that abortion hasn't always been regarded as wrong. It used to be allowed up to quickening - i.e. when you can feel the foetus move. So anti-abortion teaching clearly isn't absolute.

So he can't win for losing, Compos?

Let's all go over to Breast and Bottlefeeding and howl at women for choosing to be oppressed.

Actually, inviting women to bare their breasts for one of the functions for which they were designed comes across to me as liberating. He asserted publicly that breasts are more than just sexual appendages and that is a significant statement in this hypersexualised world.

As a feminist who has breastfed in public and who agitated for the right for women to breastfeed in public, I can avow that one of the main objections to women bfing in public is the idea that women's breasts are there for men (or other women in the case of lesbians) and are therefore purely sexual, and therefore breastfeeding is a form of exhibitionism.
There is even a group of objectors who believe deep down that women are somehow having sex with their babies when they breastfeed, and that breastfeeding a baby boy is wrong and somewhat creepy on many levels. I first encountered this from my OB/GYN (who was a part time Baptist minister) -- he asked about DS's feeding and sleeping at my 6 week checkup, and I told him breastfeeding was going well, DS was sleeping 3-4 hours at a stretch at night. OB/GYN said 'Oh you'd better not let all his little girlfriends know about that breastfeeding'.. He meant it as a joke but it told something of what he felt all the same.

'I do get so exasperated when people only have to do one relatively normal thing to be lauded to the heavens. "oh, look, Prince William's just like us, he's cuddling his son " " Your husband's so good- I saw him in the supermarket yesterday" "Pope Francis is such a man of the people, he's not wearing the Gucci shoes" ' (Curlew)

Are you exasperated with the commentators who gush this baloney? Or are you exasperated with the pope, who to my recollection, hasn't tooted his own horn or said 'look at me wearing black shoes'? He wears black shoes, he drives a Renault 4, he says women are welcome to breastfeed. Who broadcasts all of this?

Juggling, a foetus is indeed different physically from the initial cells from which it grows, but then so is an individual at 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90 from how they were as babies or children or as pregnant women. I have lost some of my cells to operations. An individual with Down's Syndrome has a different number of chromosomes from me. Your point is half baked.

Is it the dress that makes you think about the claim? If so, what is wrong with men wearing dresses, Beth? Do you pour scorn on men whose traditional attire you would call a dress? Are they less manly? Are men supposed to wear suits or jeans or something western? Might Jesus have worn a dress?

Don't read if you find ectopic pregnancy or abortion triggering

abortion is allowed in cases of ectopic pregnancy.
I don't know why because in no other case can abortion take place to save the mother's life. In the case of ectopic pregnancy it is still a little baby, if any other 6 week embryo is (which I don't think is the case)
Why is something that is supposedly so absolute not that absolute?

Also - there is such a thing, in Cathlicism, as a just war. War that is allowed for moral reasons.
sadly all war kills innocents.
It is regrettable but sometimes necessary - apparently.

So - when removing a 6 week embryo would save a woman's health or livelihood or agency, it is not ok. EVERRRRRR. (except sometimes, see above). But killing any number of walking talking innocent human beings is ok if the alternative is that men can't dick about with guns any more.

Annunziata c and p a whole series of comments which she said she found shocking. They were mostly simply criticisms or comments on the Catholic Church. That is why I said that I was sorry she was shocked by criticisms. I am. (Curlew)

She didn't say she found criticism of the RC church per se shocking. Perhaps she finds it shocking that people who to all intents and purposes are well educated and ostensibly contributing to a discussion on a discussion board can deliver such complete non-sequiturs that generate far more heat than light.

Shrillness of the sort that has gone on belongs in some sort of quiche.

An ectopic pregnancy has no hope of ever continuing if nature takes its course. And in a pregnancy where a foetus has certain conditions that will make life impossible upon birth abortion is also permitted afaik.

I have a friend whose foetus was medically doomed, could not hope to survive once the cord was cut even with massive medical intervention, and could in all good conscience have aborted according to the parish priest. She didn't consult him as to what to do about abortion or continuing the pregnancy -- she and her H wanted the baby baptised when she was born and before she was declared dead, and wanted to know how they could arrange for a priest to be at the hospital when needed. They also wanted to make burial arrangements.