The pathological condition of the tube is in addition to, a symptom of and a direct result only of the growth of the child. Then embryo in and of itself becomes the pathology as a direct result of the nature of it to grow. If it did not grow, then it would not affect the tube and cause the issues with the tube. The continued life and growth of the child *under this circumstance *constitutes a pathological condition.What is pathological is the place where it has happend, not the child’s life.
The infected tube, or other structure, is the pathology. The baby is not pathology.
And if we did, I would be the first to advocate for it.We just don’t have the technology to save or relocate the child.
What are my “actual positions” in your opinion?Yet again, KarenNC, you do play with semantics, and you ignore the finer point of my post. Whether you do or do not (and let me emphasize, you do) has no bearance on my actual argument, which you conveniently ignore:
You still are a moral relativist, you still have not justified your position using Catholic theology, and yes, you continually play with semantics to marginalize Catholics and to distract from your actual positions which are indefensible.
The infected tube is not a symptom. The infected portion of the tube is the pathology. The etiology of that infection or rupture, or whatever is the probelm is not the fault of the innocent child.The pathological condition of the tube is in addition to, a symptom of and a direct result only of the growth of the child
How does the embryo transform into a pathology? What is wrong with the embryo?Then embryo in and of itself becomes the pathology as a direct result of the nature of it to grow.
Mostly there is usually a preexisting problem with the tube or some related tissue, the baby is innocent and not pathologic.If it did not grow, then it would not affect the tube and cause the issues with the tube. The continued life and growth of the child *under this circumstance *constitutes a pathological condition.
A symptom is subjective evidence like pain. A rupture is not a symptom it may happen as the result of the ectopic pregnancy but the baby is not pathological. The fact he/she is growing in the wrong place is pathological.Perhaps you are correct. The infected portion of the tube (if it gets to that point) is a separate pathological condition. It may have occurred prior to the implantation or could have occurred afterwards. Now, the rupture of the tube is a direct result of the growth of the child, so I do not see how it can not be a symptom.
The discussion has nothing to do with “fault.” It is not the “fault” of the mother that the situation occurred, either.
Pathological is a medical term not a moral judgement. No one is suggesting that the baby has somehow “sinned” by becoming implanted in a place that is simply not viable.
I was not referring to morality, but medical evidence. The baby is not pathologic. The place where he/she is growing is pathologic. Do we want to help improve the condition of mother and child in this case or intentionally kill one of them?m-w.com/dictionary/pathology
pathology: 1 : the study of the essential nature of diseases and especially of the structural and functional changes produced by them
2 : something abnormal: a : the structural and functional deviations from the normal that constitute disease or characterize a particular disease
Yet again, KarenNC, you do play with semantics, and you ignore the finer point of my post. Whether you do or do not (and let me emphasize, you do) has no bearance on my actual argument, which you conveniently ignore:
You yourself have explained your positions (duh) and know them more clearly than anyone, so I don’t know why I have to repeat them for you. You seem to either ignore every other post of mine or only read selective portions that have little to do with the actual substance of what I write, so I’m probably wasting my time with this one as well. I’ll give it one more stab, though.You still are a moral relativist, you still have not justified your position using Catholic theology, and yes, you continually play with semantics to marginalize Catholics and to distract from your actual positions which are indefensible.
It does if the Church teaches that certain methods of treatment for it are considered immoral and not to be used by Catholics even when medically indicated because they are viewing it as identical to a willful abortion of a viable fetus.A discussion on ectopic pregnancy does not even belong in a thread on abortion.
Abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) is never permitted. Every procedure whose sole immediate effect is the termination of pregnancy before viability is an abortion, which, in its moral context, includes the interval between conception and implantation of the embryo. Catholic health care institutions are not to provide abortion services, even based upon the principle of material cooperation. In this context, Catholic health care institutions need to be concerned about the danger of scandal in any association with abortion providers.
Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.
In case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct abortion.31
Management of ectopic pregnancy
I fail to understand why you cannot accept the moral reasoning?It does if the Church teaches that certain methods of treatment for it are considered immoral and not to be used by Catholics even when medically indicated because they are viewing it as identical to a willful abortion of a viable fetus.
The topic of the thread is “absolutely NO exceptions.” My argument is that to hold that there is no moral difference in the use of medication to end a tubal pregnancy when that option is deemed medically desirable to surgically ending it and the willful abortion of a potentially viable child is ludicrous, legalistic and not in keeping with the fact that the Catholic Church appears willing to make exceptions to the idea that ending life is in all cases and circumstances immoral in the case of a “just war.”
Would that the Catholic Church agreed with you. Read the links in the post just after yours.Karen, if I read your response correctly, I believe I am in complete agreement with you. That is why I do not consider treatment of an ectopic pregnancy in any way equivalent to abortion. I do not believe the Catholic Church teaches this either.
Also, as a nurse for 20 years, I can tell you that there is no “use of medication to end a tubal pregnancy” Treatment is always surgical in nature. Regardless, I do not consider this under the heading of abortion and therefore not applicable to the “NO Exceptions” in the thread title.
I offer this link again:"Directive 48 succinctly defines the limits within which the moral assessment of treating extrauterine pregnancy must take place. The sole criterion proposed is that treatment must not constitute a direct abortion. Thus it is left up to the clinician—who understands both the pathophysiology involved in extrauterine (ectopic) pregnancy and the mechanisms of the interventions used to address it—to assess the propriety of a proposed intervention. For example, in the case of ectopic pregnancy, the threat to the mother is posed by the trophoblastic tissue as it invades the wall of the fallopian tube.5 Left untreated, the tube may rupture with resultant hemorrhage and, in some cases, the mother’s death. Until fairly recently, the moral assessment was made in such cases by defining the tube itself as “pathological” and thus accepting its surgical excision as a morally acceptable intervention consistent with the principle of double effect.
The problem, of course, was that although such an intervention cured the pathological condition, it also seriously limited the woman’s ability to conceive and bear other children. Recent advances in both diagnostic capabilities and treatment modalities allow for detection of an ectopic pregnancy well before significant symptoms develop. Newer interventions directly address the pathological condition (understood now as the point of attachment of the embryo to the wall of the fallopian tube), cure the condition, and preserve fertility. As in the past, the resulting death of the embryo is deemed an indirect consequence."
I think the Church clearly states there are moral principles involved here that must not be violated. The relatively recent use of chemicals does not mean anything goes.I must admit that I had not heard of systemic mtx as treatment for an ectopic pregnancy. My apologies.
Considering that this topic has been debated among theologians for many years (as pointed out in your link, fix) without a satisfactory answer, suffice to say we will not likely come to an agreement either.
I remain firmly in the camp that treatment for an ectopic pregnancy does not constitute a direct abortion. It is not the intended will to cause the death of the baby. I do not see how this is any different from the Church’s stance on a hysterectomy as treatment for uterine cancer. Quite honestly, it is too bad that these two topics (abortion and ectopic pregnancy) are being linked together. It can only give credence to the qualifier of abortion “for the mother’s health” which should never be an option.
Given the heartbreaking number of true abortions performed each year, in addition to the threat of expanding stem cell research, I pray our efforts will be directed where they are truly needed.
I
Who has said that “anything goes?”I think the Church clearly states there are moral principles involved here that must not be violated. The relatively recent use of chemicals does not mean anything goes.
As the USCCB link shows extrauterine pregnancy may not be “treated” by direct abortion. Simply because treatments exist does not make them moral. I do not know why you would think direct abortion is not involved in this discussion?
That some therapies are debated by moralists does not mean there are no clear answers or that anything goes.