Abortion: Absolutely NO Exceptions?

[kmaq]

Good grief, fix…please do not offer any more links. They are clear as mud.

Why don’t I think direct abortion is involved in this discussion? Take your latest offering from Healy and substitute the word “fallopian tube” for “uterus” for the second paragraph:

The abortion is termed indirect when the pregnant uterus itself is
excised because its condition is such that its removal is medically
necessary. If the uterus contains a living and nonviable fetus, the
fetus will of course inevitably die. There is no direct attack upon
the fetus, however, and its death is merely permitted as a secondary
effect of an act which needs to be performed and which, as we shall
see immediately, it is permissible to perform.

As far as the lengthy discussion regarding the timing of the procedure:

But let us suppose that the tube in the case of an ectopic pregnancy
has not yet ruptured. Must the surgeon, before the excision, wait
until an external rupture occurs? The answer is that, if the tube is
at present in a gravely dangerous condition and if its excision
cannot be delayed without a notable increase of danger to the mother,
this Fallopian tube may be removed at once.

and

the surgeon’s
intention is good. He has as his purpose in operating the saving of
the mother’s life. He foresees, it is true, that the fetus will die
when the tube where it is resting is removed from the woman’s body,
but he does not desire its death. This is a merely permitted evil
effect.

I actually think this link supports my position rather well.

I could not agree with you more on the fact that simply because treatment exists, we should use it. This is why I cited the use of stem cells in my earlier post. A very poor use of science indeed. I must also point out the wrongful use of treatment in the end of natural life issues. I cannot tell how disheartening it is to see time and again the use of ventilators and such on 90+ year olds. But I digress…
In summary, I must say I find your use of the term “anything goes” to my thoughts very offensive, fix. That is simply not at all what I am saying and it is inappropriate of you to summarize my feelings as such.

 

[fix]

Who has said that “anything goes?”

BTW, the article you referenced on indirect abortion was written in 1956. Even if the Catholic Authors site describes the book from which the article was excerpted as " “The most complete and useful book on the subject” Covers every ethical problem that arises in any branch of medicine," I believe that there might have been a few ethical issues that have been raised by medical advances in the last 50 years which the author may not have foreseen.

I used that link to help explain the reasoning underlying the moral principles. As for anything goes are you not arguing that direct killing of the child is morally acceptable?

 

[KarenNC]

I used that link to help explain the reasoning underlying the moral principles. As for anything goes are you not arguing that direct killing of the child is morally acceptable?

In this particular circumstance, at root, yes. Morally desirable, no, but acceptable, yes.

Any action taken (as well as no action taken) also has the affect of killing the child. There is no scenario in such a situation in which the child does not die, whether one intervenes or not, as ultimately it will kill the mother. In order to resolve the problem, the child dies…period. That is a tragic fact, but even the Church agrees that it is morally superior for only one to die rather than two if the second death is avoidable.

This emphatically does not mean that I believe “anything goes.” Far from it. If there were an option in which the child did not die, then that choice would perhaps be morally superior (depending on the precise factors involved). My position is that it is morally superior to cause the least amount of harm possible in this situation, including using any sound medical means that will be the least invasive and end the pregnancy with the least amount of physical harm to the mother.

To step out of trying to deal with this from a Catholic point of view, I find the entire dance about “removing the tube but not deliberately killing the child” to be, frankly, intellectually dishonest and an attempt to avoid taking full responsibility for one’s own decisions and actions. I have to say that I believe it is morally superior to just admit frankly that any action you take is going to end a human life and accept the responsibility for having made a choice that did the least harm possible in the situation rather than pretend that it is not what you are doing.

 

[fix]

Good grief, fix…please do not offer any more links. They are clear as mud.

Why don’t I think direct abortion is involved in this discussion? Take your latest offering from Healy and substitute the word “fallopian tube” for “uterus” for the second paragraph:

The abortion is termed indirect when the pregnant uterus itself is
excised because its condition is such that its removal is medically
necessary. If the uterus contains a living and nonviable fetus, the
fetus will of course inevitably die. There is no direct attack upon
the fetus, however, and its death is merely permitted as a secondary
effect of an act which needs to be performed and which, as we shall
see immediately, it is permissible to perform.

As far as the lengthy discussion regarding the timing of the procedure:

But let us suppose that the tube in the case of an ectopic pregnancy
has not yet ruptured. Must the surgeon, before the excision, wait
until an external rupture occurs? The answer is that, if the tube is
at present in a gravely dangerous condition and if its excision
cannot be delayed without a notable increase of danger to the mother,
this Fallopian tube may be removed at once.

and

I actually think this link supports my position rather well.

I could not agree with you more on the fact that simply because treatment exists, we should use it. This is why I cited the use of stem cells in my earlier post. A very poor use of science indeed. I must also point out the wrongful use of treatment in the end of natural life issues. I cannot tell how disheartening it is to see time and again the use of ventilators and such on 90+ year olds. But I digress…
In summary, I must say I find your use of the term “anything goes” to my thoughts very offensive, fix. That is simply not at all what I am saying and it is inappropriate of you to summarize my feelings as such.

If you are agreeing with Karen then you are agreeing that the treatments called direct abortion are licit.

The treatment in these cases must be aimed at the pathology, not the baby. Removing the infected tube, or part of it, is treating the infection. Just as removing a cancerous uterous is treating the pathology. As an unintended consquence the baby dies because technology does not exist to save him/her at this point.

This thread has introduced other treatments that are direct abortion. One mentioned was incising into the infected tube to remove the embryo. That is not targeting the pathology. Another mentioned is administering certain drugs to kill the embryo. That too targets the embryo.

The principle of double effect does not allow one to commit an evil act. One’s intention is not the sole or overriding consideration to determine if one is acting justly.

The links I provided do not support the position Karen is taking.

 

[fix]

In this particular circumstance, at root, yes. Morally desirable, no, but acceptable, yes.

Any action taken (as well as no action taken) also has the affect of killing the child. There is no scenario in such a situation in which the child does not die, whether one intervenes or not, as ultimately it will kill the mother. In order to resolve the problem, the child dies…period. That is a tragic fact, but even the Church agrees that it is morally superior for only one to die rather than two if the second death is avoidable.

This emphatically does not mean that I believe “anything goes.” Far from it. If there were an option in which the child did not die, then that choice would perhaps be morally superior (depending on the precise factors involved). My position is that it is morally superior to cause the least amount of harm possible in this situation, including using any sound medical means that will be the least invasive and end the pregnancy with the least amount of physical harm to the mother.

To step out of trying to deal with this from a Catholic point of view, I find the entire dance about “removing the tube but not deliberately killing the child” to be, frankly, intellectually dishonest and an attempt to avoid taking full responsibility for one’s own decisions and actions. I have to say that I believe it is morally superior to just admit frankly that any action you take is going to end a human life and accept the responsibility for having made a choice that did the least harm possible in the situation rather than pretend that it is not what you are doing.

Moral norms and moral reasoning may be complex and demanding at times, but they are not dishonest. You seem to reduce this issue down to a type of pragmatism which denies absolute norms and the sanctity of human life.

To be brief as you know a good end is never justifed by an evil means. We never intentionally kill an innocent person. That is one “law” we know to be true. These medical cases are complicated and need to be understood on a case by cases basis, but certainly moral norms apply to all of us.

We treat pathology. We do not kill people.

 

[mapleoak]

Moral norms and moral reasoning may be complex and demanding at times, but they are not dishonest. You seem to reduce this issue down to a type of pragmatism which denies absolute norms and the sanctity of human life.

To be brief as you know a good end is never justifed by an evil means. We never intentionally kill an innocent person. That is one “law” we know to be true. These medical cases are complicated and need to be understood on a case by cases basis, but certainly moral norms apply to all of us.

We treat pathology. We do not kill people.

How true. So sorry I seemed to have missed out on much of this discussion.
So often, in eptopic pregnancy cases, there mere presence of the embryo being located in the fallopian tube is sufficient for some imprudent doctors to deem the condition a pathology. In such cases, any attempt to rectify the ‘situation’ is no less than a direct attack on the unborn child. This is true whether the baby is flushed out or if the tube is removed with the baby inside.
I seem to remember a similar discussion some time back on this very subject.

 

[KarenNC]

So often, in eptopic pregnancy cases, there mere presence of the embryo being located in the fallopian tube is sufficient for some imprudent doctors to deem the condition a pathology. In such cases, any attempt to rectify the ‘situation’ is no less than a direct attack on the unborn child. This is true whether the baby is flushed out or if the tube is removed with the baby inside.
I seem to remember a similar discussion some time back on this very subject.

I would be very much interested in seeing documentation in the medical literature of cases in which the “mere presence fo the embryo being located in the fallopian tube” is not considered a direct threat to the health of the mother. Once the embryo has implanted itself in the tube, it isn’t going anywhere on its own. It isn’t a case of it just stopping to rest for a bit before continuing on. The condition is pathological, period, end of statement.

Your alternative suggestion to rectify the situation would be…?

 

[Linnyo]

you know, I was reflecting upon this question a few weeks ago when the priest in my church stated very clearly that there were times when the church DID permit abortions. I have never heard of such situations and he didn’t elaborate because he was actually making a different point and it wouldn’t have been on track. So what was he on about? I haven’t a clue and,to be honest, I don’t really think I need to know considering I would never have one. Just my 2 cents.

 

[mapleoak]

I would be very much interested in seeing documentation in the medical literature of cases in which the “mere presence fo the embryo being located in the fallopian tube” is not considered a direct threat to the health of the mother.

One of the big problems with current medical literature, especially in the wake of calling abortion a ‘medical procedure’ is the lack of documentation which is anything other than ‘matter of fact’ betitled literature. The morality of an issue can hardly be subject to this nonsense, which is generally anything BUT matter of fact, rather highly twisted medical school agenda. Of course, most of these medical school textbooks are going to call an ectopic pregnancy a ‘direct threat’ to the ‘health’ of the mother. In other words promote ‘death’ to preserve ‘health’.

Once the embryo has implanted itself in the tube, it isn’t going anywhere on its own. It isn’t a case of it just stopping to rest for a bit before continuing on. The condition is pathological, period, end of statement.

Whether it stops to rest a bit and moves on or implants and stays put still does not define “pathology”. To say so is to call the embryo a disease. It is a twist of logic to say the fallopian tube is diseased because of the implantation.

Your alternative suggestion to rectify the situation would be…?

Define the specific situation first. To say that the presence of an embryo implantation in the fallopian tube or elsewhere in the abdominal cavity in and of itself requires remedial measures is insufficient.

 

[mapleoak]

There is not a moral difference between using medication to kill a child in a tubal pregnancy and using surgery to remove the tube along with the child and also kill the child as it is not a question of morals in this circumstance, but a question of medical necessity and doing the least harm possible. The child ends up just as dead in either circumstance. Only if there were some even slightly reasonable option that might possibly perserve the life of the child until it could come to live birth, even if that was on the barest edge of viability, can I see that the issue of whether it is moral or immoral to kill the child comes into play. Otherwise, I consider it false morality even within the teachings of the Church to forbid a woman and her physician from using a method to end the pregnancy (kill the child) in the way that they deem most medically sound and therefore subjecting her to risk of more harm than is absolutely necessary.

Furthermore, it is medically possible to assist patients with suicide. Why bother with any treatment whatsoever and go straight to this procedure. All this is a big fancy paragraph to state that murder is okay if it means saving ones own skin.

 

[KarenNC]

Define the specific situation first. To say that the presence of an embryo implantation in the fallopian tube or elsewhere in the abdominal cavity in and of itself requires remedial measures is insufficient.

Have you bothered to read or even skim the rest of the thread? There are plenty of citations of medical sources about ectopic pregnancy and its outcomes already. There exist no outcomes of a tubal pregnancy which result in the survival of the fetus with present levels of medical knowledge. A child growing in a fallopian tube will eventually rupture it and threaten the life of the mother.

 

[KarenNC]

Furthermore, it is medically possible to assist patients with suicide. Why bother with any treatment whatsoever and go straight to this procedure. All this is a big fancy paragraph to state that murder is okay if it means saving ones own skin.

Again, take a look at previous discussions on the thread. We’ve been over this ground already. Equating using medication rather than surgery to end the life of a child in an ectopic pregnancy and assisted suicide is ludicrous.

 

[mapleoak]

Have you bothered to read or even skim the rest of the thread? There are plenty of citations of medical sources about ectopic pregnancy and its outcomes already. There exist no outcomes of a tubal pregnancy which result in the survival of the fetus with present levels of medical knowledge. A child growing in a fallopian tube will eventually rupture it and threaten the life of the mother.

Whether or not there exists medical knowledge of how to ensure that a fetus who implanted tubally can survive is not a justifiable reason to murder that fetus. It is also presumptious to say that it will eventually rupture and kill the mother.

Again, take a look at previous discussions on the thread. We’ve been over this ground already. Equating using medication rather than surgery to end the life of a child in an ectopic pregnancy and assisted suicide is ludicrous.

No it is not ludicrous to equate one form of murder with another. It is calling a spade a spade. It is not a matter of using medication RATHER than surgery, but a matter of using medication OR surgery to purposefully end a life. Both are murder.

 

[KarenNC]

Whether or not there exists medical knowledge of how to ensure that a fetus who implanted tubally can survive is not a justifiable reason to murder that fetus. It is also presumptious to say that it will eventually rupture and kill the mother.

Presumptious??? I am still waiting for any credible evidence that there is an outcome of a tubal pregnancy in which the child does not die but instead makes it to a live birth, however premature.

No it is not ludicrous to equate one form of murder with another. It is calling a spade a spade. It is not a matter of using medication RATHER than surgery, but a matter of using medication OR surgery to purposefully end a life. Both are murder.

Actually, according to the Catholic Church, it is a matter of one vs. the other. Surgery to remove the tube in which the child is implanted is considered morally licit.

I happen to agree with you that the end in all cases is indeed to end the life of the child and I have said that I consider dancing around the issue by saying that removing the tube is licit but using medication is not seems to be a bit odd. I don’t, however, equate them with murder.

 

[mapleoak]

Presumptious??? I am still waiting for any credible evidence that there is an outcome of a tubal pregnancy in which the child does not die but instead makes it to a live birth, however premature.

This is missing the point entirely. I say presumptious meaning that it is misguided to say that it will surely rupture and kill the mother. There may not be much literature on a child making it to live birth or it may be (as was said in another thread on this topic) as “rare as a hen’s tooth”, but that is totally besides the point. In reality many ectopic situations resolve on their own with no intervention. Procedures done in the name of so-called ‘preventative treatment’, whether it be methothrexate or otherwise, is nothing less than murder. This is a prime example of accepting God’s will if He so chooses to call the unborn in the womb versus man taking matters into his own hands.

Actually, according to the Catholic Church, it is a matter of one vs. the other. Surgery to remove the tube in which the child is implanted is considered morally licit.

This is incorrect. Please quote specified Church document being referred to. When something is over simplified, important details get dropped. Important details which are critical to a making a proper moral judgment in a given situation.

I happen to agree with you that the end in all cases is indeed to end the life of the child and I have said that I consider dancing around the issue by saying that removing the tube is licit but using medication is not seems to be a bit odd. I don’t, however, equate them with murder.

Are you agreeing with the end in all cases of ‘preventative treatment’ is to end the life of the child? That is most definitely the END in all such cases, and is most definitely murder in all cases.

 

[KarenNC]

This is missing the point entirely. I say presumptious meaning that it is misguided to say that it will surely rupture and kill the mother. There may not be much literature on a child making it to live birth or it may be (as was said in another thread on this topic) as “rare as a hen’s tooth”, but that is totally besides the point. In reality many ectopic situations resolve on their own with no intervention. Procedures done in the name of so-called ‘preventative treatment’, whether it be methothrexate or otherwise, is nothing less than murder. This is a prime example of accepting God’s will if He so chooses to call the unborn in the womb versus man taking matters into his own hands.

It’s not a case of “not much literature” on tubal pregnancies making it to live birth or “rare as a hen’s tooth.” It does not happen. Therefore, to pretend that it does is not “beside the point.”

The choice comes down to “taking matters into one’s own hands” or letting the mother die as well as the child. The Church’s argument is not whether or not to act, it is differentiating about ways in which to act.

This is incorrect. Please quote specified Church document being referred to. When something is over simplified, important details get dropped. Important details which are critical to a making a proper moral judgment in a given situation.

This is in reference to my statement “Surgery to remove the tube in which the child is implanted is considered morally licit.” The statement is not incorrect. The Church documents have been referred to over and over in this thread.

americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0898.asp
“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.”

ewtn.org/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=506160&Pg=Forum5&Pgnu=1&recnu=3
etc, etc, etc.

Are you agreeing with the end in all cases of ‘preventative treatment’ is to end the life of the child?

I am agreeing that the only treatment in these sorts of cases is the end the life of the child in one way or another. Indeed, the only outcome of this, treated or not, is the end of the life of the child, whether it be through intervention (chemical or surgical), possible miscarriage or death of the mother when the tube ruptures. The question is whether it is also needlessly the end of the life for the mother or preservation of her life only by subjecting her to needlessly invasive medical procedures when alternatives exist.

** That is most definitely the END in all such cases, and is most definitely murder in all cases.**

That may be your stance, but does not appear to be the stance of the Catholic Church. Again, the discussion here is not whether the Church allows the physician to end the life of the child. It obviously does. The Church simply quibbles about the means used to do so, in a way that I find illogical and inconsistent with other positions taken by the Church, as I have outlined in my earlier posts.

 

[mapleoak]

It’s not a case of “not much literature” on tubal pregnancies making it to live birth or “rare as a hen’s tooth.” It does not happen. Therefore, to pretend that it does is not “beside the point.”

Please read my above response over a little more carefully. No where did I say that tubal pregnancies often make it to live birth. In fact that is the very reason there is not much literature on it. Yes it is as rare as a hen’s tooth. But the statement “it does not happen” is incorrect. Yes it is besides the point, because the point I was making is it it does not matter if the child will make it to live birth or will eventually die. To kill it on mere fact that it is located in the tube is no less than murder. What you are very clearly saying is that ALL tubal pregnancies left untreated result in the mother’s death, therefore warranting emergency treatment. This is not emergency treatment, it is preventative treatment.

The choice comes down to “taking matters into one’s own hands” or letting the mother die as well as the child.

Stated over again. I will also restate from above: “In reality many ectopic situations resolve on their own with no intervention. Procedures done in the name of so-called ‘preventative treatment’, whether it be methothrexate or otherwise, is nothing less than murder.”
This means it would be unwise to kill the baby on the premise that it is going to die anyway.

The Church’s argument is not whether or not to act, it is differentiating about ways in which to act.

The Church doesn’t make argument, it states Truth, and Truth is guided by moral reason.

This is in reference to my statement “Surgery to remove the tube in which the child is implanted is considered morally licit.” The statement is not incorrect. The Church documents have been referred to over and over in this thread.

americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0898.asp
“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.”

This is not a Church document, but Ms. Alvares interpretation. It is important to distinguish between preventative treatment (the mother might develop complications which are life threatening) and emergency treatment (the mother is going to die if something is not done).

ewtn.org/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=506160&Pg=Forum5&Pgnu=1&recnu=3
etc, etc, etc.

I would highly recommend reading with sincerity documents as “Humanae Vitae” and other important Church documents while asking the Holy Ghost for guidance and for the desire to comprehend it.

I am agreeing that the only treatment in these sorts of cases is the end the life of the child in one way or another.

Yes, I agree, all currently available treatments will result in death.

Indeed, the only outcome of this, treated or not, is the end of the life of the child, whether it be through intervention (chemical or surgical), possible miscarriage or death of the mother when the tube ruptures.

Unintentional miscarriage is not murder. Ending life prematurely because miscarriage is likely going to happen anyway is murder. Tubectomy with no pathologic condition other than the existence of an implanted embryo is murder.

The question is whether it is also needlessly the end of the life for the mother or preservation of her life only by subjecting her to needlessly invasive medical procedures when alternatives exist.

Just because a medical procedure is available, alternative or otherwise, is not justification for the moral licitness of its use. Going back to how this ties in with euthanasia, here also, there are medically available procedures to end someones life. Available, yes, Morally acceptable, no.

That may be your stance, but does not appear to be the stance of the Catholic Church. Again, the discussion here is not whether the Church allows the physician to end the life of the child. It obviously does. The Church simply quibbles about the means used to do so, in a way that I find illogical and inconsistent with other positions taken by the Church, as I have outlined in my earlier posts.

The Church is always consistent. It has always maintained that the direct killing of innocent life is always wrong - ALWAYS.

 

[mapleoak]

Excuse me. Meant Dominum Vitae.