T
thistle
Guest
Okay. Let me be clear. The intentional direct killing of a baby in the womb to save the mother is forbidden.
- Status
T
THP
Guest
What about in the tube?
T
THP
Guest
That’s exactly what I just said.
T
THP
Guest
This is an important point. Especially as concerns an ectopic pregnancy.
T
thistle
Guest
ABORTION. In Catholic morality, abortion is either direct (induced) or indirect. Direct abortion is any destruction of the product of human conception, whether before or after implantation in the womb. A direct abortion is one that is intended either as an end in itself or as a means to an end. As a willful attack on unborn human life, no matter what the motive, direct abortion is always a grave objective evil.
Indirect abortion is the foreseen but merely permitted evacuation of a fetus which cannot survive outside the womb. The evacuation is not the intended or directly willed result, but the side effect, of some legitimate procedure. As such it is morally allowable.
The essential sinfulness of direct abortion consists in the homicidal intent to kill innocent life. This factor places the controverted question as to precisely when human life begins, outside the ambit of the moral issue; as it also makes the now commonly held Catholic position that human life begins at conception equally outside the heart of the Church’s teaching about the grave sinfulness of direct abortion.
Abortion was condemned by the Church since apostolic times. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, composed before A.D. 100, told the faithful “You shall not procure abortion. You shall not destroy a newborn child” (II,2). Direct abortion and infanticide were from the beginning placed on the same level of malice.
Hundreds of ecclesiastical documents from the first century through the present testify to the same moral doctrine, with such nuances as time, place, and circumstances indicated. The Second Vatican Council declared: “Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception,” so that “abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes” (Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, IV, 51). Pope Paul VI confirmed this teaching in 1974. “Respect for human life,” he wrote, “is called for from the time that the process of generation begins. From the time that the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor of the mother. It is rather the life of a new human being with its own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already.” Consequently, “divine law and natural reason exclude all right to the direct killing of an innocent human being” (Declaration on Procured Abortion, III, 12). (Etym. Latin abortivus, born prematurely, abortive; from aboriri, to miscarry.)
H
HelenRose
Guest
I have noticed that people who are pro-choice refer to the human life in the mother’s womb as a fetus.
Those who are pro-life will refer to the human life in the mother’s womb as an unborn child.
People who are pro-life recognize that human life is sacred and should be treated with the same dignity all human life has been given. People who are pro-choice do not recognize that all human life is sacred.
It has been pretty well established in this thread that the unborn child in the fallopian tube will die and the mother as well. This child can not be saved therefore removing the fallopian tube is necessary to save the mother’s life.
Those who are pro-life will refer to the human life in the mother’s womb as an unborn child.
People who are pro-life recognize that human life is sacred and should be treated with the same dignity all human life has been given. People who are pro-choice do not recognize that all human life is sacred.
It has been pretty well established in this thread that the unborn child in the fallopian tube will die and the mother as well. This child can not be saved therefore removing the fallopian tube is necessary to save the mother’s life.
U
underacloud
Guest
It is true that if there were no pregnancy, there would be no reason to remove the tube. Yet the goal in removing the tube is not to end the pregnancy, but to remove a damaged (or soon to be damaged) tube. The removal of the damaged tube is morally neutral, which is why it is allowable. The end of the pregnancy is inevitable, but unavoidable (hopefully medicine will advance to the point where an ectopic pregnancy can be moved and made viable, but unfortunately we’re not there yet).
It is a direct application of the principle of double effect. This principle is based on four premises:
- The action must be either morally good or indifferent.
- The bad effect must not be the means by which one achieves the good effect.
- The intention must be the achieving of only the good effect, with the bad effect being only an unintended side effect.
- The good effect must be at least equivalent in importance to the bad effect.
Consequentialist will dismiss this principle and I do concede that the case of ectopic pregnancy throws up what seems to be an anomaly. Regardless, the principle is well founded in Catholic morality and is based on the words of St Paul himself in Romans 3:8, which says “Why not say–as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say–“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is deserved.”
For Catholics, the principle that the ends do not justrify the means, or that we cannot do evil that good may come if it, is well established and binding.
U
underacloud
Guest
Fair enough. I’m not in America so a little removed from the current debate there, and whatever rhetoric is being employed. It is difficult to express complex morality via sound bites…then again, the killing of innocent life isn’t actually that morally complex.
A
Aggies08
Guest
The attempt must be made to save both mother and child.
Cases, although seemingly black and white when we say this condition or that, are not, and must be evaluated by Dr, priest, and appropriate persons on a case-by-case basis.
A removal of the Fallopian tube in the case of a etopic pregnancy is allowable because it will save the life of the mother as well as give a chance for the child to survive. Now, we know that with current medicine, the child won’t. However, we must leave the actual death of the child up to God, and not directly kill him. Perhaps one day medicine will advance enough those who suffer from an etopic pregnancy will have hope for the child, however small! However, we cannot directly, purposely kill the child himself. We must give him that chance for a miracle, if he so would choose to give one.
This is how I understand it, at least.
Cases, although seemingly black and white when we say this condition or that, are not, and must be evaluated by Dr, priest, and appropriate persons on a case-by-case basis.
A removal of the Fallopian tube in the case of a etopic pregnancy is allowable because it will save the life of the mother as well as give a chance for the child to survive. Now, we know that with current medicine, the child won’t. However, we must leave the actual death of the child up to God, and not directly kill him. Perhaps one day medicine will advance enough those who suffer from an etopic pregnancy will have hope for the child, however small! However, we cannot directly, purposely kill the child himself. We must give him that chance for a miracle, if he so would choose to give one.
This is how I understand it, at least.
T
THP
Guest
I understand the concept of double effect. In this scenario, the logic makes absolutely no sense to me. The entire point of removing the tube is to terminate the growing pregnancy. We are not treating a damaged tube that just happens to have a pregnancy in it. What if the tube wasn’t damaged in the first place and it was really bad luck?
No one here is arguing for abortion of an intrauterine pregnancy. Here is why I think this is important: Take, for example a woman with no children who has already lost one tube for what ever reason, and develops an ectopic in the other tube. If its early enough her options are surgery to either remove the tube or remove the pregnancy from the tube but keeping it intact or methotrexate to cause the pregnancy to dissolve.
In this case, the end is the same in all 3 (termination of the ectopic pregnancy). I would argue the means is actually better in the methotrexate case because it is safer in that it avoids a surgery and preserves her tube which would allow for possible future pregnancies. I see no moral difference between all three and in a childless woman taking out the other tube guarantees that she will never have biologic children.
U
underacloud
Guest
Sorry, but you are confusing ends and means. You say the means is better, when in fact you mean the ends (the outcomes) are better. No one is disputing that this is correct - that the ends are better in the scenario you describe. But it is the means that are wrong - the means of directly killing the innocent baby (fetus, whatever you want to call it at that point).
Like I said, it seems to be an anomaly, where the correct moral action under the principle of double effect leads to the less desirable outcome (as far as we can see). But in doing so we preserve the premise that you don’t do evil that good may come of it. In God’s infinite wisdom, this is the moral principle that He has provided us and we must trust that a greater good, although unseen by us, is achieved in following it.
G
GodLovesTheSpek
Guest
We try our best to save both lives until the natural death of both, either – or maybe both live.
Instead of placing so much effort and treasure into an intrinsic evil how about placing all effort and treasure into preserving life?
One can’t buy their way into heaven but one can surely buy their way into… the other.
Instead of placing so much effort and treasure into an intrinsic evil how about placing all effort and treasure into preserving life?
One can’t buy their way into heaven but one can surely buy their way into… the other.
N
Newbie2
Guest
Not exactly. The intent is to restore the woman’s body to health, and the only way to do that is to remove the embryo. The unintended side effect is the termination of the embryo. If there was another way to save the embryo (implantation into the uterus, for example), and such were to be attempted, it would need to be at least tried in order for it to be a moral act.
An argument is likely to be made such as:
How is that different than removing an embryo from a uterus of a woman who has severe cardiac disease and isn’t likely to survive the pregnancy?
The answer is that removing the embryo in such a case will not cure the cardiac disease.
Subtle but important distinction.
The use of Methotrexate will most certainly kill the embryo, but the “remains” of that embryo are more likely, it would seem, to cause inflammation and possible scarring and/or narrowing of the fallopian tube, possibly leading to a repeat condition. Of course, surgery could result in scarring as well. Perhaps a (human) surgeon could shed some light on it. That being said, the choice of medical procedure doesn’t always affect the morality of an action, given that choices are available.
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
On the question of Methotrexate in response to ectopic pregnancy, there are probable opinions
both for and against the permissibility of its use. Some theologians, such as William May and Rev.
Benedict M. Guevin, O.S.B., maintain that the use of Methotrexate constitutes a direct abortion and
is therefore contrary to no. 48 of the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care
Services. According to their position, the mechanism of action of by which the Methotrexate
dissolves the pathological bond between the embryo and fallopian tube is the death of the embryo
itself, insofar as the embryo dies as a direct result of the inhibition of DNA synthesis caused by the
methotrexate. Accordingly, the death of the embryo is not the foreseen but merely tolerated sideeffect
of a therapeutic action but the means by which the pathological condition is resolved.
On the other hand, some theologians, such as Albert Moraczewski, OP, Benedict Ashley, OP, and
Kevin O’Rourke OP, argue that, while the death of the fetus is foreseen, it is not the chosen object
of the act in administering methotrexate. Instead of the death of the embryo being the means by
which the pathological bond is dissolved, the inhibition of DNA synthesis prevents the continued
dividing of cells in the trophoblast, which then results in the dissolution of the pathological bond
between the embryo and the fallopian tube. While it is still foreseen that the inhibition of DNA
synthesis will result in the death of the embryo, this is a foreseen but unintended effect of using the
methotrexate to dissolve the bond between the trophoblast and the fallopian tube. Thus, according
to this position, the use of methotrexate in response to ectopic pregnancy would constitute a
justifiable indirect abortion, permissible under no. 48 of the ERDs.
both for and against the permissibility of its use. Some theologians, such as William May and Rev.
Benedict M. Guevin, O.S.B., maintain that the use of Methotrexate constitutes a direct abortion and
is therefore contrary to no. 48 of the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care
Services. According to their position, the mechanism of action of by which the Methotrexate
dissolves the pathological bond between the embryo and fallopian tube is the death of the embryo
itself, insofar as the embryo dies as a direct result of the inhibition of DNA synthesis caused by the
methotrexate. Accordingly, the death of the embryo is not the foreseen but merely tolerated sideeffect
of a therapeutic action but the means by which the pathological condition is resolved.
On the other hand, some theologians, such as Albert Moraczewski, OP, Benedict Ashley, OP, and
Kevin O’Rourke OP, argue that, while the death of the fetus is foreseen, it is not the chosen object
of the act in administering methotrexate. Instead of the death of the embryo being the means by
which the pathological bond is dissolved, the inhibition of DNA synthesis prevents the continued
dividing of cells in the trophoblast, which then results in the dissolution of the pathological bond
between the embryo and the fallopian tube. While it is still foreseen that the inhibition of DNA
synthesis will result in the death of the embryo, this is a foreseen but unintended effect of using the
methotrexate to dissolve the bond between the trophoblast and the fallopian tube. Thus, according
to this position, the use of methotrexate in response to ectopic pregnancy would constitute a
justifiable indirect abortion, permissible under no. 48 of the ERDs.
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
To the forum member who objected to using the term “pro-abortion” instead of “pro-choice.”
The former term more accurately describes the POV, since “pro-choice” is a false term which softens and disguises the actual agenda and goals of the abortion industry.
There is no “choice” for the baby, and many times there is no “choice” presented to the mother, either. We know that Planned Parenthood, for example, does not truly offer women a “choice” when they are pregnant, but starts emphasizing all of the negatives of pregnancy including stating the DANGERS of giving birth!
I prefer to use terms such as “pro-abortion” to expose what the real agenda is, and not allow “weasel words” like “pro-choice” to continue to exist.
The former term more accurately describes the POV, since “pro-choice” is a false term which softens and disguises the actual agenda and goals of the abortion industry.
There is no “choice” for the baby, and many times there is no “choice” presented to the mother, either. We know that Planned Parenthood, for example, does not truly offer women a “choice” when they are pregnant, but starts emphasizing all of the negatives of pregnancy including stating the DANGERS of giving birth!
I prefer to use terms such as “pro-abortion” to expose what the real agenda is, and not allow “weasel words” like “pro-choice” to continue to exist.
H
HelenRose
Guest
I don’t really disagree with you. I do know that pro-choice is semantic word crafting by Planned Parenthood. I want to understand exactly what our goals are and the methods we should be using in fighting this battle. As devout Catholics, we know who the enemy is. If we allow the term “pro-choice” to stand we have greater opportunity to explain what that choice entails.To the forum member who objected to using the term “pro-abortion” instead of “pro-choice.”
The former term more accurately describes the POV, since “pro-choice” is a false term which softens and disguises the actual agenda and goals of the abortion industry.
There is no “choice” for the baby, and many times there is no “choice” presented to the mother, either. We know that Planned Parenthood, for example, does not truly offer women a “choice” when they are pregnant, but starts emphasizing all of the negatives of pregnancy including stating the DANGERS of giving birth!
I prefer to use terms such as “pro-abortion” to expose what the real agenda is, and not allow “weasel words” like “pro-choice” to continue to exist.
For instance when a woman who is struggling with the question asks, “What about pro-choice?” If we come back with, “You are talking about pro-abortion.” She will say, "No, I am not for abortion. I am for the ‘right to choose’. The argument begins.
If on the other had hand, we respond with, “Well, what are the choices? What choice does the baby have?” This woman will then be in the position of having to ask herself these questions and having to defend her view of what the word choice means. We are then able to use Planned Parenthood’s own words to defeat them.
R
Rence
Guest
However, some would argue that terminating the pregnancy will allow her body to return to a state that will cause her heart less stress, which will contribute to the longevity of her life. Whereas the continued pregnancy will cause more and more stress on the heart until the pregnancy is over. In that time, a woman at risk can die from complications caused by the changes that come about during pregnancy. So removing the embryo will allow her to return to her baseline.
Some would argue that the use of methotrexate would allow the woman to avoid a more invasive procedure in which she is put under anesthesia, cut, and her fallopian tube removed. I can’t think of another circumstance in which surgery is preferred over a less invasive procedure. True, the chances of having a recurrent tubal pregnancy is higher in that one tube, but many women go on to have successful pregnancies despite saving the tube. And yes, they continue to have successful pregnancies with the tube removed, because they will just utilize the other tube. But there is no doubt that the less invasive procedure is physiologically better for the woman: it’s less invasive, the recovery time is shorter and she can go on to have more children. If the tube is removed, and something happens to the remaining tube, she is then sterile. Since the outcome is the same for the tubal preganancy, I can understand (whether I agree or disagree) why some would opt for the methotrexate rather than the surgery to remove the tube.
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
I agree. However, the person you posit would then not accept the premise that we are even talking about a baby, so the argument shifts away from “choice” into when a “fetus” turns into a “baby.”
But we’re obviously on the same side and working toward the same end.
H
HelenRose
Guest
Yes we are. And we need to use different tactics with different people. I would certainly not use a gentle approach on Polosi. She is pro-abortion.I agree. However, the person you posit would then not accept the premise that we are even talking about a baby, so the argument shifts away from “choice” into when a “fetus” turns into a “baby.”
But we’re obviously on the same side and working toward the same end.
But the majority of women are not thinking this through. We must be smarter than Polosi and we can not use her word crafting tactics to bring well meaning women to the very knowledge that they have deep within their souls.
Step One: Human Life is sacred.
Step Two: The fetus is Human Life
Step Three: The fetus is an unborn child.
Step Four: The fetus is an unborn child.
Step Five: The fetus is an unborn child.
(May the unborn child dance in the sunlight)
N
Newbie2
Guest
Yep, I can understand too. I’m not sure that there are not (medical) differences in the respective expected outcomes between surgery and medical treatment. If there were, that would be a considertion. Given that surgery and medical treatment were equal in terms of risks, chance of success, etc, from a moral standpoint it wouldn’t seem to matter.
- Status