Abortion of a fetriform teratoma

  • Thread starter Thread starter hdog
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

hdog

Guest
a fetriform is not a baby started from an embryo but it is a type of tumor that grows from a mass of cells that form into something that highly resembles a fetus. Some of these have arms, legs, sets of organs, hair, teeth and some have been recorded to have a beating hearts. Science considerthese tumors to be alive.

dude these things look like babies…

if one of these baby-like things formed in you…and it had a beating heart…would it be lawful under the church to recieve surgery to remove it. FT’s never are born they remain inside forever…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teratoma
 
**Would you want to hurt your own baby?
**
Who knows if advances in medical science would allow these abnormalities to live?

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark
 
Wow, I’ve never heard of anything like this before :hmmm:

I am not even really sure of what it is. But judging by the Wikipedia article it is an a tumor that occurs usually in the ovaries or testes. The article says it’s not even a parasitic twin.

To me it doesn’t seem like it is a person. You don’t even abort it because its not a fertilized egg in a woman’s uterus. It could grow inside a male or a female actually. It looks like it starts forming within an individual while the individual is still a fetus… this means it does not occur when an egg is fertilized inside of a woman. It grows in a fetus.

I’m still sort of confused so if anyone else understands whats going on, please correct me lol
 
hdog said:
a fetriform is not a baby started from an embryo but it is a type of tumor that grows from a mass of cells that form into something that highly resembles a fetus. Some of these have arms, legs, sets of organs, hair, teeth and some have been recorded to have a beating hearts. Science considerthese tumors to be alive.

dude these things look like babies…

if one of these baby-like things formed in you…and it had a beating heart…would it be lawful under the church to recieve surgery to remove it. FT’s never are born they remain inside forever…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teratoma
Click to expand...
I don’t believe these tumors are considered to be alive by scientists in the same sense a fetus is alive. They are not fetuses, they are not babies, and they will never develop into a human being. They are tumors. They may contain some body parts that resemble hair and teeth, and other body parts, etc., but they are tumors. They can cause considerable problems and pain and even be life-threatening if they are large enough or in a place where they interfere with function. They can also be malignant. I certainly am no expert on these, and can’t tell you how they develop from the dermal cells and all the different types, etc., but I have taken care of a few female patients who have had them on their ovaries, and when operated on for what was thought to be an ovarian cyst, it was discovered that it was actually a teratoma. There is no reason why it would be not lawful under the Church to have these tumors removed.
 
hdog said:
a fetriform is not a baby started from an embryo but it is a type of tumor that grows from a mass of cells that form into something that highly resembles a fetus. Some of these have arms, legs, sets of organs, hair, teeth and some have been recorded to have a beating hearts. Science considerthese tumors to be alive.

dude these things look like babies…

if one of these baby-like things formed in you…and it had a beating heart…would it be lawful under the church to recieve surgery to remove it. FT’s never are born they remain inside forever…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teratoma
Click to expand...
Yes, you can have it removed. They’re not babies and they’re not “alive” though they may have live tissue. They are not a ‘product of conception’.
 
hdog said:
the people that have these must live forever with them
here is a little boy suffering with a fetriform teratoma:
kenmoksha.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/foetus-child_380_883548a.jpg

but i would be afraid to have it removed…if my tematoma was a serperate living thing and had a beating heart
Click to expand...
Most all animals are separate living things from ourselves that have beating hearts.

That includes the animals we eat, the ones we kill because they are pests, the ones whose leather we use, the pets we euthanase when they get too sick, even the tapeworms and other worms which are parasites in some of our guts. And we are ALLOWED to kill these animals, no?

Being a living thing with a beating heart does not make a thing a human being with an immortal soul. Neither does it make a teratoma a human being with an immortal soul. No matter how long we leave that tumour inside the host person’s body it is NOT going to ever be a human being, unlike an embryo or a fertilised egg.

It is human lives that alone of all the species on earth are sacrosanct, and even humans we may kill in self-defence, just war and the like.
 
hdog said:
according to this website wickedlocal.com/beverly/fun/entertainment/arts/x666725660 catholic churches required hese growths to be baptised up until the 1960s
Click to expand...
That doesn’t even make sense. The teratoma can’t be born. It can’t be alive. A baby must be alive to be baptized. The Church doesn’t require anyone to be baptized and doesn’t even usually baptize still born babies.

The link doesn’t provide any reference to its statement about the Church.
 
Rence said:
Yes, you can have it removed. They’re not babies and they’re not “alive” though they may have live tissue. They are not a ‘product of conception’.
Click to expand...
Source Rence, source please.
 
elts1956 said:
Source Rence, source please.
Click to expand...
Source? What kind of source are you looking for? Just look up the definition of a teratoma (there are dozens). Here’s one:
A teratoma is a type of tumor that derives from pluripotent germ cells. The word comes from a Greek term meaning roughly “monster tumor”. Teratomas (more correctly teratomata) usually start from cells in the testes in men, the ovaries in women and in the sacrum in children. Teratomata involve cells from all three embryonic cell layers: ectoderm, mesoderm and endoderm. They can be benign or malignant.
Click to expand...
websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/teratoma?cx=partner-pub-0939450753529744%3Av0qd01-tdlq&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=teratoma&sa=Search#Wikipedia

It’s a tumor. As with all tumors, it is produced by the body, derived from cells in that body. It is not produced by any combination of genetic material from two parents; it isn’t genetically different from the body in which it is growing.

What kind of source do you need to verify that it’s ok to remove a tumor? :confused:
 
Corki said:
That doesn’t even make sense. The teratoma can’t be born. It can’t be alive. A baby must be alive to be baptized. The Church doesn’t require anyone to be baptized and doesn’t even usually baptize still born babies.

The link doesn’t provide any reference to its statement about the Church.
Click to expand...
ok, I am quoting my own post. 😃

I have been trying to find any reference to the claim that the Church allowed, let alone required baptism of removed teratomas. Most of what comes up is advertising for the same exhibit the link in post #8 was reporting. The woman running that exhibit seems to have been using Church history rather creatively.

The closest, I have found to a reference was this blog post which consisted of the authors fuzzy memory of something he read long ago:
In the past, the teratoma (literally, “monster tumor”) was considered to be a conceptus, and (according to an ancient Merck Manual I remember reading) the Roman Catholic Church required that teratomas be baptized (giving rise to interesting speculation about what the Teratoma Department in Heaven was like and who was in charge there–Saint Humpty Dumpty, perhaps?) Currently, neither pathologists nor the Vatican considers teratomas to be anything other than germ cell tumors of host origin only, with no paternal contribution.
Click to expand...
web2.airmail.net/uthman/specimens/images/teratoma.html

So, it seems that, in the past, science may have considered a teratoma as a “conceptus” - hopefully only when removed from a woman and not a man or a child. :eek: The Church would have treated it the same as a miscarriage, I suppose.

I did find a note (again with no supporting references) that the Church, while allowing conditional Baptism, forbid baptizing early still borns that were not well formed. But this was back in the 1700s.
 
I don’t think that the removal of a potentially dangerous tumor is considered an abortion but even if it is, I seriously doubt that it is a sin because the tumor is a tumor, not a human.
 
Wow, this is an older thread. I always did wonder how older threads resurface…but I guess it’s not as old as others.
Corki said:
Source? What kind of source are you looking for? Just look up the definition of a teratoma (there are dozens). Here’s one:
Click to expand...
Thank you Corki 👍

A tumor is a tumor. A tumor is not a baby. You can remove a tumor.
Corki said:
websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/teratoma?cx=partner-pub-0939450753529744%3Av0qd01-tdlq&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=teratoma&sa=Search#Wikipedia

It’s a tumor. As with all tumors, it is produced by the body, derived from cells in that body. It is not produced by any combination of genetic material from two parents; it isn’t genetically different from the body in which it is growing.

What kind of source do you need to verify that it’s ok to remove a tumor? :confused:
Click to expand...
Do you suppose it would be okay to remove a tumor from a bone, from the brain, from a lymph node, or do we need to verifiy it with the parish priest? 🤷
 
In the past, the teratoma (literally, “monster tumor”) was considered to be a conceptus, and (according to an ancient Merck Manual I remember reading) the Roman Catholic Church required that teratomas be baptized (giving rise to interesting speculation about what the Teratoma Department in Heaven was like and who was in charge there–Saint Humpty Dumpty, perhaps?) Currently, neither pathologists nor the Vatican considers teratomas to be anything other than germ cell tumors of host origin only, with no paternal contribution.
Click to expand...
Gosh, the respect shown here is just impressive, isn’t it?

Methinks perhaps there is a bone to pick somewhere in the authors upbringing. Looks like yet another attempt to make the CC look pathetic and ascientific. :rolleyes:
 
Eklecktika said:
Gosh, the respect shown here is just impressive, isn’t it?

Methinks perhaps there is a bone to pick somewhere in the authors upbringing. Looks like yet another attempt to make the CC look pathetic and ascientific. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
The position, if true, was true in the 1700s - and was probably based on the best secular science available at that time. And probably for centuries afterwards, as science in the area of oncology (the medical specialty dealing with tumours) wasn’t highly advanced until at least the mid 20th century.

It’s not a case where all the secular scientists in 1700 were agreed that these teratomas WEREN’T human and the Catholic Church was utterly alone in thinking that they were, and hence insisting they be baptised. 🤷
 
LilyM said:
The position, if true, was true in the 1700s - and was probably based on the best secular science available at that time. And probably for centuries afterwards, as science in the area of oncology (the medical specialty dealing with tumours) wasn’t highly advanced until at least the mid 20th century.

It’s not a case where all the secular scientists in 1700 were agreed that these teratomas WEREN’T human and the Catholic Church was utterly alone in thinking that they were, and hence insisting they be baptised. 🤷
Click to expand...
This.

And yes, I agree that that article sounds like it came from someone with an agenda.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top