V
vern_humphrey
Guest
If you’re stuck somewhere, away from medical care, where do you get methotrexate? How do you get a reliable diagnosis?
I suggest the Catholic option is to go where you CAN get medical care.
- Status
I suggest the Catholic option is to go where you CAN get medical care.
P
Pug
Guest
vern humphrey:
I am not talking about failure to seek available medical care. I am talking about the rare situation in which it seems possible to find oneself. There is no readily available surgery (though there may be a clinic or some such) in many countries of this world, so it is reasonable to consider what would be moral if a person lived there or travelled there. If it *were *moral, I would give up my bottle of medecine to save a life in whatever country I was visiting.
An American, all cozy-like at home, would never face the issue. Not all Catholics live in first-world countries. It is patently unreasonable to expect most people to be able to secure medical care (worldwide).
I would have a container of methotrexate with me if I travelled, so I tend to assume it is possible to be somewhere with it.
I am not talking about failure to seek available medical care. I am talking about the rare situation in which it seems possible to find oneself. There is no readily available surgery (though there may be a clinic or some such) in many countries of this world, so it is reasonable to consider what would be moral if a person lived there or travelled there. If it *were *moral, I would give up my bottle of medecine to save a life in whatever country I was visiting.
An American, all cozy-like at home, would never face the issue. Not all Catholics live in first-world countries. It is patently unreasonable to expect most people to be able to secure medical care (worldwide).
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
I’ve lived in five different countries (under VERY primitive conditions) not counting the United States.
So how do you make sure the medicine you have is what you will need? And who makes the diagnosis?
When you have a condition that demands surgery, particularly if it is a slowly-developing condition, the correct response is to go where you can get treatment.
B
Benedictus
Guest
Looks like I stirred up some conversation.
By the way, not all ectopic pregnancies occur in a fallopian tube. The embryo can implant other places as well, such as outside the tube in the abdomen. In such a case, both the mother and the baby will usually die. Removing the tube isn’t an option, since the embryo didn’t implant in the tube.
By the way, not all ectopic pregnancies occur in a fallopian tube. The embryo can implant other places as well, such as outside the tube in the abdomen. In such a case, both the mother and the baby will usually die. Removing the tube isn’t an option, since the embryo didn’t implant in the tube.
P
Pug
Guest
vern humphrey:
I also had mentioned in an earlier post the situation where it is not in a tube so surgery to remove the tube with the child in it is not an option. This is part of my wondering. The child could be hooked up to the abdominal wall and being nourished from blood supply there. It seems difficult to envision quite the same logic of indirect removal of the baby here.
If you can secure surgery, then do so. No problem. But it is a valid moral question to wonder about what if you can’t and how that fits into a moral system. It doesn’t apply to me. This is a what if.
I also had mentioned in an earlier post the situation where it is not in a tube so surgery to remove the tube with the child in it is not an option. This is part of my wondering. The child could be hooked up to the abdominal wall and being nourished from blood supply there. It seems difficult to envision quite the same logic of indirect removal of the baby here.
B
BillM7985
Guest
From John Paull II’s “Evangelium Vitae,” paragraph 58"
The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder and, in particular, when we consider the specific elements involved. The one eliminated is a human being at the very beginning of life. No one more absolutely innocent could be imagined. In no way could this human being ever be considered an aggressor, much less an unjust aggressor! He or she is weak, defenceless, even to the point of lacking that minimal form of defence consisting in the poignant power of a newborn baby’s cries and tears. The unborn child is totally entrusted to the protection and care of the woman carrying him or her in the womb. And yet sometimes it is precisely the mother herself who makes the decision and asks for the child to be eliminated, and who then goes about having it done.
It is true that the decision to have an abortion is often tragic and painful for the mother, insofar as the decision to rid herself of the fruit of conception is not made for purely selfish reasons or out of convenience, but out of a desire to protect certain important values such as her own health or a decent standard of living for the other members of the family. Sometimes it is feared that the child to be born would live in such conditions that it would be better if the birth did not take place. Nevertheless, these reasons and others like them, however serious and tragic, can never justify the deliberate killing of an innocent human being.
The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder and, in particular, when we consider the specific elements involved. The one eliminated is a human being at the very beginning of life. No one more absolutely innocent could be imagined. In no way could this human being ever be considered an aggressor, much less an unjust aggressor! He or she is weak, defenceless, even to the point of lacking that minimal form of defence consisting in the poignant power of a newborn baby’s cries and tears. The unborn child is totally entrusted to the protection and care of the woman carrying him or her in the womb. And yet sometimes it is precisely the mother herself who makes the decision and asks for the child to be eliminated, and who then goes about having it done.
It is true that the decision to have an abortion is often tragic and painful for the mother, insofar as the decision to rid herself of the fruit of conception is not made for purely selfish reasons or out of convenience, but out of a desire to protect certain important values such as her own health or a decent standard of living for the other members of the family. Sometimes it is feared that the child to be born would live in such conditions that it would be better if the birth did not take place. Nevertheless, these reasons and others like them, however serious and tragic, can never justify the deliberate killing of an innocent human being.
U
UKcatholicGuy
Guest
God bless John Paul II! How lucky we are to have such a wonderful Holy Father. That’s such a beautiful statement on the preciousness of life and the evil of abortion. He’s not afraid of the truth, yet he puts it so lovingly. I’m going to miss him when the Lord calls him home, but I trust that God will give us another spiritual giant like him.
D
Dj_Roy_Albert
Guest
does the person that posed this question to you view children as “parasites” or “physical oppressors”??
Fact: Any woman that would not have enough love in her heart to **give up her own life to see that her childs’ life would not be in any danger whatsoever **is not only worthless as a woman, but as a human being as well.
J
jess7396
Guest
I will try to find a link later, but I know I read a story sometime in the past couple of years where an ectopic pregnancy, with the child implanted in the abdominal cavity, had gone full term, and a healthy child was delivered.
(but wait for a link on that, b/c as I write it, I start to think that sounds unbelievable).
Also-AFAIK- the use of the drug methotrexate is not allowable in the Church- as it’s direct purpose is to kill the unborn child.
I think that it is all a matter of direct killing of the child in utero, vs. using the treatment of the mother which will, sadly, result in the death of the child, as at times, the child will be delivered far too early to be saved.
If one were in any truly questionable situation, they would need to talk to a Catholic medical-ethics expert, and of course, pray, pray, pray. Again, I reiterate, that the saline poisoning or dismemberment of the child would never be “needed” to save the mother’s life.
(but wait for a link on that, b/c as I write it, I start to think that sounds unbelievable).Also-AFAIK- the use of the drug methotrexate is not allowable in the Church- as it’s direct purpose is to kill the unborn child.
I think that it is all a matter of direct killing of the child in utero, vs. using the treatment of the mother which will, sadly, result in the death of the child, as at times, the child will be delivered far too early to be saved.
If one were in any truly questionable situation, they would need to talk to a Catholic medical-ethics expert, and of course, pray, pray, pray. Again, I reiterate, that the saline poisoning or dismemberment of the child would never be “needed” to save the mother’s life.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
I repeat, how do you wind up in a situation where you have a slowly-developing problem, a doctor who can diagnose it, the drug you need at hand – and NO way to reach medical treatment?
What you have here is an artificial scenario, deliberately constructed so as to justify the unjustifyable.
B
Benedictus
Guest
The link I posted earlier mentions this. In some cases, when the embryo implants in the abdominal cavity, the child can be carried to full term, but this is the exception rather than the rule. Usually, such a pregnancy will result in the mother’s death.
I really would like to hear what a moral theologian or medical ethics expert would say about such a case. I find it hard to believe that the right thing to do is to let the mother die a painful death.
P
Pug
Guest
vern humphrey:
**The situations described are most likely an opportunity for sacrifice, not evil! ** That is what I think of them. I stated such in my first post by saying where I thought the Church might stand in two difficult situations. In my first post I did not say that I thought the Church would say those two situations justified the unjustifiable. I said the opposite.
I remain, however, a bit tentative, because I do not claim to know or understand every bit of everything relating to ectopic pregnancy or the Church teaching on the subject. I entered the thread mostly because I wondered about the case of the ectopic pregnancy that wasn’t in the tube. So often the discussion on this topic all comes down to, “and you can remove the tube with the baby in it, thus the mom doesn’t have to die,” which ignores the baby who isn’t in a tube. I wanted to see discussion in that direction and maybe any Church document that talked about that possibility specifically. I have never seen a document about that type of ectopic pregnancy. In a another post I tried to redirect again to that type.
I wonder about these things for the same reason as original poster, so I deemed it okay to ask about on this thread. Again, I did not mean to cause a ruckus.
I have no intention EVER to defy Church teaching. I would like to understand it better, of course, but that is a lesser issue. I’m guessing that your concern here is for my soul. I’m just guessing, however, because I did not expect my original post to lead to a ruckus.
**The situations described are most likely an opportunity for sacrifice, not evil! ** That is what I think of them. I stated such in my first post by saying where I thought the Church might stand in two difficult situations. In my first post I did not say that I thought the Church would say those two situations justified the unjustifiable. I said the opposite.
I remain, however, a bit tentative, because I do not claim to know or understand every bit of everything relating to ectopic pregnancy or the Church teaching on the subject. I entered the thread mostly because I wondered about the case of the ectopic pregnancy that wasn’t in the tube. So often the discussion on this topic all comes down to, “and you can remove the tube with the baby in it, thus the mom doesn’t have to die,” which ignores the baby who isn’t in a tube. I wanted to see discussion in that direction and maybe any Church document that talked about that possibility specifically. I have never seen a document about that type of ectopic pregnancy. In a another post I tried to redirect again to that type.
I wonder about these things for the same reason as original poster, so I deemed it okay to ask about on this thread. Again, I did not mean to cause a ruckus.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
The Church accepts that removing the unborn child in this case is morally acceptable – because the **intent **is not to discard an unwelcome child, but to save the mother’s life.
The Church also accepts the principle of the Alternative Outcome. If we remove the unborn child, the child dies, but the mother lives. If we do not remove it, both die.
My mother-in-law died of pancreatic cancer – a VERY painful death. To control pain, she was put on a morphine drip. But to control the pain, the dose was so high that morphine poisoning hastened her death. What does the Church say about this?
From the Catechism:
"2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable. Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged."
You have stacked Pelion upon Odessa to create an improbable set of circumstances where somehow an abortion would be justified.
The Chruch’s teachings are clear – in cases where both mother and child will die, medical action to save the mother is morally acceptable.
To go on and postulate a situation where somehow there IS medical treatment to diagnose the problem, but there ISN’T medical treatment for the problem, and even though the problem is slow to develop, somehow we have to have an abortifacent with us at all times – that’s wrong.
J
jess7396
Guest
I am going to put forth a guess that if kept in the hospital and closely monitored, the Dr.s would be able to tell when the mother’s life was in danger and deliver the baby early. I can’t see why super-close monitoring would not be an option, that is what I would choose.
J
jess7396
Guest
Ah Vern, you beat me to it, and answered much better than I did, very true, if the mother dies, the child will too, so we do everything to save both, knowing that the baby’s life depends on the mother living, so of course, she must be saved. But again, a direct abortion is never acceptable, the unborn should never be poisoned or dismembered.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
In some cases, monitoring is the solution. In other cases, however, the fatal moment comes long before the child can survive being removed (with current medical technology.)
Cases like that are tragic, and we must do what we can – which with present technology is to save one of the two.
P
Pug
Guest
Okay, this thread is saying it is the Church teaching that you may directly remove a too small to live child from the abdominal wall in that particular case even though this removes its food, water, and oxygen directly by cutting the cord so it immediately dies. I did not know this. Is there a Church document about this exact question? Or is it more an application of principles, and so subject to error? Ah, or is this like siamese twins and separating them!?
Then is it allowed to treat the fallopian tube kind without removing the tube? I ask because then the fertility might be kept, especially if it is the only working tube the mom has. I had been taught that it was not okay to remove the baby directly, and that it was only okay to remove the tube with the baby in it, so that it would be indirect killing only and not direct. Furthermore, I had been taught that it had to be because the fallopian tube was diseased that you removed it. Is this wrong as well?
Vern, I don’t fully understand what’s going on with the other point, so from my end it seems best to drop it.
Then is it allowed to treat the fallopian tube kind without removing the tube? I ask because then the fertility might be kept, especially if it is the only working tube the mom has. I had been taught that it was not okay to remove the baby directly, and that it was only okay to remove the tube with the baby in it, so that it would be indirect killing only and not direct. Furthermore, I had been taught that it had to be because the fallopian tube was diseased that you removed it. Is this wrong as well?
What is the definition of a direct abortion that you mean? You do not mean directly removing the child from the mom while it is still too small and thus ending the pregnancy.
Vern, I don’t fully understand what’s going on with the other point, so from my end it seems best to drop it.
L
Listener
Guest
Getting back to the original question, can abortion be justified as self-defense? I’m sure that the Church would say no, it can’t. I have always had trouble understanding the distinction here. It seems to me that when a woman has been raped, it is like an intruder has broken into her uterus. This intruder is an innocent child.
Some people would say that you can kill in self defense because the intruder is guilty rather than innocent. Well, I don’t really agree that the innocence or guilt of the intruder is what makes it okay to kill in self defense. In most cases, the intruder is probably guilty. However, if a 5-year-old broke into your house with a gun in his hand and started shooting at you, he would be innocent because of his age. If a mentally disturbed person with the IQ of a two-year-old tried to kill you, I don’t think you would lose the right to defend yourself. This person would perhaps not be capable of sin because of his mental disability and would be innocent.
Another example would be a U.S. soldier breaking into the home of an Iraqi woman and aiming a gun at her. If the woman grabbed a gun and shot him to protect her children, she could legimately kill him in self defense. He could be perfectly innocent because of his belief that he is fighting a just war.
This is why I’ve always been a bit puzzled as to why abortion in the case of rape would not be considered by the Church as a form of killing in self defense. It seems to me that breaking into your uterus is more serious than breaking into your home. I’m not talking about date rape (which can be a bit questionable). I’m talking about when a woman is beaten and raped by a stranger.
I’m not trying to change Church teaching or to express any approval for abortion - I’m just trying to understand why the Church doesn’t seem to think that there is an element of self defense here.
Some people would say that you can kill in self defense because the intruder is guilty rather than innocent. Well, I don’t really agree that the innocence or guilt of the intruder is what makes it okay to kill in self defense. In most cases, the intruder is probably guilty. However, if a 5-year-old broke into your house with a gun in his hand and started shooting at you, he would be innocent because of his age. If a mentally disturbed person with the IQ of a two-year-old tried to kill you, I don’t think you would lose the right to defend yourself. This person would perhaps not be capable of sin because of his mental disability and would be innocent.
Another example would be a U.S. soldier breaking into the home of an Iraqi woman and aiming a gun at her. If the woman grabbed a gun and shot him to protect her children, she could legimately kill him in self defense. He could be perfectly innocent because of his belief that he is fighting a just war.
This is why I’ve always been a bit puzzled as to why abortion in the case of rape would not be considered by the Church as a form of killing in self defense. It seems to me that breaking into your uterus is more serious than breaking into your home. I’m not talking about date rape (which can be a bit questionable). I’m talking about when a woman is beaten and raped by a stranger.
I’m not trying to change Church teaching or to express any approval for abortion - I’m just trying to understand why the Church doesn’t seem to think that there is an element of self defense here.
L
Lisa4Catholics
Guest
An unborn child is never an aggressor
Regardless of the circumstances of the conception or the pregnancy risk,work to save both.
http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/smily084.gifThink about it,the whole concept is rationalizing the inexcusable.God Bless
Regardless of the circumstances of the conception or the pregnancy risk,work to save both.http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/smily084.gifThink about it,the whole concept is rationalizing the inexcusable.God Bless
J
jess7396
Guest
Are you saying that a woman would be raped, become pregnant and then have the pregnancy progress to an immediately life-threatening condition? B/c without the immediate life threatening condition, the baby entering the uterus is nothing at all like a 5 year old shooting at you. It would be more like a 5 year old moving into your house.
It is really only the life threatening aspect that bears any discussion here.
And I think that has been covered well by other posters (mine muddy the waters a bit I am afraid, sorry). Basically, if the woman’s life is in true immediate danger, the child can be removed, even if we know for sure that the child is too young to survive with current technology. If the mother dies, we know the child will too, so it only makes sense to do what we can to save one, though saving both is always preferrable when it is possible.
- Status