Ectopic Pregnancy

[vern_humphrey]

yochumjy:

Actually, the question is how can your suggestion NOT be construed as the ends justify the means. Again, we are not YET talking about my version, one at a time.

You’re begging the question – asking me to accept that the two methods are different enough to make two different arguments.

I don’t accept that – the surgery is abortion.

yochumjy:

Means and ends must be defined through intent AND action. And it must work on all levels. If your intent is to save the mother, that is good. But your action must also be good, even if an indirect evil could occur (sorry, this last sentance was post edited, forgot to complete my sentance)

And since the surgeon is actually removing the child and holding the little corpse in his hand, his action is abortion.

yochumjy:

Actually, the morality must be defined by intent and action. By your definition, lying to yourself becomes easier, since you can justify any action and claim your intent is good.

Whereas by your definition, by holding your fingers crossed you can claim the action is good.

That’s like the Thai fishermen drying out those poor, wet fish.

yochumjy:

I realize we are both saying this to each other. You will simply say the same thing to me. But which is more rigorous a definition?

The most rigorous definition is “killing an unborn baby is abortion.”

yochumjy:

Forcing your action to result in an indirect death

How is intruding into the mother’s body and cutting out the child – in or outside the fallopian tube NOT a direct death?

(I’m still waiting for the information on why relocating is so bad),

I have been able to find exactly one claimed success for “relocating.” That was years ago, and it was not well-documented. According to the skimpy reports I can find, the same surgeon tried it several times, and was finally forced to stop because of a death to a mother.

yochumjy:

Intruding into a mothers body is not allways bad, especially say for surgery that doesn’t hurt the child, say an apendectomy.

We aren’t talking about an apendectomy here – nor is the child an “organ” of the mother’s body. It’s a separate living human being.

yochumjy:

The intrusion into the mothers body is not the highest moral issue here.

It’s part of an act that directly kills the child.

yochumjy:

The morality of the death of the child and how it is accomplished is what I am claiming the issue to be. How does death result?

By deliberately intruding into the mother’s body and surgically removing the child – in or out of the fallopian tube.

 

[vern_humphrey]

javelin:

Yes, the effective rate of success is 0%, but that doesn’t factor into the morality of the action.

When you factor in maternal deaths, it does have a moral basis.

All I can find is that (discounting one possible success years ago) “moving the baby” has had 0% success rate, but has resulted in deaths.

(Let’s say this – can we agree that removing the baby intact from the mother is not morally evil since it is necessary to save the mother and attempt to save the child?

I could if it were possible to save the child.

(Then, once we have a dying baby in our hands, is it morally accepable to do nothing to try to save it? I don’t think so.

Such as what?

If we wish to save such children, we should start research into ways that work, not keep doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results. As Bill Clinton once said, that’s insanity by definition.

(And I think that yochumjy is correct that the medical risk to the mother at this point is far lower than the risk to the child

The risk to the child is 100%. And with current technology, we cannot save the child. If we could – heck, if we’d even start up a foundation to research ways to save the child – it would be a different story.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Here is what I have been able to find to date on saving the child:

medforum.nl/gynfo/leading4.htm

“Second, it may in the future be possible to successfully relocate an ectopic pregnancy to the uterine cavity. This has been attempted several times in the last century, the earliest recorded attempt being ascribed to Wallace in 1917 who described a successful case following coincidental detection of an ectopic pregnancy in a woman undergoing laparotomy for uterine fibroids [19]. More recently, Shettles [20] described successful reimplantation of a 40-day-old gestational sac using a glass tube pushed through the myometrium until decidua was obtained by gentle suction. A third published case via the cervical route has been contested []. Numerous other attempts using the transcervical technique have failed (Forsdahl F. Westergaard JG, Grudzinskas JG, personal communication, 1997).”

The highlighted case is the one I mentioned earlier. For some 60+ years there was not another success, and attempts resulted in some deaths (exact number not stated.) When I examine the Shettles case, I can find no additional success (there may be some, but I haven’t found them.)

In the matter of one ectopic pregnancy being a risk factor for a second, I find conflicting information – one source assigns a 15% chance. Another says the chance of an ectopic pregnancy in a fallopian tube that has had an ectopic pregnancy is not greater than that for the other fallopian tube.

It seems likely that other factors (chronic pelvic inflamation) are most often the real causes of ectopic pregnancy.21[/color]

 

[yochumjy]

vern humphrey:

You’re begging the question – asking me to accept that the two methods are different enough to make two different arguments.

You are missing my point. Ignore that I have made any suggestion. Let us simply say that I assert that you are using the ends justifies the means when you abort the child to save the mother. I am asking you to defend only against my assertion, not my method.
vern humphrey:

I don’t accept that – the surgery is abortion.

And since the surgeon is actually removing the child and holding the little corpse in his hand, his action is abortion.

We are defining moral action vs immoral action. In your case your first intent is the save the mother, which is good. In order to save the mother you want to use a drug. When administering the drug, the intent of the drug is to abort the child. You don’t get to use the first intent to override the action of the abortion. My point of view states that the intent of removing the fallopian tube is to remove the tube, which will burst. The resulting indirect action of removing the child (and then implanting the child intact) is morally acceptable. Surgery has come a long way since this was tried in the past. The one death you are speaking of could have occurred anyway, we don’t know. There are risk factors with the drug, including kidney failure. The drug can not always be used, surgery might be required. So your assertion that the drug is best is not always correct. There are risk factors with everything, we all assume some risk, but the risk should be moral.
vern humphrey:

Whereas by your definition, by holding your fingers crossed you can claim the action is good.

Actually, I’m not crossing my fingers. Do you deny that the tube will burst? The tube will burst and put the mother’s life in danger. You can save the tube by directing the action at the child or remove the tube which the action is not directed AT the child, even though the child is involved.
vern humphrey:

The most rigorous definition is “killing an unborn baby is abortion.”

But we both agree that the church doesn’t condemn the mother. Since the Catholic Church does condemn abortion, how do you reconcile that?
vern humphrey:

How is intruding into the mother’s body and cutting out the child – in or outside the fallopian tube NOT a direct death?

If the action was to go in and directly contact the child to remove the child, that would be direct. Doing something to the tube indirectly affects the child. You can also then do the most morally acceptable thing and try to implant the child in the uterus.
vern humphrey:

I have been able to find exactly one claimed success for “relocating.” That was years ago, and it was not well-documented. According to the skimpy reports I can find, the same surgeon tried it several times, and was finally forced to stop because of a death to a mother.

Just because long ago there was a death then, does not mean that there would be now. Surgery techniques in general have vastly improved over the years. We have no knowledge of the cause of death in the old case(s). Could it have been inferior equipment, testing, etc? You can not rule out surgery because of factors that could have changed. Even using your guidelines, you would have to asses what the real risks are to surgery before administering a drug.
vern humphrey:

We aren’t talking about an apendectomy here – nor is the child an “organ” of the mother’s body. It’s a separate living human being.

You are missing the point. Sugery in general isn’t evil or immoral, that is the point.

 

[vern_humphrey]

yochumjy:

You are missing my point. Ignore that I have made any suggestion. Let us simply say that I assert that you are using the ends justifies the means when you abort the child to save the mother. I am asking you to defend only against my assertion, not my method.

I am not saying the ends justify the means - - but you are saying the means justify the end. You say an aboriton is okay, as long as it’s done surgically.

yochumjy:

We are defining moral action vs immoral action. In your case your first intent is the save the mother, which is good. In order to save the mother you want to use a drug.

Whereas you want to use surgery to do the same thing.

yochumjy:

When administering the drug, the intent of the drug is to abort the child.

When cutting out the fallopian tube that contains the baby, the intent is to abort the child.

yochumjy:

My point of view states that the intent of removing the fallopian tube is to remove the tube, which will burst.

I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but you seem to be saying, “Abortion is okay if I call it something else.”

yochumjy:

The resulting indirect action of removing the child

It’s not indirect – it’s a direct abortion. The surgeon physically and personally removes the child.

(and then implanting the child intact) is morally acceptable. Surgery has come a long way since this was tried in the past.

So where’s your data?

Remember, when experimenting with human beings the standard is you have to prove it works, not demand someone else prove your experiment doesn’t work.

yochumjy:

You are missing the point. Sugery in general isn’t evil or immoral, that is the point.

You are missing the point. Prescription drugs in general aren’t evil or immoral, that is the point

 

[yochumjy]

vern humphrey:

I am not saying the ends justify the means - - but you are saying the means justify the end. You say an aboriton is okay, as long as it’s done surgically.

Here’s an idea Vern, why don’t you just tell me you can’t explain your method without cutting down mine. You continually ignore my question and just tell me my method is wrong. Is this because you can’t defend it?
vern humphrey:

Whereas you want to use surgery to do the same thing.

The difference between directly acting on the child and directly acting on the tube is a difference that you refuse to acknowledge, Got it.
vern humphrey:

When cutting out the fallopian tube that contains the baby, the intent is to abort the child.

No, the intent is to remove the tube which we all know is going to burst.
vern humphrey:

I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but you seem to be saying, “Abortion is okay if I call it something else.”

You are putting words in my mouth. So, let’s put it this way. You claim that abortion is okay, even though the Church has specifically said it is not. Who do we believe, the church or you?
vern humphrey:

It’s not indirect – it’s a direct abortion. The surgeon physically and personally removes the child.

Direct action upon and the side effect differences are very clear between our methods. The result upon the child is the same.
vern humphrey:

So where’s your data?

Remember, when experimenting with human beings the standard is you have to prove it works, not demand someone else prove your experiment doesn’t work.

My data for what? The fact that surgery methods have improved is undeniable. The data about what killed the one woman you found a death about is unknown. Of course, you yourself say that several operations were done reimplanting and the women didn’t die, so it is possible. Until we know what killed the woman, we can make no claim on how good or bad the existing method is, can we?
vern humphrey:

You are missing the point. Prescription drugs in general aren’t evil or immoral, that is the point

But we know for a fact that some prescription drugs are immoral, such as the one you suggest when being used on a pregnant woman. We know that some surgery is immoral when the action and intent is soley death of the child.

Do you have any answer to the following Catholic source?
rcav.org/olf/Library/articles/deathfetus-01-05-14.htm

Do you have any source from a Catholic viewpoint that supports you?

 

[vern_humphrey]

yochumjy:

Here’s an idea Vern, why don’t you just tell me you can’t explain your method without cutting down mine. You continually ignore my question and just tell me my method is wrong. Is this because you can’t defend it?

Are we pretending now that I haven’t advanced a position?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

Here it is:

1. In the scenario we are discussing (an ectopic pregnancy in the fallopian tube) leaving the condition untreated results in death for mother and child.
2. All treatments result in removing the child. Presently, there is no way of saving the child.
3. Under those circumstances, we are morally obliged to save the one person we can save, the mother.
4. The treatment should be based on the individual situation, and factors such as risk and future pregnancy should be considered.

yochumjy:

The difference between directly acting on the child and directly acting on the tube is a difference that you refuse to acknowledge, Got it.

And your position is pretending that an abortion is not an abortion because the fallopian tube is also removed?

yochumjy:

No, the intent is to remove the tube which we all know is going to burst.

Which is an abortion.

yochumjy:

You are putting words in my mouth. So, let’s put it this way. You claim that abortion is okay, even though the Church has specifically said it is not. Who do we believe, the church or you?

And you say an abortion is okay if you pretend it’s something else.

yochumjy:

Direct action upon and the side effect differences are very clear between our methods. The result upon the child is the same.

The result is the same, therefore the acts are the same. The only difference is do we cross our fingers or not?

yochumjy:

My data for what? The fact that surgery methods have improved is undeniable.

And that PROVES you can successfully and safely move the child?

yochumjy:

The data about what killed the one woman you found a death about is unknown.

How many lives are you willing to sacrifice before we find out what is killing them?

yochumjy:

Of course, you yourself say that several operations were done reimplanting and the women didn’t die, so it is possible. Until we know what killed the woman, we can make no claim on how good or bad the existing method is, can we?

And until we know, we cannot ethically experiment on human beings.

yochumjy:

But we know for a fact that some prescription drugs are immoral, such as the one you suggest when being used on a pregnant woman. We know that some surgery is immoral when the action and intent is soley death of the child.

And it doesn’t matter whether you have your fingers crossed or not when aborting the child.

yochumjy:

Do you have any answer to the following Catholic source?
rcav.org/olf/Library/articles/deathfetus-01-05-14.htm

I’m perfectly aware that some Catholics hold a different opinion. but the Church has not spoken.

yochumjy:

Do you have any source from a Catholic viewpoint that supports you?

There is no definitive Catholic statement on ectopic pregnancies. I have found several sites and opinions vary.

However I find none that say we HAVE to experiment with human beings and unproven technology.

 

[john_doran]

vern humphrey:

Which is an abortion.

whether or not it’s an abortion depends on how you define the term.

if you mean “wrongful killing of an unborn person”, then, no, it’s not necessarily an abortion; that would depend on a further demonstration that the killing in the instant case is actually wrongful.

if, on the other hand, you mean simply “killing of an unborn person”, then sure it’s an abortion. but nothing morally follows from that.

what the church means by “abortion” is the former, much like what the church (and the law) means when they use the term “murder” is “wrongful (i.e. intentional) killing”. that is to say, “abortion” just means “murder of an unborn child”.

but whatever. you guys are going to keep going round and round on this until you stop, and then start from the beginning and determine what you both mean by the terms you use, and then determine what it means for a killing to be immoral.

just my opinion.

 

[vern_humphrey]

john doran:

whether or not it’s an abortion depends on how you define the term.

There I must disagree – we don’t get to define sins out of existance.
john doran:

if you mean “wrongful killing of an unborn person”, then, no, it’s not necessarily an abortion; that would depend on a further demonstration that the killing in the instant case is actually wrongful.

if, on the other hand, you mean simply “killing of an unborn person”, then sure it’s an abortion. but nothing morally follows from that.

The presumption is that the killing of an unborn person is immoral. Just as the killing of a born person (a homicide) carries the presumption of immorality.

Now, there are cases in which circumstances override the presumption of immorality (for example, killing an unjust aggressor when in reasonable fear of your own life.) But that doesn’t make the killing NOT homicide.
john doran:

what the church means by “abortion” is the former, much like what the church (and the law) means when they use the term “murder” is “wrongful (i.e. intentional) killing”. that is to say, “abortion” just means “murder of an unborn child”.

Which carries the presumption of immorality
john doran:

but whatever. you guys are going to keep going round and round on this until you stop, and then start from the beginning and determine what you both mean by the terms you use, and then determine what it means for a killing to be immoral.

just my opinion.

Blessed are the pessimists, for they carry extra ammunition.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

 

[Katie1723]

As I read through some of the posts, I had to ask myself , do you really understand exactly what an ectopic pregnancy is? It is a pregnancy in a place other than the uterus where it is supposed to be. It can be in the tubes, it can be outside of the uterus in the abdomen. And do you know what can happen to a woman who has an undiagnosed ectopic? Or has a ruptured ectopic? And what would you do if it was your wife? An ectopic pregnancy isn’t planned. It just happens, for whatever the reason.And it is traumatic for the parents and every bit as real to them. Pray for them.
~ Kathy ~

 

[vern_humphrey]

Katie1723:

As I read through some of the posts, I had to ask myself , do you really understand exactly what an ectopic pregnancy is? It is a pregnancy in a place other than the uterus where it is supposed to be. It can be in the tubes, it can be outside of the uterus in the abdomen. And do you know what can happen to a woman who has an undiagnosed ectopic? Or has a ruptured ectopic? And what would you do if it was your wife? An ectopic pregnancy isn’t planned. It just happens, for whatever the reason.And it is traumatic for the parents and every bit as real to them. Pray for them.
~ Kathy ~

If you looked at all the links, you’d see we have done a fairly thorough job of understanding what an ectopic pregnancy is. As you say, it is a pregnancy outside the womb. Some authorities say about 95% of ectopic pregnancies are in the fallopian tube – others can be elsewhere. As a general rule, an untreated ectopic pregnancy is not survivable.

My position is that since both mother and child will die if it is left untreated but we can save the mother with treatment, we have a moral obligation to save her – even though the baby will inevitably die.

In discharging that obligation, I think we are morally impelled to chose the method that is safest for the mother and is most likely to preserve her ability to bear future children.

 

[Katie1723]

vern humphrey:

If you looked at all the links, you’d see we have done a fairly thorough job of understanding what an ectopic pregnancy is. As you say, it is a pregnancy outside the womb. Some authorities say about 95% of ectopic pregnancies are in the fallopian tube – others can be elsewhere. As a general rule, an untreated ectopic pregnancy is not survivable.

My position is that since both mother and child will die if it is left untreated but we can save the mother with treatment, we have a moral obligation to save her – even though the baby will inevitably die.

In discharging that obligation, I think we are morally impelled to chose the method that is safest for the mother and is most likely to preserve her ability to bear future children.

Vern, I agree with you 1000%. I was getting the feeling that some posts felt there was a choice. In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, there is no choice. Ectopic pregnancies do not go to term. So, you save the mother. To me, there is no dispute.
~ Kathy ~

 

[john_doran]

vern humphrey:

There I must disagree – we don’t get to define sins out of existance.

of course not - i’m not suggesting any such thing. all i am doing is trying to get you to be clear about what you mean by “abortion”.

given your reaction to that request, i can only assume you think abortion means “wrongful killing of the unborn”. which is fair enough, but then you have to accept that not every killing of an unborn child is going to be an abortion, because not every killing of an unborn child is wrongful. just like not every homicide is murder.
vern humphrey:

The presumption is that the killing of an unborn person is immoral. Just as the killing of a born person (a homicide) carries the presumption of immorality.

i don’t know what this means other than that you believe that every killing is presumed to have been committed with the intent to kill. which strikes me as totally false. if nothing else, christ’s directive “judge not lest ye be judged…” would seem to entail that exactly the opposite presumption should be made…
vern humphrey:

Now, there are cases in which circumstances override the presumption of immorality (for example, killing an unjust aggressor when in reasonable fear of your own life.) But that doesn’t make the killing NOT homicide.

no, but it makes it not murder, and thus not immoral.

ditto for foeticides.

 

[vern_humphrey]

john doran:

of course not - i’m not suggesting any such thing. all i am doing is trying to get you to be clear about what you mean by “abortion”.

Abraham Lincoln once asked, “If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?”

The answer is four. It doesn’t matter what you call it, a tail is a tail, not a leg.

Abortion is not an abstraction. It is a real act, killing a real child. Therefore it is not linguistically manipulatable – it is what it is.
john doran:

given your reaction to that request, i can only assume you think abortion means “wrongful killing of the unborn”.

That’s not what I said – abortion is the killing of the unborn, which carries a presumption of immorality.
john doran:

which is fair enough, but then you have to accept that not every killing of an unborn child is going to be an abortion, because not every killing of an unborn child is wrongful. just like not every homicide is murder.

No. Every killing of an unborn child is an abortion. And it carries a presumption of immorality.
john doran:

i don’t know what this means other than that you believe that every killing is presumed to have been committed with the intent to kill. which strikes me as totally false.

If you kill someone it means all the prosection has to do is prove you killed him. If you have justification (for example, self defense) the burden of proof for THAT falls on you.
john doran:

if nothing else, christ’s directive “judge not lest ye be judged…” would seem to entail that exactly the opposite presumption should be made…

So we find a man with his throat cut from ear to ear and we ASSUME it was a justifiable homicide?

It doesn’t work that way. Homicide carries a presumption of criminality.
john doran:

no, but it makes it not murder, and thus not immoral.

ditto for foeticides.

Now you’re getting somewhere.

If a physician who saved a woman’s life in a case of an ectopic pregnancy were charged with abortion (if it were illegal) that physician would take an affirmative defense – that is, he would admit to the specifications but offer evidence that his act was justified by the necessity to act to save the one life he could save.

In this way, he could overcome the presumption of immorality or illegality.

 

[john_doran]

vern humphrey:

That’s not what I said – abortion is the killing of the unborn, which carries a presumption of immorality.

what’s a “presumption of immorality”? i mean, any act of killing an unborn baby is, in fact, at the time, either moral or immoral, not something in between.

i can perhaps understand what you mean by “presumption” if you’re appropriating the legal concept of “rebuttable presumption of innocence”. the problem is, that’s a device that’s just not applicable to moral reasoning, since it’s a constraint on the third-person point of view - it says how other people should think about our actions; and moral reasoning, of course, is about trying to determine the moral licitness of an action from the first-person perspective. that is, when i’m thinking about the morality of an action i’m going to commit, i need to determine if that action is or is not immoral now, for me (cf. necessary conditions for the commission of mortal sin). period.

i mean, it’s not like we perform actions that have only ambiguous moral character, and then further events occur and more evidence comes to light which finally and retroactively determines the moral nature of those acts - when you do something, it’s either moral or immoral right then, when you do it. otherwise doing the right thing is some sort of ethical crapshoot - you perform surgery where a child dies, for instance, and then you have to hope that later on it turns out that you didn’t acctually do anything wrong.
vern humphrey:

If you kill someone it means all the prosection has to do is prove you killed him. If you have justification (for example, self defense) the burden of proof for THAT falls on you.

true enough, but, as i say, beside the point.
vern humphrey:

It doesn’t work that way. Homicide carries a presumption of criminality.

not that it matters, but this is false.
vern humphrey:

If a physician who saved a woman’s life in a case of an ectopic pregnancy were charged with abortion (if it were illegal) that physician would take an affirmative defense – that is, he would admit to the specifications but offer evidence that his act was justified by the necessity to act to save the one life he could save.

In this way, he could overcome the presumption of immorality or illegality.

look, we’re not trying to formulate some kind of moral algorithm or system which, when applied, will allow us to discover the moral character of other peoples’ actions: ethics is about determining how to choose well - it’s about figuring out the necessary and sufficient conditions for right action for the person committing the action. it has absolutely nothing to do with enabling us to make accurate moral judgments about others. the most we can say about that, is that “if X did Y with the intent to Z”, then X did the right/wrong thing.

 

[vern_humphrey]

john doran:

what’s a “presumption of immorality”? i mean, any act of killing an unborn baby is, in fact, at the time, either moral or immoral, not something in between.

Presumption of immorality (or of criminality) is a term of art. it is the recognition that some acts – such as homicide – are so serious that we must presume them wrong unless (and until) justified.
john doran:

i can perhaps understand what you mean by “presumption” if you’re appropriating the legal concept of “rebuttable presumption of innocence”.

Not the same thing. Presumption of innocense applies to a person, presumption of immorality or criminality applies to an act.
john doran:

the problem is, that’s a device that’s just not applicable to moral reasoning, since it’s a constraint on the third-person point of view - it says how other people should think about our actions; and moral reasoning, of course, is about trying to determine the moral licitness of an action from the first-person perspective. that is, when i’m thinking about the morality of an action i’m going to commit, i need to determine if that action is or is not immoral now, for me (cf. necessary conditions for the commission of mortal sin). period.

Correct me if I’m wrong here, but neither you nor I have an ectopic pregnancy? And neither of us are surgeons?

So we are third parties, are we not?

And there is some value in discussing the moral implications of this particular situation, is there not?
john doran:

i mean, it’s not like we perform actions that have only ambiguous moral character, and then further events occur and more evidence comes to light which finally and retroactively determines the moral nature of those acts - when you do something, it’s either moral or immoral right then, when you do it. otherwise doing the right thing is some sort of ethical crapshoot - you perform surgery where a child dies, for instance, and then you have to hope that later on it turns out that you didn’t acctually do anything wrong.

By thinking about and discussing moral issues ahead of time, we equip ourselves to act morally when the situation arises.

A surgeon studies anatomy before he practices, does he not? Similarly, he should study ethics.

He should approach his problems – ethically and surgically – well trained, with a thorough understanding of what he is doing. Any other approach would clearly be wrong!
john doran:

true enough, but, as i say, beside the point.

Hardly beside the point – it shows us how certain acts are to be regarded.
john doran:

not that it matters, but this is false.

If the police do their jobs, all homicides are initially investigated as murders.
john doran:

look, we’re not trying to formulate some kind of moral algorithm or system which, when applied, will allow us to discover the moral character of other peoples’ actions: ethics is about determining how to choose well - it’s about figuring out the necessary and sufficient conditions for right action for the person committing the action. it has absolutely nothing to do with enabling us to make accurate moral judgments about others. the most we can say about that, is that “if X did Y with the intent to Z”, then X did the right/wrong thing.

If there is no profit to this discussion, why participate in it?

 

[snoopy]

Vern, you are beating your head against a brick wall, and I am afraid that your trying to inject common sense into yochumjy and others is going to drive you crazy. I agree with you 100% and you have presented yourself with intelligent, well documented evidence, and logic. Unfortunately, some will never see that the baby will not live no matter how you look at it, and to save the mother’s life with the least amount of trauma to her is morally right. For those that understand, no explanation is necessary and for those that don’t, no explanation is possible. Unfortunately, sometimes I think I understand why people bash Catholics when they present arguments that don’t make any sense. Pretending that you are just removing a fallopian tube that just happens to have a baby in it and have that be more moral than giving the mother a drug that will accompllish the same thing is ridiculous. I give up. This thread is making me nuts.

 

[vern_humphrey]

snoopy:

Vern, you are beating your head against a brick wall, and I am afraid that your trying to inject common sense into yochumjy and others is going to drive you crazy. I agree with you 100% and you have presented yourself with intelligent, well documented evidence, and logic. Unfortunately, some will never see that the baby will not live no matter how you look at it, and to save the mother’s life with the least amount of trauma to her is morally right. For those that understand, no explanation is necessary and for those that don’t, no explanation is possible. Unfortunately, sometimes I think I understand why people bash Catholics when they present arguments that don’t make any sense. Pretending that you are just removing a fallopian tube that just happens to have a baby in it and have that be more moral than giving the mother a drug that will accompllish the same thing is ridiculous. I give up. This thread is making me nuts.

You may be right.

There is another thread on Catholic hospitals using induced pre-mature labor as a form of abortion – the mother gives birth early, to an unviable baby.

Now, I don’t know the ins and outs of that – but it sounds suspiciously like this “indirect” argument that holds an abortion isn’t an abortion.

 

[yochumjy]

snoopy:

Vern, you are beating your head against a brick wall,

And I am not? LOL

snoopy:

and I am afraid that your trying to inject common sense into yochumjy and others is going to drive you crazy.

Hmmm, or is it that talking sense into you and Vern is going to drive the rest of us crazy?

snoopy:

I agree with you 100% and you have presented yourself with intelligent, well documented evidence, and logic. Unfortunately, some will never see that the baby will not live no matter how you look at it, and to save the mother’s life with the least amount of trauma to her is morally right. For those that understand, no explanation is necessary and for those that don’t, no explanation is possible. Unfortunately, sometimes I think I understand why people bash Catholics when they present arguments that don’t make any sense. Pretending that you are just removing a fallopian tube that just happens to have a baby in it and have that be more moral than giving the mother a drug that will accompllish the same thing is ridiculous. I give up. This thread is making me nuts.

Well, if you can’t understand simple differences between direct vs indirect action and it bothers you that much, then this thread officially wishes you well, see ya around.

 

[snoopy]

yochumjy:

Well, if you can’t understand simple differences between direct vs indirect action and it bothers you that much, then this thread officially wishes you well, see ya around.

The baby dies, no matter what. Why would you want to put your wife or mother or any other woman through the trauma and danger of surgery for a dead baby? Try as I might, I can’t understand.