Ectopic Pregnancy

[vern_humphrey]

snoopy:

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.

This indirect action defense of abortion is to my mind a very dangerous thing. I’d much rather make my decisions on a straight-forward basis – the woman AND child will die if we don’t act. We can save one, and we have a moral obligaton to do so.

 

[yochumjy]

vern humphrey:

Are we pretending now that I haven’t advanced a position?

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.

I remember your position, I asked you to state how it doesn’t fit the ends justifies the means with respect to abortion as the Church defines it. Yes or no, the Catholic church has stated that abortion is always evil and can not be condoned?
vern humphrey:

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

Which is an abortion.

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

You’ve gone over the definition of abortion with John Doran, and I don’t accept that the morality of all abortions is equal. In fact you may be the only person I know that thinks that the resultant death of all children in the womb is immoral no matter what the circumstance. Technically a normal miscarriage is an abortion, but it is not immoral. Therefore not all abortions are immoral. You continue to ignore what direct and indirect actions are. Cutting a fallopian tube is NOT cutting the child and it is not killing the child. Moving the child to the uterus is not immoral. Knowing that there is a severe chance that the child will not survive but allowing the chance IS the best thing that we can do.
vern humphrey:

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

A man comes up to and puts a gun to your head, you take away the weapon, and he dies when the gun discharges. He is dead.

A man comes up to you and shows you a gun, but does not threaten you, he is simply showing it to you, barrel pointed away. You grab the gun and pull it away, the gun discharges and kills the man. He is dead.

A man comes up to you to show you his gun, you ask to see it. When transferring the gun, it slips out of his hand and discharges when it hits the ground. He dies.

The result of each of the previous stories has the same result. The morality of each differs. How can you say that irregardless of the action, the result leads to the same immoral conclusion.
vern humphrey:

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

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

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

I read over the link you gave. No indication was given that there were any deaths to the women in which any type of removal was tried in their sources. We even currently have surgery to a child IN the uterus, so it is not like any of this is unheard of. Where is this death you speak of, is it just anequedotal? Also, notice that they are ALREADY DOING THIS type of surgery. This isn’t something I dreamed up. Attempts are being made. No where in the article did it say that the mother’s life was in danger, other than what I could only assume was normal risk of surgery. The only thing the article mentioned was that most attempts have failed. It mentioned one that was successful, but I’m not sure what was sucessful, it didn’t sound like it was a tubal pregnacy, just the relocation of a child in general. Is that what you understood also? So, your whole assumption that this is unrealisitc experimentation and deadly to the mother does not seem correct.
vern humphrey:

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

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

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

Again, the Catholic church has made direct and unambiguous statements about abortion. It is wrong and evil and is never allowed. How do you reconcile your treatment of ectopic pregnancy with the Church’s view on abortion? You think I’m doing it by crossing my fingers. Well, then, how are you reconciling it?

 

[yochumjy]

snoopy:

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.

Because we must adhere to truth as much as possible. If abortion using drugs or acting directly on the child is immoral and evil, as I understand the Catholic Church’s view on abortion, then we simply can not do it because it is easier. Christ NEVER said life would be easy, look at his life on earth. We are called to follow Church teaching, even if inconvenient. The Church has definitively given guidance on abortion. The culture of death is fine with making life easy now,but the Church and Christ want to make life possible after our time on this world is done.

We can certainly discuss these things and try to understand them, but our actions must be consistant with Church guidance. If there is a contradiction, then there is a problem that we must work through. As I understand it, that is what we are doing here. I know I’ve learned a lot.

 

[yochumjy]

vern humphrey:

This indirect action defense of abortion is to my mind a very dangerous thing. I’d much rather make my decisions on a straight-forward basis – the woman AND child will die if we don’t act. We can save one, and we have a moral obligaton to do so.

Vern, I can agree with you on that. I think that it could be dangerous if taken in the wrong context. I am truly not trying to just get around Church laws. I am trying to work through the most moral possible solution, using Church law as a guide. It is more straight forward to ignore Church law and just go for the easy solution. But easy doesn’t make right.

Something else I struggle with some. If I’m wrong, and I lead someone else astray, then I feel I hold culpability of the person’s action. Condoning the direct abortion approach is not something I can deal with. I don’t even like putting a mother’s life at risk, but honestly, I don’t see any other way.

 

[vern_humphrey]

yochumjy:

Vern, I can agree with you on that. I think that it could be dangerous if taken in the wrong context. I am truly not trying to just get around Church laws. I am trying to work through the most moral possible solution, using Church law as a guide. It is more straight forward to ignore Church law and just go for the easy solution. But easy doesn’t make right.

Something else I struggle with some. If I’m wrong, and I lead someone else astray, then I feel I hold culpability of the person’s action. Condoning the direct abortion approach is not something I can deal with. I don’t even like putting a mother’s life at risk, but honestly, I don’t see any other way.

My point is illustrated by the accusation of Catholic hospitals performing abortions through induced premature labor – the “indirect action” approach can be used to justify the thing we all oppose, abortion.

Now, if we take the position that abortion is abortion – and justify our actions in the case of ectopic pregnancy, not by hiding behind some hair-splitting definition, but by saying we have a moral obligation to save the mother we have a different situation.

In other words, you CAN say induced premature labor is “indirect action” and thereby justify abortion. You CANNOT say it is to save the mother’s life in a case where without treatment both she and her child will die.

 

[snoopy]

yochumjy:

We can certainly discuss these things and try to understand them, but our actions must be consistant with Church guidance. .

The pope has not ruled on this particular issue. So, how do you know that the church condems methodextrate, (sp), and condones tube removal? We are not talking about a live child here. The child will die if not already dead. Period. Isn’t the reason to remove the tube to save the life of the mother? Then why not use a method that will not put the mother at risk. Surgery is dangerous. If your goal is to save the mother’s life, then save it without danger to her.

 

[yochumjy]

snoopy:

The pope has not ruled on this particular issue. So, how do you know that the church condems methodextrate, (sp), and condones tube removal? We are not talking about a live child here. The child will die if not already dead. Period. Isn’t the reason to remove the tube to save the life of the mother? Then why not use a method that will not put the mother at risk. Surgery is dangerous. If your goal is to save the mother’s life, then save it without danger to her.

Sorry, the church HAS ruled on abortion. We ARE talking about a live child. The child will probably not live, but you don’t get to kill for that reason. A child is born with a heart problem, medical science says there is a 0% chance of the child living, do you now get to slit it’s throat? Morality doesn’t imply no risk.

 

[yochumjy]

vern humphrey:

My point is illustrated by the accusation of Catholic hospitals performing abortions through induced premature labor – the “indirect action” approach can be used to justify the thing we all oppose, abortion.

Now, if we take the position that abortion is abortion – and justify our actions in the case of ectopic pregnancy, not by hiding behind some hair-splitting definition, but by saying we have a moral obligation to save the mother we have a different situation.

In other words, you CAN say induced premature labor is “indirect action” and thereby justify abortion. You CANNOT say it is to save the mother’s life in a case where without treatment both she and her child will die.

Honestly, I need to read up on what the Catholic hospitals are doing. I don’t have a full or even good understanding. That being said, just because a hospital is Catholic does not force me to believe they are completely in line with Church teaching. I hope they are, but then I hope all Catholic Unviversities are also, ie Notre Dame, Loyola. I think we can agree that there are problems with people and institutions affiliated with the Catholic Church.

Also, I still believe we, as Catholics must live up to the letter of the law as much as possible, irregardless of the actions of others. I still believe that direct abortion is wrong. I still believe it is the teaching of the Church that we must hold to and that our actions must be consistant, irregardless of the actions and intents of others.

 

[vern_humphrey]

yochumjy:

Sorry, the church HAS ruled on abortion. We ARE talking about a live child. The child will probably not live, but you don’t get to kill for that reason. A child is born with a heart problem, medical science says there is a 0% chance of the child living, do you now get to slit it’s throat? Morality doesn’t imply no risk.

Yes, indeed the Church has ruled on abortion – and to surgically remove that child from the mother’s body is abortion.

And now it appears that same logic is allowing some Catholic hospitals to induce labor prematurely in order to abort the child.

 

[vern_humphrey]

yochumjy:

Honestly, I need to read up on what the Catholic hospitals are doing. I don’t have a full or even good understanding. That being said, just because a hospital is Catholic does not force me to believe they are completely in line with Church teaching. I hope they are, but then I hope all Catholic Unviversities are also, ie Notre Dame, Loyola. I think we can agree that there are problems with people and institutions affiliated with the Catholic Church.

Also, I still believe we, as Catholics must live up to the letter of the law as much as possible, irregardless of the actions of others. I still believe that direct abortion is wrong. I still believe it is the teaching of the Church that we must hold to and that our actions must be consistant, irregardless of the actions and intents of others.

Abortion is abortion. There is no direct or indirect about it. And most especially the surgical removal of the child from the mother’s body knowing it cannot survive is both direct and abortion.

 

[yochumjy]

vern humphrey:

Abortion is abortion. There is no direct or indirect about it. And most especially the surgical removal of the child from the mother’s body knowing it cannot survive is both direct and abortion.

Well, then how do we reconcile “Abortion is always wrong and evil” and the principle of double effect. The principle of double effect can NOT over-rule the Church declaration of abortion is always evil. If we can’t reconcile this, then we would have to indeed say the Church forces us to allow the mother to die. We both know this is not true, but we still have to reconcile what the Church is speaking of when she says that abortion is ALWAYS evil. If we can not use direct and indirect as a methodology we don’t have much.

 

[snoopy]

yochumjy:

Sorry, the church HAS ruled on abortion. We ARE talking about a live child. The child will probably not live, but you don’t get to kill for that reason. A child is born with a heart problem, medical science says there is a 0% chance of the child living, do you now get to slit it’s throat? Morality doesn’t imply no risk.

There is no probably about it, the child will NOT live. I cannot bring myself to call this abortion. Abortion is an intentional act to cause the death of a child who would otherwise live. THIS CHILD WILL NOT LIVE!!! This is simply an unfortunate circumstance where if you do nothing, both mother and child will die. If your goal is to save the mother, then save her without endangering her life further with surgery. Any surgery is very risky,so morally, since the child will die (100 % certainty) or maybe is already dead, you must do it with the least risk to the mother. Otherwise, why do anything?

 

[yochumjy]

snoopy:

There is no probably about it, the child will NOT live. I cannot bring myself to call this abortion. Abortion is an intentional act to cause the death of a child who would otherwise live. THIS CHILD WILL NOT LIVE!!! This is simply an unfortunate circumstance where if you do nothing, both mother and child will die. If your goal is to save the mother, then save her without endangering her life further with surgery. Any surgery is very risky,so morally, since the child will die (100 % certainty) or maybe is already dead, you must do it with the least risk to the mother. Otherwise, why do anything?

Everyone keeps saying how risky surgery is, yet we have surgery all the time. What is the risk of surgery vs the risk of liver failure after taking the drug you keep pushing? Do you know?

Fine let us change the scenario just for you:
A child is born that has NO CHANCE TO LIVE. Barely hanging on for this second. Before the child dies, which we know is going to happen, can you slit the child’s throat? It is the SAME THING. If you know the child is already dead (and how would you propose to know, anyway, surgery?) then you have a case, but you don’t. If the child is alive the CHURCH (not you, not me not Vern) says you can not have an abortion, period. We have to reconcile that or possibly be guilty of murder in the eyes of God. I frankly don’t give a darn about the laws of man in this instance.

 

[vern_humphrey]

yochumjy:

Well, then how do we reconcile “Abortion is always wrong and evil” and the principle of double effect. The principle of double effect can NOT over-rule the Church declaration of abortion is always evil. If we can’t reconcile this, then we would have to indeed say the Church forces us to allow the mother to die. We both know this is not true, but we still have to reconcile what the Church is speaking of when she says that abortion is ALWAYS evil. If we can not use direct and indirect as a methodology we don’t have much.

How about we stop trying to reconcile it? Drop the pretense and recognize that we have a moral duty to provide treatment to the mother in this special case.

No one can say letting her die is a good thing!

 

[vern_humphrey]

yochumjy:

Before the child dies, which we know is going to happen, can you slit the child’s throat? It is the SAME THING.

And slitting the child’s throat is the same thing as surgically removing it, fallopian tube or not. In fact, slitting a throat might be called “surgery.”

yochumjy:

If you know the child is already dead (and how would you propose to know, anyway, surgery?) then you have a case, but you don’t. If the child is alive the CHURCH (not you, not me not Vern) says you can not have an abortion, period. We have to reconcile that or possibly be guilty of murder in the eyes of God. I frankly don’t give a darn about the laws of man in this instance.

Yet you promote abortion in this case, but call it something else. And in so doing you create a figleaf that allows other abortions to be performed under other, non-vital circumstances.

 

[yochumjy]

vern humphrey:

How about we stop trying to reconcile it? Drop the pretense and recognize that we have a moral duty to provide treatment to the mother in this special case.

So, if the going gets tough, we ignore the church law and do what we think is the best thing? The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Who decides what circumstances allow us to ignore church teaching?

 

[yochumjy]

vern humphrey:

And slitting the child’s throat is the same thing as surgically removing it, fallopian tube or not. In fact, slitting a throat might be called “surgery.”

Don’t even joke about that, it is a sick observation.
vern humphrey:

Yet you promote abortion in this case, but call it something else. And in so doing you create a figleaf that allows other abortions to be performed under other, non-vital circumstances.

Huh? Your method opens the door for any abortion on a child as long as the mother’s life is in danger in any form. If the mother has heart problems and the doctor says that carrying to term will kill mother and child, under your method you can cause an abortion. Under my method, what can you do, remove the heart? What about problems with blood preasure. Under your method, give the drug, under mine what do you do, remove the circulatory system?

BTW, what is the risk of the mother’s life due to surgery? What is the risk of liver failure, or other side effects of the drugs used for abortion? Do you know? Have you accounted for that?

 

[snoopy]

yochumjy:

Huh? Your method opens the door for any abortion on a child as long as the mother’s life is in danger in any form. If the mother has heart problems and the doctor says that carrying to term will kill mother and child, under your method you can cause an abortion. Under my method, what can you do, remove the heart? What about problems with blood preasure. Under your method, give the drug, under mine what do you do, remove the circulatory system?

You forget!!! The child is already dead or will die. 100% certainty.

 

[vern_humphrey]

yochumjy:

So, if the going gets tough, we ignore the church law and do what we think is the best thing? The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Who decides what circumstances allow us to ignore church teaching?

When the going gets touigh, we stop pretending that the Church has pronounced on this subject – it has not.

And until the Church pronounces, we have no Church teaching – and we don’t have to pretend that somehow we can do what the Church forbids by re-defining abortion.

 

[Julian_Peters]

Thank you to all those who have participated in this discussion. This thread is now closed.