Ectopic Pregnancy

[Antigen]

Pro-Life_Teen:

Now, some firefighters finally get into the house. They run into the boy’s room and find him unconcious infront of his mother’s door, a ceiling beam ontop of him.

He’s dying and he will die, so will the mother is you can’t get her out.

Here are two endings:

Speaking as a former member of Kensington Station 21 who had been in that situation:

We can’t give ourselves the luxury of weighing the odds and picking and choosing who will be saved. We live by a simple rule: do no further harm. That rule compells us to refrain from direct assault on the life but also not to let that life be lost due to our neglect. If we had to think this stuff through, we would be paralyzed and harm would come to both because of our inaction.

I am also familiar with this scenerio on a personal level.

My grandmother was pregnant with her fifth child when she went into early labor. The baby was in a transverse breech position which back in the 1950’s was very dangerous. Baby had 3 out of ten chance, mother had a 50/50 chance, both coming out of this? Folks were too busy to do the math.

Things got bad. The doctor called for the priest and gave my grandmother what back then was called Extreme Unction. My father, a ten year old boy at the time, was there when my Grandfather was told they could probably save the baby but they did not hold out much hope for the mother.

My father still recalls the conversation with great rancor. He could not understand why his mother should die and leave four, maybe five kids motherless. It did not make sense to him why the doctor’s could’t just remove the baby before she killed his mother. You can still hear the anger in his voice when he tells the story of that day.

My grandmother gave birth to a girl. She lived despite the doctor’s grave predictions. My father loved his little sister and she quickly became the family darling.

Now she’s the mother of two grown boys and the grandmother of two. All those lives and all that happiness never would have happened if my Grandfather or the doctors had tried to play God. Also, my Aunt writes quite well. She’s published many, many books that have entertained millions. Ever hear of Nora Roberts also known as JD Robb?

 

[vern_humphrey]

yochumjy:

We are not talking about unsubstantiated guesses here. We are talking about the fact that we HAVE an ectopic pregnancy.

We KNOW that any treatment will both remove and kill the child.

And to pretend that we are removing the tube for any other primary reason than to remove the child is a fig leaf.

yochumjy:

True, but the intent is to save the mother’s life. The church allows this. The church does NOT allow the direct abortion of the child, which, whether you like it or not, is what you are subscribing to.

That’s what you’re subscribing to as well – no matter what you SAY your puropse is, the PRIMARY purpose is to remove (and kill) the child.

yochumjy:

The surgery is not the moral issue here.

Absolutely right. The moral issue is treatment to save the mother’s life in a situation where if untreated both she and the baby die.

yochumjy:

And you continuously ignore that without surgery of any type you completely IGNORE ANY UNDERLYING CAUSE.

I would say you are doing exactly that – the underlying cause is a ectopic pregnancy. And any treatement we apply is aimed at ending that pregnancy.

yochumjy:

Besides the fact the the non-surgery method is not covered under the principle of double effect because your action is to directly abort the baby and ignore any real underlying problems.

Quite the contrary – I also take into accout risk to the mother involved in surgery.

yochumjy:

Again, you ignore what the action of the drugs are, which is to remove the pain. The action of the drugs for an ectopic pregnancy is to remove the child, which is an abortion, which is evil in the eyes of the church and is never allowed.

The action of the surgery is to remove the child.

yochumjy:

You COULD look at it like that, but if you do then your intent is to kill the child and you may as well do that safely.

The intent with surgery is also to kill the child – but with a higher risk to the mother.

yochumjy:

Note that the child was caused to implant in the wrong place by a different problem. The original problem (the child implanting in the wrong place) occurred in the tube.

Which does not mandate that the tube be removed in every case.

yochumjy:

. And there is no 100% chance of anything in this life. Non-surgery might make it easier for the mother, but what is the action of the non-surgery drug?

The same as the act of the non-drug surgery. The baby is removed and dies.

yochumjy:

The action of the non-surgery drug is abortion.

The action of the non-drug surgery is abortion, too. You don’t deny that the baby is being removed, and dies?

yochumjy:

How does the non-surgery drug affect the original problem?

The original problem is the ectopic pregnancy. With the child removed from the fallopian tube – either surgically or non-surgically – the mother has a high chance of survval.

And the baby dies, no matter how it was removed.

yochumjy:

The original problem is that something caused the child to implant in the fallopian tube. The non-surgery drug, therefore, does nothing to correct the original problem.

Since the Church does not mandate sterilizing a woman because she MIGHT have an ectopic pregnancy, we can hardly use the fig leaf, “We’re not doing this to remove the baby, we’re doing it to prevent a FUTURE ectopic pregnancy.”

yochumjy:

Therefore, by taking the non-surgery drug, you can not apply the principle of double effect, since your action is not to correct the problem that endangers the woman’s life.

It certainly is – the woman’s life is endangered by an unfortunate malfunction that endangers both her and her child. We are currently unable to save both, but we can save the mother.

yochumjy:

Your action must be to deal with the original problem that causes the danger to the woman’s life.

Again, the Church does not mandate sterilizing a woman because she MIGHT have an ectopic pregnancy, we can hardly use the fig leaf, “We’re not doing this to remove the baby, we’re doing it to prevent a FUTURE ectopic pregnancy.”

yochumjy:

We all know that removing the tube will kill the child, but non-surgical methods do NOTHING to correct/deal with the underlying issue: The underlying issue is that the child implanted in the tubes.

One more time. The Church does not mandate sterilizing a woman because she MIGHT have an ectopic pregnancy, we can hardly use the fig leaf, “We’re not doing this to remove the baby, we’re doing it to prevent a FUTURE ectopic pregnancy.”

If you were to ask the surgeon why he is operating, he would tell you it is because the woman HAS an ectopic pregnancy.

 

[Pug]

TAS2000:

Before I quit this discussion, here is my last thought. Regardless of the circumstances, can you think of ANY situation where the Church approves and encourages one person to directly end the life of another?

Well, I don’t know if this is what you mean, but what about siamese twins that share the one, abnormal heart, where one twin is very much weaker than the other. Say it is determined that if you leave them together, they will die of heart failure soon, and spend all that remaining time on a respirator, but if you separate them, one will survive with a possible long life and the other will die in the operation (for lack of a heart). Can you separate them?

Maybe this is the sort of situation you mean. (something similar happened in the early 90’s, if I recall). You could also consider it not being the heart, but being the liver, kidneys, or whatever.

 

[Pug]

The only completely moral action one can take when faced with an ectopic pregnancy is attempting to move the child, intact, to a place where the pregnancy has at least a small chance of surviving. During the procedure, every attempt should be made to preserve the complete health and function of the child and mother.

Since it seems that the medical* function* of Methotrexate is to kill the developing child, it would not be licit (unless the child were already dead, but who can possibly make that call?!?).

What if you had a drug whose action was to slow the growth of the fetus or placenta? If somehow the baby could stay small, and the mom not bleed, then it could stay there happily for quite a while. But that would only be a temporary solution, as I bet a baby can’t live if you stop it from growing.

If I understand correctly, part of the issue with the child being in the wrong place is how the placenta works. It grows big and does anyone know if it is the source of the bleeding risk? Even if the baby dies and leaves the body, the placenta can stay in place and keep growing. Then they use the Methotrexate to stop the trophoblast/placenta growth that remains in the woman. Of course, it can be used before the baby has died, again to stop the trophoblast from growing, but it will also stop cell division in the baby.

You probably can know if the baby is dead in some instances. If it is over a certain age and has no heartbeat, that would probably be a good indication (heart starts beating after a certain age).

To the future risk of ectopic, I have seen the claim on a medical site that after an ectopic on the left, say, yes there is an increased risk of another ectopic, but it is equally increased for both the right tube and the left tube. I couldn’t get a medical journal cross-reference to this, however.

 

[Pug]

Benedictus:

The article makes a nod towards the 5% of ectopic pregnancies that occur outside the fallopian tube, but doesn’t really address them. Presumably, removing the embryo itself is acceptable in those cases. Why couldn’t the embryo be removed in the case of a tubal as well?

The article also seems to regard tubal pregnancies as “infections”.

I agree, the article doesn’t satisfy, sigh. I want one that does. Should someone on this thread formulate an Ask an Apologist question about the non-tubal ectopics? I might guess the answer would be you cannot remove the baby in those cases, the opposite of what you guess. I do so in particular because it seems that we are not allowed to (only) remove the baby in the case of the tubal kind. I detest guessing.:banghead:

I’m wondering if the “infection” language is the placenta.

 

[john_doran]

vern humphrey:

That’s what you’re subscribing to as well – no matter what you SAY your puropse is, the PRIMARY purpose is to remove (and kill) the child.

this isn’t necessaily true at all: just because we know that death will inevitably follow from some action doesn’t mean that death is any part of the goal of that action.

if i see that the only way for me to grab my son as he falls from where he’s sitting on the kitchen counter is for me to drop my cup of coffee on the floor, where (i believe) it will break, my seeing that the cup will break in no way entails that the breaking of the cup is any part of the purpose of my action. what i intend to do is grab my son, ***whether or not ***the cup breaks.

same goes for removing the foetus as a part of an ectopic pregnancy - the death of the baby is incidental to the main purpose of the action, which is getting the baby out of the mother.

of course, this doesn’t mean that it’s never the case that the intention is to kill the child - just that it doesn’t have to be the intent.

 

[javelin]

john doran:

this isn’t necessaily true at all: just because we know that death will inevitably follow from some action doesn’t mean that death is any part of the goal of that action.

if i see that the only way for me to grab my son as he falls from where he’s sitting on the kitchen counter is for me to drop my cup of coffee on the floor, where (i believe) it will break, my seeing that the cup will break in no way entails that the breaking of the cup is any part of the purpose of my action. what i intend to do is grab my son, ***whether or not ***the cup breaks.

same goes for removing the foetus as a part of an ectopic pregnancy - the death of the baby is incidental to the main purpose of the action, which is getting the baby out of the mother.

of course, this doesn’t mean that it’s never the case that the intention is to kill the child - just that it doesn’t have to be the intent.

You are very correct, but we must also always separate our motives with the action being contemplated. One could take your reasoning to the dangerous conclusion that the ends justify the means, which is clearly NOT true.

This is where I believe the argument for the use of Methotrexate breaks down. The specific action of the drug is to kill the child. Yes, the drug was administered for the purpose of helping the mother, but the drug’s mechanism is to help the mother by killing the child. After the child is dead, it stops growing and the mother’s body will (if the child is still small enough) naturally pass it out of her system. In this case, the end is helping the mother, but the means is killing the child.

I believe that the Church is very clear that no matter how “good” the end is, or how inevitable the loss of life may be, if the direct action (the means) is the taking of an innocent life, that action is gravely immorral in and of itself.

I will reiterate though that culpability for sin differs from the morality of the act itself, and even in the case where Methotrexate is used, one’s culpability may be very small.

But we have no way of knowing for sure, so I’m going to choose the safe route.

Peace,
javelin

 

[john_doran]

javelin:

This is where I believe the argument for the use of Methotrexate breaks down. The specific action of the drug is to kill the child. Yes, the drug was administered for the purpose of helping the mother, but the drug’s mechanism is to help the mother by killing the child. After the child is dead, it stops growing and the mother’s body will (if the child is still small enough) naturally pass it out of her system. In this case, the end is helping the mother, but the means is killing the child.

i totally agree - if the child needs to die in order to accomplish the goal of the action, then the death of the child is necessarily willed as a part of that action, and is so far forth absolutely wrong.

i’m not sure what it is about my prior explanation that you believe might entail means-end moral reasoning (i.e. consequentialism), but suffice it to say that even if you’re right about such a possible implication (and i don’t think you are), that wasn’t the interpretation i intended.

 

[javelin]

I didn’t really think you were implying consequentialism, but it is certianly an easy trap to fall into for readers when discussing how one’s motives impact the morality of an action.

I really don’t think that motives impact the direct morality of an action at all; they simply (but importantly) impact our culpability for committing that act.

The wall everyone seems to be beating their heads against in this discussion is the question of how far removed from one’s direct action does a consequence need to be before we are relieved of moral culpability for the consequential action.

One side says that one (arguably very thin) step removed is enough. This is the side that says we are not truly culpable for killing the child if we remove the fallopian tube, even though the tube is keeping the child alive (not to change the subject entirely, but this suddenly made me think of Terri Schiavo, and the removal of her feeding tube. May God grant her rest…), as long as there is a sufficiently grave but separate moral imperative that the tube must be removed (saving the mother’s life).

The other side says that taking a morally neutral action when it is known that a direct result of that action is a moral evil makes it all morally wrong. Thus removing the tube that is keeping the child alive is no different than killing the child – both are morally equivalent. This side also maintains that generally lost in the debate is the moral good of the overall health of the mother, which should be preserved as much as we are able.

So, it seems to me that the debate hinges on what the moral difference might be between our direct actions and the immediate (in this case, 100% known) consequence of our actions.

Might we turn our attention to this aspect in the hopes it will move the stalemate somewhat?

Peace,
javelin

 

[yochumjy]

vern humphrey:

We KNOW that any treatment will both remove and kill the child.

And to pretend that we are removing the tube for any other primary reason than to remove the child is a fig leaf.

We seem to be at an impass here. You claim there is no problem with direct abortion as long as while you do it, you “think” correctly, which is not what the church says. You claim, by unsubstantiated opinion, that there is never a problem with the tube and we can just remove the baby by abortion (and thinking real hard) and all is just fine, at all times. You are wrong
vern humphrey:

That’s what you’re subscribing to as well – no matter what you SAY your puropse is, the PRIMARY purpose is to remove (and kill) the child.

You are wrong, the removal of the baby can not be Primary. You claim I am using the tube as a crutch, while I believe the original error happened in the tube. Prove me wrong, your opinion doesn’t count. The websites that have been posted all say that ectopics can reacur, you continue to ignore that and just want direct abortion.
vern humphrey:

I would say you are doing exactly that – the underlying cause is a ectopic pregnancy. And any treatement we apply is aimed at ending that pregnancy.

The underlying cause that SHOULD be addressed is the cause of the ectopic pregnancy. It happened for some reason, why not worry about the underlying cause, instead of just treating the result?
vern humphrey:

Quite the contrary – I also take into accout risk to the mother involved in surgery.

The action of the surgery is to remove the child.

The intent with surgery is also to kill the child – but with a higher risk to the mother.

If the intent of the surgery is to kill the child, then it is abortion and is never condoned. If the intent of the surgery is to remove the tube, which had a malfunction that allowed the child to end up ther, then the killing of the child is unintended, but necessary, because we know what the result is. Even then, if given the choice I would want the doctor to extract the child however possible and try to stitch back into the uterous if at all possible. Would you even consider that?
vern humphrey:

Which does not mandate that the tube be removed in every case.

The same as the act of the non-drug surgery. The baby is removed and dies.

The action of the non-drug surgery is abortion, too. You don’t deny that the baby is being removed, and dies?

You are really attached to the tube, aren’t you. The act of removing the tube is equivalent to removing the child along with part of a cancerous uterous, if the cancer will kill the mother before the birth.
vern humphrey:

The original problem is the ectopic pregnancy. With the child removed from the fallopian tube – either surgically or non-surgically – the mother has a high chance of survval.

And the baby dies, no matter how it was removed.

The original problem is not the ectopic pregnancy. The original problem is that the child implanted in the tube. The child should not have implanted in the tube. A malfunction occured in the system that created the ectopic pregnancy.
vern humphrey:

…
One more time. The Church does not mandate sterilizing a woman because she MIGHT have an ectopic pregnancy, we can hardly use the fig leaf, “We’re not doing this to remove the baby, we’re doing it to prevent a FUTURE ectopic pregnancy.”

If you were to ask the surgeon why he is operating, he would tell you it is because the woman HAS an ectopic pregnancy.

The surgeon is looking at the result of the malfunction and treating it instead of the cause, that is a moral problem.

You imply that by taking out the tube your intent is sterilization, as opposed to being an unwanted side effect. You are putting the lives of children on par with the personal desire of fertility. The two do not equate.

 

[vern_humphrey]

john doran:

this isn’t necessaily true at all: just because we know that death will inevitably follow from some action doesn’t mean that death is any part of the goal of that action.

That’s exactly my argument. It is the intent which defines the moral parameters, and the action is only secondary.

Now the intent is to save the mother’s life. To do that, the child (which will enivitably die – no matter what we do or don’t do) must be removed.
john doran:

if i see that the only way for me to grab my son as he falls from where he’s sitting on the kitchen counter is for me to drop my cup of coffee on the floor, where (i believe) it will break, my seeing that the cup will break in no way entails that the breaking of the cup is any part of the purpose of my action. what i intend to do is grab my son, ***whether or not ***the cup breaks.

Good analogy. In this case, the INTENT is to save the mother’s life. The child’s death is not intended, but only accepted as inevitable.
john doran:

same goes for removing the foetus as a part of an ectopic pregnancy - the death of the baby is incidental to the main purpose of the action, which is getting the baby out of the mother.

You are absolutely right.

And therefore I say:

1. Since we CAN save the mother (who will die if we withhold treatment), and
2. Since the child will die no matter what we do

We are morally obligated to provide treatment and save the mother.

And having arrived at that point, I say the moral approach to such treatment is based on risk (to the mother) and sequelae – what happens afterwards.

If we can use a drug, avoid intrusive (and somewhat risky) surgery, and preserve the mother’s fertility, then that is the approach we should take.
john doran:

of course, this doesn’t mean that it’s never the case that the intention is to kill the child - just that it doesn’t have to be the intent.

I can’t argue with that.

What I am arguing against is the presumption that it is the ACTION, not the intent that defines the act, and that somehow one way of removing the baby is morally right, but another action that accomplishes the same result is wrong.

 

[yochumjy]

javelin:

I really don’t think that motives impact the direct morality of an action at all; they simply (but importantly) impact our culpability for committing that act.

I think I agree with you on this, although I don’t think I’ve wrapped my head fully around the arguement. I believe what you are saying is the death of the child is always wrong, but the circumstances of how the death is caused can be such that we are not guilty of murder.

javelin:

The wall everyone seems to be beating their heads against in this discussion is the question of how far removed from one’s direct action does a consequence need to be before we are relieved of moral culpability for the consequential action.

One side says that one (arguably very thin) step removed is enough. This is the side that says we are not truly culpable for killing the child if we remove the fallopian tube, even though the tube is keeping the child alive (not to change the subject entirely, but this suddenly made me think of Terri Schiavo, and the removal of her feeding tube. May God grant her rest…), as long as there is a sufficiently grave but separate moral imperative that the tube must be removed (saving the mother’s life).

I don’t think that the removal of the tube is thin. I believe it is justified. It would be similar to a mother having terminal cancer of the uterous that will kill both mother and child before term. Removal of the uterous could be necessary to save the mother from the cancer. The child might also need to be removed in that case (due to the cancer). I am applying the same logic to the ectopic, even though there isn’t a perfect one-to-one relationship.
And does the tube keep the baby alive? As I understand it (which could be wrong) the placenta connects but does not immediately start taking all duties (the forcing of production of progesterone for one) immediately. Is the fallopian tube/placenta connection fully operational before the size of the child would burst the tube? If not, then the tube isn’t providing food.

javelin:

The other side says that taking a morally neutral action when it is known that a direct result of that action is a moral evil makes it all morally wrong. Thus removing the tube that is keeping the child alive is no different than killing the child – both are morally equivalent. This side also maintains that generally lost in the debate is the moral good of the overall health of the mother, which should be preserved as much as we are able.

So, it seems to me that the debate hinges on what the moral difference might be between our direct actions and the immediate (in this case, 100% known) consequence of our actions.

Might we turn our attention to this aspect in the hopes it will move the stalemate somewhat?

We can try to move it there. I am maintaining that the intent and the direct action taken follow each other. Therefore the direct action of the non-surgery drug is only abortion of the child, the intent is therefore abort the baby to save the mother. The direct action of removing the tube, removes a part of the reproductive system that has had a failure, with the aborting of the baby being an unwanted side effect. Therefore the intent is to remove the failed part of the reproductive system that will kill the mother.

The secondary part about surgery is, IMHO, a much smaller part of the debate. Surgery might be more risky, but the direct action of abortion negates the risk.

 

[vern_humphrey]

yochumjy:

We seem to be at an impass here. You claim there is no problem with direct abortion as long as while you do it, you “think” correctly, which is not what the church says.

No, YOU claim there is no problem with direct abortion, as long as it’s done surgically, and other tissue is removed.

And that is not what the Church says.

yochumjy:

You claim, by unsubstantiated opinion, that there is never a problem with the tube and we can just remove the baby by abortion (and thinking real hard) and all is just fine, at all times. You are wrong

You claim, by unsubstantiated opinion, that there is ALWAYS a problem with the tube and we can just ignore we are removing the baby (and thinking real hard) and all is just fine, as long as we remove some other tissue (needed or not).

yochumjy:

You are wrong, the removal of the baby can not be Primary. You claim I am using the tube as a crutch, while I believe the original error happened in the tube. Prove me wrong, your opinion doesn’t count. The websites that have been posted all say that ectopics can reacur, you continue to ignore that and just want direct abortion.

There are plenty of websites that don’t claim (as the one you cited did) that ectopic pregnancy is “caused” by a prior ectopic pregnancy.

Look where you are – you HAVE to have it proven as an article of faith that one ectopic pregnancy will “cause” another one – otherwise your whole argument will collapse like a pack of cards.

 

[john_doran]

vern humphrey:

What I am arguing against is the presumption that it is the ACTION, not the intent that defines the act, and that somehow one way of removing the baby is morally right, but another action that accomplishes the same result is wrong.

ahh…i thought that when you said “That’s what you’re subscribing to as well – no matter what you SAY your puropse is, the PRIMARY purpose is to remove (and kill) the child.”, that you were implying that the purpose of an act necessarily includes all of its effects.

glad we cleared that up.

 

[vern_humphrey]

john doran:

ahh…i thought that when you said “That’s what you’re subscribing to as well – no matter what you SAY your puropse is, the PRIMARY purpose is to remove (and kill) the child.”, that you were implying that the purpose of an act necessarily includes all of its effects.

glad we cleared that up.

And that’s why I say, once we make the decision (to save the mother’s life), we ought to use the best treatment available.

 

[yochumjy]

vern humphrey:

No, YOU claim there is no problem with direct abortion, as long as it’s done surgically, and other tissue is removed.

And that is not what the Church says.

No, removing a tube because an error occured in the tube that will kill the mother is not direct abortion. Do you seriously want to argue that no error occurred? At the very least you have to accept that an error occurred, and that the result of that error put a child in the tube, where it didn’t belong. How do we get to treating the root cause? You ignore it because you aren’t 100% sure. Is that morality in action?

The tube will burst, which is the cause of death for the mother. Removing the cause of death for the mother, which is the tube is morally licit.
vern humphrey:

You claim, by unsubstantiated opinion, that there is ALWAYS a problem with the tube and we can just ignore we are removing the baby (and thinking real hard) and all is just fine, as long as we remove some other tissue (needed or not).

You claim, by unsubstantiated opinion that there is NEVER a problem with the tube. Which is closer to right? Is there NEVER a problem with the tube? Is it true or not that the bursting of the tube will cause the death of mother and child?
vern humphrey:

There are plenty of websites that don’t claim (as the one you cited did) that ectopic pregnancy is “caused” by a prior ectopic pregnancy.

Look where you are – you HAVE to have it proven as an article of faith that one ectopic pregnancy will “cause” another one – otherwise your whole argument will collapse like a pack of cards.

Yeah, plenty of websites, which is why you couldn’t give one. And look where you are. If I can prove that there is ANY case where the tube has a problem, your non-surgery drug position falls like a house of cards. I believe I have done that. Show me any indication of the tube NEVER being the problem, so that you can even begin to argue that direct abortion is licit.

 

[yochumjy]

vern humphrey:

And that’s why I say, once we make the decision (to save the mother’s life), we ought to use the best treatment available.

Even if we have to use an abortion? That is definately not sanctioned by the Catholic Church. Abortion is not allowed. The ends do not justify the means. Let me repeat. The ends (saving the mother’s life) do NOT justify the means (direct abortion).

 

[vern_humphrey]

yochumjy:

No, removing a tube because an error occured in the tube that will kill the mother is not direct abortion.

Yes, it is.

yochumjy:

Do you seriously want to argue that no error occurred? At the very least you have to accept that an error occurred, and that the result of that error put a child in the tube, where it didn’t belong. How do we get to treating the root cause? You ignore it because you aren’t 100% sure. Is that morality in action?

You claim that we must believe, de fide that the tube is the problem.

yochumjy:

The tube will burst, which is the cause of death for the mother. Removing the cause of death for the mother, which is the tube is morally licit.

Which is also a direct abortion, because the baby is inside the tube.

yochumjy:

You claim, by unsubstantiated opinion that there is NEVER a problem with the tube. Which is closer to right? Is there NEVER a problem with the tube? Is it true or not that the bursting of the tube will cause the death of mother and child?

There may or may not be a problem with the tube – but the bursting is not due to the tube, but to the growing child inside the tube.

No matter what route you take, the child dies, and dies because of the route you chose.

yochumjy:

Yeah, plenty of websites, which is why you couldn’t give one.

I gave you one several posts back. One that did not claim that ectopic pregnancies are “caused” by earlier ectopic pregnancies

yochumjy:

And look where you are. If I can prove that there is ANY case where the tube has a problem, your non-surgery drug position falls like a house of cards. I believe I have done that. Show me any indication of the tube NEVER being the problem, so that you can even begin to argue that direct abortion is licit.

Look where you are. You’re reduced to claiming the Church demands Zero Risk.

Since even normal pregnancies involve some risk, reductio ad absurdum leads toward a claim that the Church must condemn pregnancy!!

 

[vern_humphrey]

yochumjy:

Even if we have to use an abortion?

That’s exactly what you do when you remove the fallopian tube with the baby inside.

yochumjy:

That is definately not sanctioned by the Catholic Church. Abortion is not allowed. The ends do not justify the means. Let me repeat. The ends (saving the mother’s life) do NOT justify the means (direct abortion).

Nor do the means justify the end.

Let me repeat; when you remove the fallopian tube with the baby inside, that is an abortion. And all the self-deception in the world doesn’t change that.

 

[javelin]

Vern,

Believe me when I say that I hear your side of the argument loud and clear. But this statement of yours, I believe, is completely incorrect:
vern humphrey:

That’s exactly my argument. It is the intent which defines the moral parameters, and the action is only secondary.

In talking with a moral theologian about birth control, he explicitly made the exact opposite assertion as essential to moral theology. A person’s intent has no bearing on the absolute morality of the action, and I think you know this. Taken out of the context of this particular discussion, it is easy to see that just because someone believes they are doing the right thing does not make it morally right. If what you said above were true, you could also say that the ends justify the means, which we know to be false.

Intent bears heavily on our culpability for sin, butnot on the nature of the acts themselves.

In the case of the ectopic, administering medication that directly kills the child is always morally evil, regardless of intent or circumstance.

I think where you and yochumjy disagree is that you hold that removing the tube and aborting the child directly are morally equivalent, since both actions kill the child in order to (ultimately) save the mother.

Would you agree?

Peace,
javelin