Ectopic Pregnancy

[vern_humphrey]

javelin:

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,

That is correct – if I may restate what I believe his argument to be, he is following James’ definition of Pragmatism – “Actions are judged by their outcome.”

No one can argue with that – ACTIONS are judged by their outcome.

But there is a corollary – MEN are judged by their intent.

Now, in this case, the INTENT is to save the mother. The ACTION results in the death of the baby. But since the death of the baby was inevitable, we have not deliberately willed the death of the child – only accepted it as something beyond our control while we acted to save the mother.

javelin:

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. {/quote]

That is correct. In such a case, we would look at both the outcome (that is, judge the action) and at the intent (to determine if the actor acted in good faith.)

The degree of guilt or culpability would be determined by balancing those two factors.

javelin:

If what you said above were true, you could also say that the ends justify the means, which we know to be false.

Have you ever noticed when people talk about the ends justifying the means, they often inadvertantly accept that the means justify the end?

In neither case do we have a moral guideline – because ends and means are inextricably related.

Which is why I say it doesn’t matter HOW the child is killed in this case. What matters is that it IS killed. We cannot say, “I didn’t kill that child because I had my fingers crossed when I removed it.” We have to face the fact – the child will die.

javelin:

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

Perfectly correct – but in this case ALL acts result in the death of the child.

And failure to act results in the death of both mother and child.

javelin:

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

Whereas killing the the child by surgically removing it is somehow totally diffent?

javelin:

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.

They are the same act, with the same outcome, and with the same intent.

As I say, crossing our fingers while we do it doesn’t alter the character of the act.

 

[yochumjy]

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.

No, it is not direct. Direct abortion is to act directly on the child. The surgery that acts directly on the tube, is NOT direct action on the child. It is an unwanted circumstance. Direct action on the tube is indirect action on what is in the tube.
vern humphrey:

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

No, but it is common sense that a problem occured that left the child in the tube. Even if the problem is associated with the tube, there is no moral dilemma with removing the tube.
vern humphrey:

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

see above
vern humphrey:

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.

The mother dies because the tube bursts. No matter what the circumstances, if a tube bursts, the mother dies. The growing of a child does not normally kill the mother. The child’s growth will be the cause of the tube bursting, true, BUT the child being in the tube is indicative of a lower level problem. One which you ignore.

One of the problems I have with your arguement, is that since the child dies, you use a “ends justify’s the means” approach. It doesn’t work. The ends, (saving the mothers life) does not justify the means (direct abortion). I defined direct abortion above.
vern humphrey:

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

Then you didn’t read the link very well, since it supports me:

Pelvic inflammatory disease is usually caused by invasion of either gonorrhea or chlamydia from the cervix up to the uterus and tubes.

ie problem that is with the tube. Just a little further down, still in the “Risk factors section”

Previous ectopic: Details discussed below.

I think you need a different link
vern humphrey:

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!!

Boy, talk about a leap. I NEVER said that there should be zero risk to everything, I don’t even follow your logic. Your arguement has a flaw and you reduce the arguement to the absurd. Once again, you admit the tube could have a problem and you continue to ignore the problem because of some additional risk associated with surgery vs non-surgery.

Try again: You claim that it is licit to use the drug because of surgery risk, yet you completely ignore the future risk due to tubal problems.

 

[javelin]

vern humphrey:

That is correct – if I may restate what I believe his argument to be, he is following James’ definition of Pragmatism – “Actions are judged by their outcome.”

No one can argue with that – ACTIONS are judged by their outcome.

But there is a corollary – MEN are judged by their intent.

Close, I think. Men are judged by their ACTIONS and their INTENT both. Which I see you stated below, but I lost it in my own quote .
vern humphrey:

Now, in this case, the INTENT is to save the mother. The ACTION results in the death of the baby. But since the death of the baby was inevitable, we have not deliberately willed the death of the child – only accepted it as something beyond our control while we acted to save the mother.

javelin:

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.

That is correct. In such a case, we would look at both the outcome (that is, judge the action) and at the intent (to determine if the actor acted in good faith.)

The degree of guilt or culpability would be determined by balancing those two factors.

Have you ever noticed when people talk about the ends justifying the means, they often inadvertantly accept that the means justify the end?

I’m not sure that is what the “other side” is saying here, but I see what you’re getting at. No objection to the means not justifying the ends.
vern humphrey:

In neither case do we have a moral guideline – because ends and means are inextricably related.

Agreed, although we also have the principle of double effect, which the Church has definitively pronounced, and which appears to side with yochumjy on this one.
vern humphrey:

Which is why I say it doesn’t matter HOW the child is killed in this case.

I have a hard time ever believing that. I think it matters a great deal how the child is killed. It must not be our actions that directly cause the child’s death, or we shall be held at least partially responsible.
vern humphrey:

What matters is that it IS killed. We cannot say, “I didn’t kill that child because I had my fingers crossed when I removed it.” We have to face the fact – the child will die.

…

javelin:

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

Whereas killing the the child by surgically removing it is somehow totally diffent?

Now I never said that, and that is precisely the problem I’ve had with this discussion from the beginning. I think that removing the child only vs. removing the surroounding tube with child are different, but only very slightly. Different enough to free us from all culpability? I think not.

As I stated earlier, I think the only perfectly moral option is an attempt to move the child, intact, to the mother’s womb. Part of this process is the initial attempt to remove the child intact. In this case, the action is both trying to save the mother’s life AND the child’s life, and if the child or mother should die in the process, then at least the best effort was made with the tools that God has given us.

Peace,
javelin

 

[vern_humphrey]

yochumjy:

No, it is not direct. Direct abortion is to act directly on the child. The surgery that acts directly on the tube, is NOT direct action on the child. It is an unwanted circumstance. Direct action on the tube is indirect action on what is in the tube.

And kicking a pregnant woman in the stomach would fall into that same “I didn’t kill the baby” argument.

Removing the baby surgically, fallopian tube or not, kills the baby. And that IS abortion.

yochumjy:

No, but it is common sense that a problem occured that left the child in the tube. Even if the problem is associated with the tube, there is no moral dilemma with removing the tube.

Except that there’s a baby inside the tube – and the person removing the tube knows he’s killing the baby. And he’s a lot more directly involved that he would be if he wrote a prescription.

yochumjy:

The mother dies because the tube bursts. No matter what the circumstances, if a tube bursts, the mother dies. The growing of a child does not normally kill the mother. The child’s growth will be the cause of the tube bursting, true, BUT the child being in the tube is indicative of a lower level problem. One which you ignore.

No, you pretend the “lower level problem” is the only problem we need consider, and “solving” that problem justifies killing the baby.

It doesn’t.

yochumjy:

One of the problems I have with your arguement, is that since the child dies, you use a “ends justify’s the means” approach. It doesn’t work. The ends, (saving the mothers life) does not justify the means (direct abortion).

One of the problems I have with your arguement, is that since the child dies, you use a “means justify’s the ends” approach.

That doesn’t work either.

yochumjy:

I defined direct abortion above.

You only partially defined it. When a surgeon cuts open a woman’s body and removes a living child, that is abortion.

yochumjy:

ie problem that is with the tube. Just a little further down, still in the “Risk factors section”

A risk factor is not a “cause.”

yochumjy:

Boy, talk about a leap. I NEVER said that there should be zero risk to everything,

You keep claiming that if there is a risk that there will be another ectopic pregnancy, THAT (and not saving the mother’s life) justifies a surgical abortion AND sterilization.

I

yochumjy:

Try again: You claim that it is licit to use the drug because of surgery risk, yet you completely ignore the future risk due to tubal problems.

And you keep pretending that the risk of a future ectopic pregnancy justifies abortion and sterilization.

 

[vern_humphrey]

yochumjy:

Agreed, although we also have the principle of double effect, which the Church has definitively pronounced, and which appears to side with yochumjy on this one.

The principle of double effect sides with everyone. it is only when we make an artificial distinction between cutting out a living baby, and accomplishing the same thing with a drug that we begin to argue.

yochumjy:

I have a hard time ever believing that. I think it matters a great deal how the child is killed. It must not be our actions that directly cause the child’s death, or we shall be held at least partially responsible.

The question is, how does surgically removing the baby (inside the fallopian tube or not) NOT equate to directly causing death?

yochumjy:

Now I never said that, and that is precisely the problem I’ve had with this discussion from the beginning. I think that removing the child only vs. removing the surroounding tube with child are different, but only very slightly. Different enough to free us from all culpability? I think not.

The difference, as I see it is mechanical, not moral.

yochumjy:

As I stated earlier, I think the only perfectly moral option is an attempt to move the child, intact, to the mother’s womb. Part of this process is the initial attempt to remove the child intact. In this case, the action is both trying to save the mother’s life AND the child’s life, and if the child or mother should die in the process, then at least the best effort was made with the tools that God has given us.

If we had the technology to do that, it would be the only accpetable course of action. However, in one of the sites referenced there is a history of that particular course of action. There was ONE time – many years ago – when such an implantation MIGHT have succeeded. Since then, the record is not only total failure, but increased mortality for the mothers.

 

[javelin]

yochumjy,

Personally, I think you need to drop the argument regarding future ectopics, as it really has no bearing, since it is not the risk of future ectopics that is currently killing the mother. And Vern is precisely correct when he says that risk of future ectopics is NOT justification to remove part of a tube anyways. Besides, there is no way to know for sure if the cause of the child’s implanation in the tube was a tubal defect, an abnormality in the development of the child, or some other completely different cause. Yes, those things can contribute to causing an ectopic, but the data simply doesn’t support any conclusions one way or another.

Other than that, I hear loud and clear what you are saying.

I still think the problem lies in how far removed from our direct action do consequential actions need to be in order for our culpability for them to be reduced or eliminated.

Peace,
javelin

 

[yochumjy]

vern humphrey:

And kicking a pregnant woman in the stomach would fall into that same “I didn’t kill the baby” argument.

This is absurd. A kick to the stomach of a woman transfers force directly upon a child. Stupid analogy.
vern humphrey:

Removing the baby surgically, fallopian tube or not, kills the baby. And that IS abortion.

We are at an impasse. The technical term of abortion not-withstanding… What we are talking about is direct action upon the child vs indirect. We agreed LONG ago the child will die in either instance. Although, I think I am fully in agreement with javalin that the child should always be transferred to the uterous. We might actually learn something by doing that, which will help make saving the child a reality. Notice that the drugs don’t give us that option at all.
vern humphrey:

Except that there’s a baby inside the tube – and the person removing the tube knows he’s killing the baby. And he’s a lot more directly involved that he would be if he wrote a prescription.

Again, we’ve been over this. I understand that the child would die in that case, but the direct action is not on the child. Just because the child will die does not mean there is never any culpabilty in our actions.
vern humphrey:

No, you pretend the “lower level problem” is the only problem we need consider, and “solving” that problem justifies killing the baby.

It doesn’t.

Versus you that ignores anything except the abortion in order to save fertility.
vern humphrey:

One of the problems I have with your arguement, is that since the child dies, you use a “means justify’s the ends” approach.

That doesn’t work either.

Huh? The means “removing the tube” justifies the ends “saving the mother’s life” Well, in that format, yes.
vern humphrey:

You only partially defined it. When a surgeon cuts open a woman’s body and removes a living child, that is abortion.

I defined the immoral definition of abortion, not the technical version. The technical definition is insufficient when talking about morality.
vern humphrey:

A risk factor is not a “cause.”

What is your point. In that case, you gave a link that shows there is no cause to ectopic pregnancy? Are you saying it is a normal random occurance that would eventually happen to every person in the world if they had enough children? That makes no sense.
vern humphrey:

You keep claiming that if there is a risk that there will be another ectopic pregnancy, THAT (and not saving the mother’s life) justifies a surgical abortion AND sterilization.

Why don’t you drop your sterilization rant. It is of little importance when we are speaking of abortion. Why is it so hard for you to understand that surgery on a part of a reproductive system that results in the death of a child is morally (not physically) different than just aborting the child.
vern humphrey:

And you keep pretending that the risk of a future ectopic pregnancy justifies abortion and sterilization.

No, I am saying that removing part of the woman’s body that is going to burst and kill her, as well as the fact that there is an underlying problem causing the ectopic pregnancy justifies removing the tube. The tube is suspect #1.

Why do you believe that the direct action of killing the child with drugs is ever moral? You are now placing the faithful in the position of being able to pick and choose when abortion is okay. There have been many pronouncements against abortion, which one of those pronouncements about abortion from the church leads you to believe that it is okay in this case?

 

[yochumjy]

javelin:

Personally, I think you need to drop the argument regarding future ectopics, as it really has no bearing, since it is not the risk of future ectopics that is currently killing the mother. And Vern is precisely correct when he says that risk of future ectopics is NOT justification to remove part of a tube anyways. Besides, there is no way to know for sure if the cause of the child’s implanation in the tube was a tubal defect, an abnormality in the development of the child, or some other completely different cause. Yes, those things can contribute to causing an ectopic, but the data simply doesn’t support any conclusions one way or another.

I see what you are saying, although I’m not sure it has no bearing. By not taking action on the underlying cause, you are opening the mother up to serious future health risks, ie another ectopic pregnancy that does burst… The big issue is we don’t know enough to really tell the cause. And once there is an operation on the tubes, there is a definitive risk factor in reaccurance, which we don’t want to happen. The drugs seem to be a no brainer for me.

javelin:

Other than that, I hear loud and clear what you are saying.

I still think the problem lies in how far removed from our direct action do consequential actions need to be in order for our culpability for them to be reduced or eliminated.

I think only God knows that. The Church has given us guidelines, such as abortion is never right and never moral. So, unless the church is wrong on that, we have to somehow work in that context. I’m trying to do that, and God help me if I somehow mislead someone… Not the culpability I want…

In general, I am about done with this. Vern and I seem to be at an impasse where we can’t put forth new points on this matter. We are just rehashing through the same old thing.

Oh, well. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut, I like your good sense.

 

[yochumjy]

Vern,

This has been an interesting debate. Neither of us are really getting anywhere at this point. I’m beginning to wonder if we are at a stalemate, here.

I think that from my last point, only one thing is really needed to look at, everything else has been rehashed over and over…And maybe this should even be it’s own thread, tell me what you think:

Why do you believe that the direct action of killing the child with drugs or direct surgery is ever moral? You are now placing the faithful in the position of being able to pick and choose when abortion is okay. There have been many pronouncements against abortion, which one of those pronouncements about abortion from the church leads you to believe that it is okay in this case?

That is the question.

Peace,

 

[vern_humphrey]

yochumjy:

This is absurd. A kick to the stomach of a woman transfers force directly upon a child. Stupid analogy.

So does cutting out the fallopian tube with the child inside.

yochumjy:

We are at an impasse. The technical term of abortion not-withstanding… What we are talking about is direct action upon the child vs indirect.

What’s more direct than cutting the child out, whether it is in the fallopian tube or not?

yochumjy:

We agreed LONG ago the child will die in either instance. Although, I think I am fully in agreement with javalin that the child should always be transferred to the uterous. We might actually learn something by doing that, which will help make saving the child a reality. Notice that the drugs don’t give us that option at all.

We’ve already learned it has a high mortality rate for the mother, and a zero chance of success for the child – one possible success in the distant past notwithstanding.

I agree we should strive to find a way to correctly implant the child, but we aren’t there yet.

yochumjy:

Again, we’ve been over this. I understand that the child would die in that case, but the direct action is not on the child. Just because the child will die does not mean there is never any culpabilty in our actions.

When you cut out the fallopian tube with the child in it, that IS direct action on the child. How much more direct can you get?

yochumjy:

Versus you that ignores anything except the abortion in order to save fertility.

No. I say, “Go with the method that offers the least risk.” That includes risk to life, risk to fertility and risk to future pregnacies.

I don’t need to define by fiat what that way is.

yochumjy:

Huh? The means “removing the tube” justifies the ends “saving the mother’s life” Well, in that format, yes.

I think you just caught yourself in your own trap.

“Removing the tube” is really “removing the baby.”

yochumjy:

I defined the immoral definition of abortion, not the technical version. The technical definition is insufficient when talking about morality.

You offered YOUR definition, one carefully calculated to allow you to pretend a surgical abortion is somehow not an abortion.

yochumjy:

What is your point. In that case, you gave a link that shows there is no cause to ectopic pregnancy?

You shouldn’t make these leaps.

I didn’t say there was no cause to ectopic pregnancies. There are MANY causes of ectopic pregnancies.

But a prior ectopic pregnancy is not one of them.

yochumjy:

Are you saying it is a normal random occurance that would eventually happen to every person in the world if they had enough children? That makes no sense.

When you make up things for me to say, you should not be surprised if what you make up doesn’t make sense. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

You need to understand the difference between causation and correlation. A previous ectopic pregnancy cannot “cause” a later ectopic pregnancy. There is a slight correlation but no causation.

yochumjy:

Why don’t you drop your sterilization rant. It is of little importance when we are speaking of abortion.

When you seek to justify a surgical abortion with sterilization, you created that importance.

yochumjy:

Why is it so hard for you to understand that surgery on a part of a reproductive system that results in the death of a child is morally (not physically) different than just aborting the child.

Why is it so important to you to claim that it isn’t abortion?

yochumjy:

No, I am saying that removing part of the woman’s body that is going to burst and kill her, as well as the fact that there is an underlying problem causing the ectopic pregnancy justifies removing the tube. The tube is suspect #1.

Actually, it’s fig leaf #1.

yochumjy:

Why do you believe that the direct action of killing the child with drugs is ever moral?

Why do you believe the surgical removal of a child from the mother’s body, knowing the child will die is not abortion?

yochumjy:

You are now placing the faithful in the position of being able to pick and choose when abortion is okay. /quote]

No, you did that when you pretended that surgical abortions are okay if you have your fingers crossed.

yochumjy:

There have been many pronouncements against abortion, which one of those pronouncements about abortion from the church leads you to believe that it is okay in this case?

The same ones that lead you to claim a surgical abotion is not an abortion.

 

[john_doran]

yochumjy:

Why do you believe that the direct action of killing the child with drugs or direct surgery is ever moral?

you guys keep going back and forth on this because you are disagreeing about elements of the foundations of moral reasoning…

for example, what do you mean, yoch, when you say “the direct action of killing the child”? are you suggesting that any action performed whose consequences include the death of another human being, is necessarily immoral? just what is it that you believe makes actions wrong? is it outcomes? intentions? what?

yochumjy:

You are now placing the faithful in the position of being able to pick and choose when abortion is okay.

sure. but just what is “abortion”? that’s the question. i mean, if “abortion” is defined as “any action one of whose (proximate) effects is the death of a foetus”, then you’re probably right. but why do you think* that’s* the right definition? if, for instance, “abortion” is defined as something like “any intentional killing of a foetus”, then your moral argument doesn’t go through. at all.

anyway. if you guys could just agree on the ethical fundamentals, you might stop talking past each other so much.

 

[vern_humphrey]

john doran:

Sure. but just what is “abortion”? that’s the question. i mean, if “abortion” is defined as “any action one of whose (proximate) effects is the death of a foetus”, then you’re probably right. but why do you think* that’s* the right definition? if, for instance, “abortion” is defined as something like “any intentional killing of a foetus”, then your moral argument doesn’t go through. at all.

anyway. if you guys could just agree on the ethical fundamentals, you might stop talking past each other so much.

I suggest when a doctor intrudes into a woman’s body, removes the baby, and turns around with a lump of bloody tissue in his hand – a lump containing the tiny corpse – that’s direct abortion.

Now, we are agreed that we have a moral obligation to save the mother. And we are also agreed that at the current state of medical technology the child will die.

And, if we wait until we are sure the child is dead before acting the mother will also be near death, and the risk will be so high as to be unsupportable.

The morality of that act must therefore be judged by something other than the means of killing the child.

 

[javelin]

Here’s one of the apologist’s take on this subject:

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=17307&highlight=ectopic
Jim Blackburn:

Abortion is always evil - it intends to directly kill a child. It is never allowed even to save the life of the mother. The Church clearly teaches that “One may never do evil so that good may result from it” (Catechism, 1789).

For what it’s worth, here it seems “abortion” is equated with the “intent” to kill the child.

And the apologist agrees with yochumjy, which appears to be the commonly agreed to and “safest” answer to the question.

I haven’t checked out the link he provided yet, but it may be interesting. I’m sure this has been debated with the same points before…

Peace,
javelin

 

[vern_humphrey]

javelin:

Here’s one of the apologist’s take on this subject:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=17307&highlight=ectopic

For what it’s worth, here it seems “abortion” is equated with the “intent” to kill the child.

And the apologist agrees with yochumjy, which appears to be the commonly agreed to and “safest” answer to the question.

I haven’t checked out the link he provided yet, but it may be interesting. I’m sure this has been debated with the same points before…

Peace,
javelin

I know there are those who disagree with me – but my position is you can’t disguise intent and make it something different. The doctor who physically removes the child cannot pretend he is doing something other than killing the child.

Therefore we must judge the act by the larger intent – to save the mother – and from that consider the best way to do it.

 

[javelin]

vern humphrey:

The morality of that act must therefore be judged by something other than the means of killing the child.

Sorry, but I disagree with this. The means matters. As much as I may want to, I can’t think that the means doesn’t matter. I would want to be as far removed from the direct killing of the child as possible.

Ultimately, you’re still talking about minutae here in terms of your differences of what constitutes an abortion. Maybe breaking it all down will help:

Main intent: Save the life of the mother (morally good)
possible actions aimed at that intent:

A) administer methotrexate:
A.1) action of MTX: stop the development of cells, in this case, the developing child, which kills it (morally evil)
A.2) intent of administering the drug must then be to stop the developing cells, killing the child (morally evil) AND spare the mother the need for surgery (morally good)
A.3) Additional effects: none known

B) Remove the fallopian tube surrounding the developing child
B.1) Action: surgically remove the tube (morally neutral?)
B.2) intent: surgical removal of the tube that will burst (morally neutral)
B.3) Additional Effects: child that is developing in the tube will essentially starve and die, and we know this (morally evil)

C) Attempt to move the child to the uterus intact
C.1) Remove the child (morally neutral?)
C.1.1) Action (current): Surgically remove the child intact and as much of the surrounding support system (placenta, etc.) as possible. (morally neutral)
C.1.2) intent: surgical removal of the child from the place where it is developing that offers it no chance of survival (morally neutral) AND sparing the mother, if possible, the loss of her tube (morally good).
C.2) Attempt to implant the child in the uterus
C.2.1) Action: surgically place the child in the uterus (morally neutral)
C.2.2) Intent: Allow the child to live and grow (morally good)
C.2.3) Additional Effects: Child will die, as there is no known way to successfully place the child in the womb so that it can continue to develop. (morally evil?)

OK, I thought this may have been a good idea at first, but it is still really hard to say if certain sub-actions are good, neutral, or evil.

Still, I think the case for MTX is poor, in that it is hard to separate the intent of a procedure from its most immediate effect, which in the case of MTX is the death of the child. At least the express effect of removing the tube is one step removed from the death of the child.

That does not answer the question of why it would be immorral to remove just the child, if the intent was to attempt to re-implant in the uterus.

I can see both sides, which doesn’t make it easier!

Peace,
javelin

 

[vern_humphrey]

javelin:

Sorry, but I disagree with this. The means matters. As much as I may want to, I can’t think that the means doesn’t matter. I would want to be as far removed from the direct killing of the child as possible.

Ultimately, you’re still talking about minutae here in terms of your differences of what constitutes an abortion. Maybe breaking it all down will help:

Main intent: Save the life of the mother (morally good)
possible actions aimed at that intent:

A) administer methotrexate:
A.1) action of MTX: stop the development of cells, in this case, the developing child, which kills it (morally evil)
A.2) intent of administering the drug must then be to stop the developing cells, killing the child (morally evil) AND spare the mother the need for surgery (morally good)
A.3) Additional effects: none known

B) Remove the fallopian tube surrounding the developing child
B.1) Action: surgically remove the tube (morally neutral?)
B.2) intent: surgical removal of the tube that will burst (morally neutral)
B.3) Additional Effects: child that is developing in the tube will essentially starve and die, and we know this (morally evil)

C) Attempt to move the child to the uterus intact
C.1) Remove the child (morally neutral?)
C.1.1) Action (current): Surgically remove the child intact and as much of the surrounding support system (placenta, etc.) as possible. (morally neutral)
C.1.2) intent: surgical removal of the child from the place where it is developing that offers it no chance of survival (morally neutral) AND sparing the mother, if possible, the loss of her tube (morally good).
C.2) Attempt to implant the child in the uterus
C.2.1) Action: surgically place the child in the uterus (morally neutral)
C.2.2) Intent: Allow the child to live and grow (morally good)
C.2.3) Additional Effects: Child will die, as there is no known way to successfully place the child in the womb so that it can continue to develop. (morally evil?)

OK, I thought this may have been a good idea at first, but it is still really hard to say if certain sub-actions are good, neutral, or evil.

Still, I think the case for MTX is poor, in that it is hard to separate the intent of a procedure from its most immediate effect, which in the case of MTX is the death of the child. At least the express effect of removing the tube is one step removed from the death of the child.

That does not answer the question of why it would be immorral to remove just the child, if the intent was to attempt to re-implant in the uterus.

I can see both sides, which doesn’t make it easier!

Peace,
javelin

We keep forgetting one thing – the bloody lump of tissue in the surgeon’s hand. That bloody lump contains a tiny corpse.

When you say that act – intruding into the woman’s body and removing the baby – with or without the fallopian tube is morally neutral, how do we square it with that bloody tissue and tiny corpse?

Therefore action B1 (surgically remove the tube) cannot be morally neutral. We can PRETEND that it is somehow different and morally neutral – but only if we keep our eyes averted and ignore the drip of blood on the floor.

 

[javelin]

BTW,

This morning I posted a question to AAA regarding the licitness of removing a tube that has been previously damaged by an ectopic to help ensure that a future ectopic does not occur in that tube again.

I think I know what they will say, but we’ll see. It hasn’t shown up yet with a response.

Peace,
javelin

 

[vern_humphrey]

javelin:

BTW,

This morning I posted a question to AAA regarding the licitness of removing a tube that has been previously damaged by an ectopic to help ensure that a future ectopic does not occur in that tube again.

I think I know what they will say, but we’ll see. It hasn’t shown up yet with a response.

Peace,
javelin

The American Automobile Association is now establishing moral standards for the Catholic Church?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

The American Medical Association, you may recall, does not condemn abortion on demand – their idea of “licitness” may differe from the Church.

But it would be interesting to see the DATA.

 

[john_doran]

javelin:

A.1) action of MTX: stop the development of cells, in this case, the developing child, which kills it (morally evil)

B.3) Additional Effects: child that is developing in the tube will essentially starve and die, and we know this (morally evil)

but this begs the question: why is the death of the child morally evil in these cases?

are you suggesting that simply performing an action which causes a death is immoral? if so, why? what makes killing in self-defense, say, morally rectifiable, but not killing for money or revenge?

 

[javelin]

vern humphrey:

We keep forgetting one thing – the bloody lump of tissue in the surgeon’s hand. That bloody lump contains a tiny corpse.

When you say that act – intruding into the woman’s body and removing the baby – with or without the fallopian tube is morally neutral, how do we square it with that bloody tissue and tiny corpse?

Therefore action B1 (surgically remove the tube) cannot be morally neutral. We can PRETEND that it is somehow different and morally neutral – but only if we keep our eyes averted and ignore the drip of blood on the floor.

I hear you loud and clear. It got really hard to put moral tags on each step simply because they are SO intertwined. In this case, A (removing the tube) is clearly and immediately and causally related to B (death of the child).

For instance, disregarding motive, if I shoot someone in the gut, it can be said that the immediate effect of what I did was damage a few organs. And yet if that person later dies from that injury that I caused, I can (and would) be rightly charged with murder. Even if that person was already terminally ill, the same would apply.

In the case of the ectopic, I believe a court of law would find that the person removing the tube could be rightly charged with the death of the child, even though the child is in a terminal situation already.

Which bring us way back to a question I posed long ago – how far removed from an act must the consequences be before we can be held culpable for them?

I think the key to that may lie in the intentions of each step, which I tried to outline above. But I honestly don’t know.

I can tell you that I feel culpable for them several steps removed. Say I was driving and saw a piece of tire in the road that was going to bash my car, so I swerved slightly to avoid it. Now, the person in the next lane sees me start to swerve and instinctually swerves as well. That guy spooks another who swerves into a post, crashes and dies. Even though my intent wasn’t to kill the guy, I would still feel partly responsible since it was my original action that set the chain of events that led to his death.

I would feel worse, though, if my swerve to avoid the rubber in the road made me hit someone directly and kill them.

And maybe that’s close to why I think MTX would be bad, while removing the tube is (if only slightly) better.

Peace,
javelin