This analysis is very dubious. How can you claim to NOT be intending to kill the child when you are removing it from the mother? I’ve written a paper on this very subject focussing on the issues of intention defining indirect and direct abortion and basically you cannot classify the treatment of ectopic pregnancy as indirect abortion without becoming incoherent.Now, the example of the ectopic pregnancy is different. Here, you are allowed to remove the falopian tubes, with the child in them, even though that’ll kill the child. The reason is that you’re not *intending *to kill the kid: if you can remove the child from her mother’s womb and save her life, you’ll do it. Your intention is simply to remove the fallopian tubes. This isn’t a direct abortion, in the sense that any abortive effect is accidental and unintentional (of course, even this is morally licit as long as you’re not trying to abort your kid). These two things seem really similar, but the first example relies on the death of the child as part of the solution, while in the second example, the death of the child is totally unintentional and pretty unavoidable.
This idea of double effect is erroneous when applied to the treatment of ectopic pregnancy. Since it is often not necessary to remove the oviduct, the principle of double effect cannot apply.In the case of an ectopic pregnancy - the principle of double effect takes effect. It is not that the “murder” of the fetus occurs - it is that the injured part of the fallopian tube is removed. The fact that the baby cannot live outside of the body is not murder it is the effect of the necessary surgical procedure.
In the case of those who choose to use Methotrexate to directly abort the baby it is direct causation of the baby’s death and therefore is not licit as it is the direct effect and takes God out of the equation.
So nobody can have any treatment for ectopic pregnancy?there is never at any time a medical emergency so dire that the one and only choice of response is the direct, intentional murder of another human being. period.
actually I have had the personal experience of being told this, and gone through it with two family members of being told this hogwash by doctors and hospitals, and since becoming educated know this is a scare tactic, not a real “diagnosis”Be grateful you’ve never experienced one.
truthscout
well there’s plenty of mothers who have died from ectopic pregnancies that prove you wrong.actually I have had the personal experience of being told this, and gone through it with two family members of being told this hogwash by doctors and hospitals, and since becoming educated know this is a scare tactic, not a real “diagnosis”
You should research and learn more about the Catholic position on direct and indirect abortion.I do not argue the “humanness” of the fetus. I argue the first assertion that there is absolutely no sufficient reason for the “murder” of a fetus, followed by the admission that there is, in fact, a sufficient reason for said “murder”.
truthscout