Help in replying to a pro-abortion "classmate"

[fix]

Here, we will have to disagree. The Church has given some very strong statements about ectopic pregnancies and fetal life. Think about it, some moralists argue that Double Effect allows us to abort a fetus that endangers the health of a mother without breaking the Church’s instructions not to do just that.

The Church has declined to say if such applications are moral. Instead of presuming that it is moral, I suggest people read what the Church has actually said, seek spiritual guidance, and follow their faith. Should there be any lingering doubt, I would suggest they seek reconcilliation. Even excommunication is supposed to be instructional, not punative.

As to the rest, the ‘argument’ started with the assertion that the Church has given a specific teaching on ectopic pregnancies. It has not. Because I am of a mind that the presumption should fall to life, I am inclined to take the Church’s lack of a specific ruling as a warning that it is a difficult moral dilemna, not a presumption that the act is licit.

In that light, it should be clear why the distinction is not moot to me.

Best Regards

If you think some procedure is immoral why would you do it? If you think the Church disapproves why do it? If you think the Church disapproves but needs to say so more explicitly then why do it?

 

[RobHom]

And, if it still isn’t clear, the suggested point, which is relevant to the original topic name is, how can we can convince secular society when someone can point out that we do not, in fact, view all life as equally precious.

IMHO, if we are to put it all in the context of a “strictly secular society”, and leave “religious beliefs” out of the issue, would it not be better to argue the point for “abstinence” or even the use of contraceptives merely as less expensive alternatives both monetarily as well as physically and emotionally?

Myself…even though I am Catholic, and do not support the use of abortions except in terms of absolute medical necessity…to save the life of the mother when the child is not medically viable in anyway, or may have already expired… I would still rather see someone be abstinent or use contraceptives than end up pregnant and have an abortion. Yes, contraceptive use is a sin, however it in reality is the lesser of two evils…

And on the other hand… furnish this link to the pro-abortionist… and suggest he or she take the time to read it. Its quite interesting as it is a historical issue that reaches way back in time and delves quite extensively with the issue…and crosses into the histories of many different cultures. Cite the historical imperative that for most “western” cultures abortion has been considered a crime, as the writings show.

newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm

 

[vern_humphrey]

As my name suggests, I’m seeking truth and do not know it all, therefore I like to actually read what people say with an open mind and perhaps learn something.

This disagreeable tactic of beating an argument to death, by personal attacks and strong language if necessary, I really find kind of childish, not to mention that it speaks of lack of self confidence. The one who is sure of himself doesn’t always have to be proved right by others.

The revolving argument about ectopic pregnancy and direct/indirect abortion is a case in point: if theologicans do not all agree, then it stands to reason the probability of us not all agreeing on the issue, is very high. It would help though, if some attempt was made to follow the thread from the beginning

Theologians – if by that you mean the Church – do agree. Direct abortion is immoral and forbidden. However, there are cases where acts undertaken to save one life may look like abortion. The deciding factors are two-fold, the actual medical diagnosis (and prognosis), and the intent.

If the diagnosis and prognosis indicate both mother and child will die, and if the intent is to save the mother’s life, while recognizing that the child’s death is inevitible but unwished for, the surgery will be licit.

I have unresolved problems with the treatment of ectopic pregnancy, that I’ve previously tried (unsuccessfully) to bury. Truth is, I really never could see how intent could vary with the form of treatment when the pathology is a badly located pregnancy and the mother is cured by interrupting it. My other problem with intent was, whose intent is relevant, the mother’s or the doctor’s?

Both. One person cannot sin for another. A mother may, for example, be deceived about her condition by a physician. A physician may remove the fallopian tube from a woman to save her life, while the woman wants to be rid of the baby. The sin is on the one whose intent is illicit.

When I thought the application of PDE was the Church’s definitive ruling on the matter, I tried to accept it. Now…I think it all comes down to an individual’s conscience after taking all the facts of the situation into account.

Not quite. The Principle of Double Effect is the Church’s definitive ruling – but the application is on a case-by-case basis.

If a woman is diagnosed with a tubal pregnancy, the Pope himself doesn’t make that diagnosis. No bishop comes in and reviews her case with the authority to over-ride her doctor. The responsibility is on the woman and the doctor.

In this way it is like the Church’s position on self defense – the Church spells out the standards, it’s up to the individual to apply them. The Pope doesn’t come down and say, “That person is an unjust attacker and is trying to kill you, so you can defend yourself.” The individual who is attacked must make that decision.

Now let’s apply that to a pro-abortion decision, “It should be her choice.” The pro-abortion side says that absolves her of all moral responsibility for her choice, and no one else has a right to be involved. The Church says to choose wrongly is a grave sin, and all humans have a responsibility to act to save innocent human lives.

 

[seekerz]

Theologians – if by that you mean the Church – do agree. Direct abortion is immoral and forbidden. However, there are cases where acts undertaken to save one life may look like abortion. The deciding factors are two-fold, the actual medical diagnosis (and prognosis), and the intent.

If the diagnosis and prognosis indicate both mother and child will die, and if the intent is to save the mother’s life, while recognizing that the child’s death is inevitible but unwished for, the surgery will be licit.

Both. One person cannot sin for another. A mother may, for example, be deceived about her condition by a physician. A physician may remove the fallopian tube from a woman to save her life, while the woman wants to be rid of the baby. The sin is on the one whose intent is illicit.

Not quite. The Principle of Double Effect is the Church’s definitive ruling – but the application is on a case-by-case basis.

If a woman is diagnosed with a tubal pregnancy, the Pope himself doesn’t make that diagnosis. No bishop comes in and reviews her case with the authority to over-ride her doctor. The responsibility is on the woman and the doctor.

In this way it is like the Church’s position on self defense – the Church spells out the standards, it’s up to the individual to apply them. The Pope doesn’t come down and say, “That person is an unjust attacker and is trying to kill you, so you can defend yourself.” The individual who is attacked must make that decision.

Now let’s apply that to a pro-abortion decision, “It should be her choice.” The pro-abortion side says that absolves her of all moral responsibility for her choice, and no one else has a right to be involved. The Church says to choose wrongly is a grave sin, and all humans have a responsibility to act to save innocent human lives.

Points well taken. What I probably did not make clear is that my difficulty is with accepting that one treatment is direct abortion while another is indirect. To say that we are removing a diseased tube does not make sense to me when the only ‘disease’ the tube may have is the pregnancy. I believe that is also the area where some theologians disagree.

So it’s not the PDE itself I have difficulty with - it’s the way that concept is applied to various treatments of ectopic pregnancy.

As for the part about the mother’s life, that’s another sticking point for me. Most modern management of ectopic pregnancy centers on removing/interrupting the pregnancy before it causes life-threatening problems for the mother. This is not necessarily because of lack of respect for the fetus’ life, but because there is hardly a clear line beyond which her life is at risk (except in the very early stages, potentially fatal rupture may happen at any time and cannot be accurately predicted; until then she could appear perfectly well). To wait for rupture is considered unethical, medically.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Points well taken. What I probably did not make clear is that my difficulty is with accepting that one treatment is direct abortion while another is indirect. To say that we are removing a diseased tube does not make sense to me when the only ‘disease’ the tube may have is the pregnancy. I believe that is also the area where some theologians disagree.

The disease isn’t the pregnancy. Pregnancy is not a disease. However, a developing embryo inside the fallopian tube is a pathology. So it is that factor – developing embryo in the fallopian tube – that is controlling.

Notice also I said “diagnosis and prognosis.” The diagnosis is ectopic pregnancy – the embryo is developing inside the fallopian tube (note to nitpickers – yes, there are other forms of ectopic pregnancies). The prognosis is death for mother and child. (note 2 to nitpickers – yes, there are cases where the prognosis might be different.)

So it’s not the PDE itself I have difficulty with - it’s the way that concept is applied to various treatments of ectopic pregnancy.

Actually, that shouldn’t be a problem. Look at it this way:

1. Is there a pathological condition. If yes, go to 2.
2. Does the pathological condition put both the mother and child at grave risk of death? If yes, go to 3.
3. Is there any treatment that would save one, and not leave the other to die? If no, go to 4.
4. Treatment intended to save one, even if the other dies, is licit and moral.

As for the part about the mother’s life, that’s another sticking point for me. Most modern management of ectopic pregnancy centers on removing/interrupting the pregnancy before it causes life-threatening problems for the mother.

Ah, there’s the trap – a tubal pregnancy generally threatens the mother’s life from the instant it occurs – although death may come some time afterwards.

This is not necessarily because of lack of respect for the fetus’ life, but because there is hardly a clear line beyond which her life is at risk (except in the very early stages, potentially fatal rupture may happen at any time and cannot be accurately predicted; until then she could appear perfectly well).

If morality and ethics were always clear-cut, it would be a perfect world. It isn’t.

That does not acquit us of knowingly doing wrong – we can’t say, “Well, because sometimes we can’t know, we can pretend this is such a case and do what we know to be wrong.”

To wait for rupture is considered unethical, medically.

The Church does not require us to wait for rupture – and would consider waiting until rupture to be immorally putting the mother at risk.

 

[seekerz]

Vern, you seem to have overlooked that I’m asking about the various types of treatment. Why should one or other be considered direct/indirect abortion, licit/illicit for the same diagnosis when we both agree that the pathology is the presence of a pregnancy in the tube? Isn’t interruption of a pregnancy (for any reason) considered abortion by the Church? Why should we distinguish between medical and surgical treatment when the end is the same: that the abnormally situated pregnancy not be allowed to continue?

Incidentally, I seem to remember reading that for exactly the kinds of reasons stated above, some theologians in the past considered any treatment before rupture as illicit.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern, you seem to have overlooked that I’m asking about the various types of treatment.

Let me see if I understand you – are you asking medical questions? Then no one here is qualified to answer.

If you are asking questions about morality, then the Church establishes standards to be applied by the experts in the field.

Why should one or other be considered direct/indirect abortion, licit/illicit for the same diagnosis when we both agree that the pathology is the presence of a pregnancy in the tube? Isn’t interruption of a pregnancy (for any reason) considered abortion by the Church?

No. The Church recognizes legitimate attempts to save human life in difficult situations.

Why should we distinguish between medical and surgical treatment when the end is the same: that the abnormally situated pregnancy not be allowed to continue?

The end is not the same. On the one hand, the end is to save human life, and on the other it is to take human life.

I used self defense as an example – simply walking up to a person in the street and shooting them would be an evil act. But returning fire when the person is shooting at me is not. Yet either way, the person winds up dead.

What’s different? The specific circumstances (who is the unjust attacker) and the intent (to kill another or to save my own life.)

Incidentally, I seem to remember reading that for exactly the kinds of reasons stated above, some theologians in the past considered any treatment before rupture as illicit.

“Some theologians” are not the Catholic Church. We must not make the mistake of losing sight of the Magisterium and assuming we are Muslims, where “prominent leaders” can issue fatwas.

 

[SoCalRC]

If you think some procedure is immoral why would you do it? If you think the Church disapproves why do it? If you think the Church disapproves but needs to say so more explicitly then why do it?

A valid question. The only answer I can provide is, unlike some, I am not sure that I have made the rightous choice in complex situations. Perhaps we should turn this around. I was asked, what I asked, by another poster at post 84 in this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2656374&postcount=84

Apparently, I was not quick enough, because there was a followup at 85:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2656374&postcount=85

I answered at 86. Perhaps you could read the question and my complete reply and let me know what you think of the moral choices made.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2656374&postcount=86

Best Regards

 

[seekerz]

Let me see if I understand you – are you asking medical questions? Then no one here is qualified to answer.

If you are asking questions about morality, then the Church establishes standards to be applied by the experts in the field.

No. The Church recognizes legitimate attempts to save human life in difficult situations.

The end is not the same. On the one hand, the end is to save human life, and on the other it is to take human life.

I used self defense as an example – simply walking up to a person in the street and shooting them would be an evil act. But returning fire when the person is shooting at me is not. Yet either way, the person winds up dead.

What’s different? The specific circumstances (who is the unjust attacker) and the intent (to kill another or to save my own life.)

“Some theologians” are not the Catholic Church. We must not make the mistake of losing sight of the Magisterium and assuming we are Muslims, where “prominent leaders” can issue fatwas.

Just to clarify. Are you saying that it is the Magesterium that applies the PDE to ectopic pregnancy in the way discussed above?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Just to clarify. Are you saying that it is the Magesterium that applies the PDE to ectopic pregnancy in the way discussed above?

Just the opposite – the Magisterium established rules and principles, and it’s up to us to apply them.

But that doesn’t mean we have license to wilfully make immoral decisions.

 

[SoCalRC]

The prognosis is death for mother and child. (note 2 to nitpickers – yes, there are cases where the prognosis might be different.)

Well, if we are going to use words like prognosis, we should stick with medical definitions:

Ectopic pregnancy is one of the most frequent obstetric and gynecologic emergencies, and its incidence increases year by year. Observable symptoms of tubal rupture due to an ectopic pregnancy, may include lower abdominal pain, amenorrhea, vaginal bleeding, dizziness due to a blood pressure drop, as well as, nausea and vomiting due to the gastrointestinal symptoms. Untreated tubal rupture may lead to intraperitoneal bleeding, which has emerged as the most significant cause of early stage death of pregnant females. In other words, if an ectopic pregnancy is not discovered at an early stage, tubal rupture and the associated shock from bleeding may lead to death of the patient.

The highest probability prognosis for ectopic pregnancy is tubal rupture. Tubal rupture has a reasonably high risk of leading to intraperitoneal bleeding (bleeding inside the peritoneal cavity - basically where all our organs are). The resulting shock, particularly untreated, can lead to death.

Very serious indeed. Particularly since such pregnancies are increasing at an alarming rate. However, we want to be careful pursuing this argument. I say this because guess what else can lead to intraperitoneal bleeding - intrauterine (normal) pregnancies.

In the US pregnancy related deaths for mothers runs about 13 per 100,000 live births (about 1 of those 13 is do to an ectopic pregnancy). I can’t imagine anyone here would argue that because death is possible the prognosis for pregnancy is death. So high does the risk have to be before the ‘life threatening’ standard of Double Effect (as explained in RobHom’s link above) is met?

 

[SoCalRC]

Just the opposite – the Magisterium established rules and principles, and it’s up to us to apply them.

But that doesn’t mean we have license to wilfully make immoral decisions.

Are you sure? That was my original assertion which you objected to some 50 posts ago.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well, if we are going to use words like prognosis, we should stick with medical definitions:

The highest probability prognosis for ectopic pregnancy is tubal rupture. Tubal rupture has a reasonably high risk of leading to intraperitoneal bleeding (bleeding inside the peritoneal cavity - basically where all our organs are). The resulting shock, particularly untreated, can lead to death.

How is this any different from what I said?

Very serious indeed. Particularly since such pregnancies are increasing at an alarming rate. However, we want to be careful pursuing this argument. I say this because guess what else can lead to intraperitoneal bleeding - intrauterine (normal) pregnancies.

Are you saying every pregnancy is as life-threatening as a tubal ectopic pregnancy?

In the US pregnancy related deaths for mothers runs about 13 per 100,000 live births (about 1 of those 13 is do to an ectopic pregnancy). I can’t imagine anyone here would argue that because death is possible the prognosis for pregnancy is death. So high does the risk have to be before the ‘life threatening’ standard of Double Effect (as explained in RobHom’s link above) is met?

What’s your point here? Are you trying to ascribe another argument to me?

 

[RNMom4Life]

One thing to note is that Doctors are studying about pain that fetuses experience and are recommending anesthesia prior to abortion. Also, no matter how many cells a fetus has…it is still a living human being…that is a proven fact. If the government can fine a person for destroying an eagles egg…how much more valuable is a human life? This life at no stage is part of the mothers body…it has it’s own DNA. To be more precise in answering your question, Dr. Dianne Irving writes:

Myth : “A human person begins with ‘brain birth,’ the formation of the primitive nerve net, or the formation of the cortex – all physiological structures necessary to support thinking and feeling.”
*Fact *: Such claims are all pure mental speculation, the product of imposing philosophical (or theological) concepts on the scientific data, and have no scientific evidence to back them up. As the well-known neurological researcher D. Gareth Jones has succinctly put it, the parallelism between “brain death” and “brain birth” is scientifically invalid. “Brain death” is the gradual or rapid cessation of the functions of a brain. “Brain birth” is the very gradual acquisition of the functions of a developing neural system. This developing neural system is not a brain. He questions, in fact, the entire assumption and asks what neurological reasons there might be for concluding that an incapacity for consciousness becomes a capacity for consciousness once this point is passed. Jones continues that the alleged symmetry is not as strong as is sometimes assumed, and that it has yet to be provided with a firm biological base.

Good Luck
Bernadette, VP National Assoc. of Prolife Nurses

 

[RNMom4Life]

Regarding Robhorn’s post…that contraception is better than abortion…please all note…it is one and the same…sorry.

B]*Myth *: “The ‘morning-after pill,’ RU486, and the IUD are not abortifacient; they are only methods of contraception.”
Fact : The “morning-after pill,” RU486, and the IUD can be abortifacient, if fertilization has taken place. Then they would act to prevent the implantation of an already existing human embryo–the blastocyst–which is an existing human being. If the developing human blastocyst is prevented from implanting into the uterus, then obviously the embryo dies. In effect, these chemical and mechanical methods of contraception have become methods of abortion as well. Quoting Moore:

The administration of relatively large doses of estrogens (‘morning-after pill’) for several days, beginning shortly after unprotected sexual intercourse, usually does not prevent fertilization but often prevents implantation of the blastocyst. Diethylstilbestrol, given daily in high dosage for 5-6 days, may also accelerate passage of the dividing zygote along the uterine tube ... Normally, the endometrium progresses to the secretory phase of the menstrual cycle as the zygote forms, undergoes cleavage, and enters the uterus. The large amount of estrogen disturbs the normal balance between estrogen and progesterone that is necessary for preparation of the endometrium for implantation of the blastocyst. Postconception administration of hormones to prevent implantation of the blastocyst is sometimes used in cases of sexual assault or leakage of a condom, but this treatment is contraindicated for routine contraceptive use. The ‘abortion pill’ RU486 also destroys the conceptus by interrupting implantation because of interference with the hormonal environment of the implanting embryo. ... An intrauterine device (IUD) inserted into the uterus through the vagina and cervix usually interferes with implantation by causing a local inflammatory reaction. Some IUDs contain progesterone that is slowly released and interferes with the development of the endometrium so that implantation does not usually occur.  (Emphasis added.)

And since the whole human blastocyst is the embryonic human being -- not just the inner cell layer -- the use of chemical abortifacients that act “only” on the outer trophoblast layer of the blastocyst, e.g., methotrexate,  would be abortifacient as well.

 

[passioncrosslov]

Hi Cockatoo,

I was in a moral debate in last session’s online class also. It’s sad to see such a large percentage of people gave in to such an grave evil.

You should ask the pro-choicer whether his/her physical formation begins at conception, when his/her daddy’s sperm fertilizes his/her mamma’s egg, or was he/she magically existed already formed and functioning. Without that beginning existence, the spark, there is no need to even discuss about the functioning of the brain or its existence, because there wouldn’t be a brain if it weren’t for that spark.

Amen!

 

[SoCalRC]

What’s your point here? Are you trying to ascribe another argument to me?

You said the “prognosis is death”. I’m asking how did you arrive at that? There are a lot of ectopic pregnancies, many undiagnosed. Not all those end in death. So how high do the risks need to be to apply the Vern version of Double Effect?

Now that you’ve conceded my original point, I’m interested in your “simple” flow chart above. Your interpretation of the principle is, well, unique (and I’ve read many). So I’d like to hear you expand on it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You said the “prognosis is death”. I’m asking how did you arrive at that?

How did I arrive at what?

Let me explain – neither you nor I provide medical treatment. That is reserved to licensed physicians and other duly qualified personnel. We may, however, be involved in treatment decisions – for example, when my wife had a knee replacement, we talked it over, studied the proceduce and results.

So when a physician diagnoses a tubal ectopic pregnancy, and after proper study of the patient and her condition arrives at a conclusion death is inevitable you have both diagnosis and prognosis.

Capisce?

There are a lot of ectopic pregnancies, many undiagnosed. Not all those end in death.

Wow! Since I already pointed that out, how clever of you to discern it.

So how high do the risks need to be to apply the Vern version of Double Effect?

It is the Church who espouses the Principle of Double Effect. It is the physician who estimates the probability of death, and who makes the recommendation. It is the patient (and often her husband) who weigh that information and make the final decision.

Although I point out when death by ruptured fallopian tube is imminent, the risk approaches 100%

By the way, aren’t you the guy who accuses other people of wanting everything in black and white?

Now that you’ve conceded my original point, I’m interested in your “simple” flow chart above. Your interpretation of the principle is, well, unique (and I’ve read many). So I’d like to hear you expand on it.

I’ve conceded nothing – I’ve pointed out how you go in circles and have a tendency to accuse others of what you do yourself.

I’ll bet you argue with your mirror!

 

[RobHom]

Regarding Robhorn’s post…that contraception is better than abortion…please all note…it is one and the same…sorry.
B]*Myth *

: “The ‘morning-after pill,’ RU486, and the IUD are not abortifacient;…et al

No need to apologize…it was my error to not qualify my thoughts.

I had completely forgotten about RU486 and other items.

My idea of “contraception” is “condoms and abstinence”. Thats it.

Beyond that…its downhill and into that dark tunnel.

I hope that clarifies my thoughts.

 

[seekerz]

How did I arrive at what?

Let me explain – neither you nor I provide medical treatment. That is reserved to licensed physicians and other duly qualified personnel. We may, however, be involved in treatment decisions – for example, when my wife had a knee replacement, we talked it over, studied the proceduce and results.

So when a physician diagnoses a tubal ectopic pregnancy, and after proper study of the patient and her condition arrives at a conclusion death is inevitable you have both diagnosis and prognosis.

Capisce?

Wow! Since I already pointed that out, how clever of you to discern it.

It is the Church who espouses the Principle of Double Effect. It is the physician who estimates the probability of death, and who makes the recommendation. It is the patient (and often her husband) who weigh that information and make the final decision.

Although I point out when death by ruptured fallopian tube is imminent, the risk approaches 100%

By the way, aren’t you the guy who accuses other people of wanting everything in black and white?

I’ve conceded nothing – I’ve pointed out how you go in circles and have a tendency to accuse others of what you do yourself.

I’ll bet you argue with your mirror!

First of all, with proper management, the prognosis in unruptured ectopic pregnancy is not death.

Also, what does this statement mean?

Although I point out when death by ruptured fallopian tube is imminent, the risk approaches 100%

Once rupture occurs there are often no longer any morality issues because the pregnancy has burst through the tube. As explained before, the doctor is ethically barred from waiting for rupture before proceeding with treatment, so what the prognosis is at that stage is immaterial to the discussion.

He has no way of knowing before beginning treatment whether an individual patient will bleed massively or slowly after rupture but he does know the risk of death from rupture is high. Short version, he has limited room for individualizing treatment. Unless the pregnancy is caught at a stage where natural resolution seems to be occurring, the rule for ectopic pregnancies is to remove them - not wait to see if they will place the individual mother at imminent risk of death.