Help in replying to a pro-abortion "classmate"

[vern_humphrey]

So this figure of 95% is the risk of death from tubal pregnancies?
In about two minutes I found estimates of from 50% to close to that – I suppose I could put in an hour and find the site that gives the higher figure.

Why are you so interested in this?
seekerz;2673162:

I’m asking whether the Magesterium directs us to use the principle of double effect in deciding on treatment of ectopic pregnancy. The reason I ask is that some articles I’ve read use it to declare chemical treatment illicit while at least one I’ve read uses the principle to declare the same treatment licit.

The phrase “the Magisterium directs us” is essentially meaningless. No bishop comes down and says, “In this case, use the Principle of Double Effect, but not for the patient in the next bed. For that other patient, flip a coin.”

The Principle of Double Effect exists, is cited at once in the Catechism, and is often used in cases like those we’re talking about.

Notice that above-mentioned articles, written, I presume by those with the necessary knowledge (I could provide links if you desire), apply the principle to the condition as a whole - not leaving it to be decided on a case by case basis.

Even if a qualified physician says the mother’s life is not in danger?

So I guess I’m puzzled as to whether there is an official directive to the whole Church that does the same: applies the principle to the condition rather than leave it to the individual and her doctor to choose which treatments they deem best.

Does the Church tell us what to do in all cases involving surgery? Does it tell us what to do in every case of self defense?

I note that one poster here accuses his opponents of wanting everything in black-and-white – and I presume if they do, that indicates a flaw in their characters.

So why do you deman everything be in black-and-white?

I would be disappointed to find that different modes of treatment are deemed licit/illicit in different diocese. After all, we are talking about the same medical condition.

Perhaps, then, you will be disappointed. Bishops have great power and not all of them see the situation the same way.

 

[seekerz]

seekerz;2673162:

So this figure of 95% is the risk of deat

h from tubal pregnancies?
In about two minutes I found estimates of from 50% to close to that – I suppose I could put in an hour and find the site that gives the higher figure.

Why are you so interested in this?

The phrase “the Magisterium directs us” is essentially meaningless. No bishop comes down and says, “In this case, use the Principle of Double Effect, but not for the patient in the next bed. For that other patient, flip a coin.”

The Principle of Double Effect exists, is cited at once in the Catechism, and is often used in cases like those we’re talking about.

Even if a qualified physician says the mother’s life is not in danger?

Does the Church tell us what to do in all cases involving surgery? Does it tell us what to do in every case of self defense?

I note that one poster here accuses his opponents of wanting everything in black-and-white – and I presume if they do, that indicates a flaw in their characters.

So why do you deman everything be in black-and-white?

Perhaps, then, you will be disappointed. Bishops have great power and not all of them see the situation the same way.

This is not about wanting things black and white, this is about conflicting opinions on a matter of mortal sin.

On another thread, a poster was accused of being pro-abortion because she did not accept that surgical removal was the only licit means of treating an ectopic.

I was accused of pride in a previous discussion because I came to the conclusion that the morality of various treatments of this condition rests with each person’s conscience.

This isn’t quite the same as having one’s gallbladder out.

And yes, the Church does rule definitively on some surgical procedures such as tubal ligation and abortion and on medical interventions such as birth control. Those are illicit the world over, regardless of risk to mother’s life from pregnancy or STD’s.

 

[vern_humphrey]

This is not about wanting things black and white, this is about conflicting opinions on a matter of mortal sin.

What conflicting opinions? How does all this nonsense about what a tubal ectopic pregnancy is, demands for exact mortality figures, and so on relate to “conflicting opinions on a matter of mortal sin?”

On another thread, a poster was accused of being pro-abortion because she did not accept that surgical removal was the only licit means of treating an ectopic.

Aside from the fact that cross-threading is against the rules, why bring that up?

I was accused of pride in a previous discussion because I came to the conclusion that the morality of various treatments of this condition rests with each person’s conscience.

Take that up with the guy who accused you.

This isn’t quite the same as having one’s gallbladder out.

Well, duh!

And yes, the Church does rule definitively on some surgical procedures such as tubal ligation and abortion and on medical interventions such as birth control. Those are illicit the world over, regardless of risk to mother’s life from pregnancy or STD’s.

Note the word I put in bold above.

Actions whose aim is to save human life do not fall into the category of the procedures you have listed – those can never be held to save lives.

 

[SoCalRC]

Not answering questions is your tactic, seekerz. If you want other people to accord you the courtesy of answering your questions then set a good example by answering their questions too.

Answer this question for example – one that I asked you days ago and have been asking you numerous times: What is your understanding of the social contract in which you are a participant?

But that does not invalidate his point in this case. Vern is now citing lots of statistics, but none remotely match his previous claim - which, I should point out, despite multiple previous assertions, he is now trying to rewrite.

Try to think about it dispassionately. How can anyone take Vern’s finding a figure of “50%” from the 1800s as anything remotely close to his repeated claim of 95%-100% today? Just look at pre/post WW-II maternal childbirth deaths, which are largely do to the same shock and hemoraging issues. We went from thousands eacy year to hundreds, just from the introduction of antibiotics.

It isn’t just a side issue. It is central to his point. He has repeatedly asserted that double effect almost assuredly applies because of imminent mortal danger to the mother. I have repeatedly asked, how high does he think that the risk must be for his application of double effect to be valid? He has replied, along with quips about everything from my faith to my intelligence, duh - near certainty…

If the number is, in fact, far from near certainty (ie, no “prognosis of death”), his previous reasoning would not hold true. But I think that the more important issue is the continued assertion of a lie to fellow Catholics on a grave subject.

Remember, Seekerz and I are expressing doubt on the side of fetal life. These doubts aren’t novel, you’ll find them in the documents others have cited, and the Church has refrained from taking a position. Vern is arguing that there is no moral ambiguity. Despite calling us pro-abortionists, it is he who is making light of fetal death. Differing on moral interpretation is one thing, but bearing false witness? To fellow Catholics? In regards to an infallible teaching?

I think that goes beyond a difference of opinion.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Remember, Seekerz and I are expressing doubt on the side of fetal life.

No, you’re not – you’re just trying to pick a fight.

 

[RNMom4Life]

To all you posters…how did you get away from the simple original question…“How do you reply to Classmates…” My goodness, you have all gone off on arguments that are not very relevant to the initial question. This seems to be a personal who knows more chalenge re. theology and medicine…citing internet answers probably from google…etc. I think it’s time to end the debate. You are all good posters God bless you but please, before you become prideful and un-Christian…say goodbye.

 

[vern_humphrey]

To all you posters…how did you get away from the simple original question…“How do you reply to Classmates…” My goodness, you have all gone off on arguments that are not very relevant to the initial question. This seems to be a personal who knows more chalenge re. theology and medicine…citing internet answers probably from google…etc. I think it’s time to end the debate. You are all good posters God bless you but please, before you become prideful and un-Christian…say goodbye.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

I made two key posts here – one a historical tour d’ horizon of early Catholic discussions of abortion, the other an argument derived from the Constitution and the concept of human rights.

 

[seekerz]

You are all good posters God bless you but please, before you become prideful and un-Christian…say goodbye.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

I made two key posts here – one a historical tour d’ horizon of early Catholic discussions of abortion, the other an argument derived from the Constitution and the concept of human rights.

:doh2:

 

[vern_humphrey]

:doh2:

You just can’t leave it alone, can you?

 

[Amolibri]

You just can’t leave it alone, can you?

Can you??? :

 

[vern_humphrey]

Can you???

I can if you can.

 

[SoCalRC]

No, you’re not – you’re just trying to pick a fight.

Vern. You’ve called me names and you’ve attacked my faith. But it doesn’t change the bottom line. You based your reasoning on demonstrably a false assumption.

When Seekerz challenged you, you invented a statistic. Since that statistic was challenged, how have you responded? We can no longer call this ignorance or wishful thinking, it is a lie. You are being willfully deceitful.

I think that actual says loads about why this cannot usually be debated with a classmate, but I’ll leave people to ponder that for themselves.

I will note one thing. Aside from trying to respect my faith one reason that I have tried to stomach your ongoing nasty and hateful slurs is that I have seen posts like this one:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2248992&postcount=5

Where you seem to imply that you, like I, am a Vietnam vet. I admit, I had my doubts about the whole ‘victim’ claim. The Vietnam era abusing-the-troops-back-home thing has always been more urban legend and revisionist history than fact - I mysef walked Telegraph Rd. and most of the Berkley campus in uniform looking for a high school friend and didn’t get so much as a snide remark.

But there were millions of us and plenty came home feeling lost, angry, and dejected. So if there are lots of annecdotes of confrontations with virtually no police records or hospital records to match (Catholic or not, I cannot imagine that any incident involving someone, say, spitting on me would have ended in anything less), so be it. Anger has to go some where.

But rather you were ever an abused vet or not, I’d bet good money you were never a Marine. I knew it the instant I read your response to my father’s quote.

 

[RNMom4Life]

My dear friends…enough already! Stop the bickering among yourselves or the only winner in this debate is satan.
You have left the topic altogether. If you must…continue it at the water cooler or the back fence.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern. You’ve called me names and you’ve attacked my faith. But it doesn’t change the bottom line. You based your reasoning on demonstrably a false assumption

Please list all the names I called you. Post a quote where I challenged your faith.

When Seekerz challenged you, you invented a statistic. Since that statistic was challenged, how have you responded? We can no longer call this ignorance or wishful thinking, it is a lie. You are being willfully deceitful.

In fact, I found a bunch of sites which give different statistics.

Now, are you calling me a liar?

I think that actual says loads about why this cannot usually be debated with a classmate, but I’ll leave people to ponder that for themselves.

I will note one thing. Aside from trying to respect my faith one reason that I have tried to stomach your ongoing nasty and hateful slurs is that I have seen posts like this one:

Nasty and hateful like claiming someone called you names and “attacked your faith?”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2248992&postcount=5

Where you seem to imply that you, like I, am a Vietnam vet. I admit, I had my doubts about the whole ‘victim’ claim. The Vietnam era abusing-the-troops-back-home thing has always been more urban legend and revisionist history than fact - I mysef walked Telegraph Rd. and most of the Berkley campus in uniform looking for a high school friend and didn’t get so much as a snide remark.

But there were millions of us and plenty came home feeling lost, angry, and dejected. So if there are lots of annecdotes of confrontations with virtually no police records or hospital records to match (Catholic or not, I cannot imagine that any incident involving someone, say, spitting on me would have ended in anything less), so be it. Anger has to go some where.

But rather you were ever an abused vet or not, I’d bet good money you were never a Marine. I knew it the instant I read your response to my father’s quote.

Where are you coming up with this garbage? When did I claim to be a Marine?

(I did, however, serve in the 1st Bde, 5th Infantry Division, which was part of the 3rd Marine Division – one of only two Army-Marine divisions ever to see combat.)

You made this personal from the outset with your nasty attacks.

 

[fix]

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

As has been pointed out in several threads the Church tells us we should try and save both lives. If one dies as an unintended consequence of treating the disease process one is acting justly.

If you want specifics you need to give more details.

 

[vern_humphrey]

As has been pointed out in several threads the Church tells us we should try and save both lives. If one dies as an unintended consequence of treating the disease process one is acting justly.

If you want specifics you need to give more details.

In cases where competent, experienced physicians see the death of both mother and child as highly likely, measures to save one are not prohibited, even if both cannot be saved – so long as the intent is to save one, not to kill the other.

If we can step back from this emotional issue for a moment and examine the principle of double effect in another context, I suggest we look at this from the Catechism:

2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of “over-zealous” treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.

2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.

In other words, where death is seen as inevatible, our aim should be to provide comfort and dignity to the dying – so long as we do not intend to cause death.

 

[SoCalRC]

Now, are you calling me a liar?

Yes.

And that’s the problem with made up facts, once someone sees you tenaciously sticking to an obvious lie, the natural reaction is to start to view everything you say with great suspician.

RNMom4Life: I am sorry to have caused you distress. Your calls for unity and peace are appreciated, even if they have not been heeded. Try to understand, when Vern was calling me “pro abortion” above, it helped me tremendously in dismissing his remarks to think of him as a fellow vet.

However, once I saw him cling doggedly to an outright silly lie, I started to consider the worst. Suddenly, his comments about service seemed a little too pat, more like repeating something he had heard on talk radio than personal experience. You probably will not understand, but I had to know. The only way to explain it is to say, I was there.

That is why you will see me saddened by the constant moral comparisons between attrocities in other threads. In 4 years in Vietnam the 1/9 had about 750 "KIA"s. 750 sounds like nothing when you look at 50,000 US casualties, or the millions of lives the war claimed. But consider this, a battalion only consisted of about 800 men. They weren’t some stereotype, they were individuals. Human beings, unique creations of God. I don’t think it is possible to see that much human suffering and not be changed.

Granted, people are changed in different ways. Me, I’ve been screaming about helmet liners, body armor, and VA hospital conditions in recent years, and I am openly disdainful of civilian authority when I think politics are put ahead of troop welfare. Others certainly can and do feel quite differently. But just the idea of someone possibly pretending to be a vet to further an ideological point of view absolutely consumes me with rage. Good Catholic behavior? Absolutely not, but once I suspected I had to dig, I had to know.

Fix: I have no idea what details you want. If you have specific questions, I can probably answer them. I am very familiar with both situations.

 

[SoCalRC]

In cases where competent, experienced physicians see the death of both mother and child as highly likely, measures to save one are not prohibited, even if both cannot be saved – so long as the intent is to save one, not to kill the other.

Which again brings up the question, how “likely” do you think something needs to be before the principle can be morally applied?

RNMom is correct, this is purely circular. You can keep repeating your reasoning, but if you won’t refine your terms there is no way to try practical applications. I’d unquestionably think more of your if you had just owned up to an obviously invented statistic. But I would also have been at your jugular if you had not been more specific with regards to your military service.

In any event, there is not point in repeating what has already been said.

 

[fix]

In cases where competent, experienced physicians see the death of both mother and child as highly likely, measures to save one are not prohibited, even if both cannot be saved – so long as the intent is to save one, not to kill the other.

Yes, is that not what I said? If it is not medically possible to save both then one would die. The intention is important as well as the means.

If we can step back from this emotional issue for a moment and examine the principle of double effect in another context, I suggest we look at this from the Catechism:

In other words, where death is seen as inevatible, our aim should be to provide comfort and dignity to the dying – so long as we do not intend to cause death.

Again, I agree.

 

[fix]

Fix: I have no idea what details you want. If you have specific questions, I can probably answer them. I am very familiar with both situations.

You linked me to a general question and I gave a general answer. If you want a more specfic answer you need to offer more details about a case.