Help in replying to a pro-abortion "classmate"

[vern_humphrey]

But neither specifically addresses applications.

But Pius XII does give examples.

Deliberately, we have always used the expression “direct attempt on the life of an innocent person,”, “direct killing”. Because if, for example, the saving of the life of the future mother, independently of her pregnant condition, should urgently require a surgical act or other therapeutic treatment which would have an accessory consequence, in no way desired nor intended, but inevitable, the death of the fetus, such a act could no longer be called a direct attempt on an innocent life

There is no ‘textbook’ example of Double Effect. So far, we have quoted three sources about the principle, two articles and the Catholic Encyclopedia. All three set different basic criteria for even applying the principle.

In the sense that none of these quotes came from textbooks, you are correct. But the phrase “textbook example” is not limited to something from a textbook. In fact the general meaning is that it is something that could be used in a textbook.

As for the rest, help me out – where are the material differences of which you speak?

When something is so vague that it is impossible to even derive consistant basic principles, it’s application in a life and death situation should not be taken likely. Unless, of course, one rejects the Church’s teaching about the importance of fetal life in the first place.

What’s vague about

Deliberately, we have always used the expression “direct attempt on the life of an innocent person,”, “direct killing”. Because if, for example, the saving of the life of the future mother, independently of her pregnant condition, should urgently require a surgical act or other therapeutic treatment which would have an accessory consequence, in no way desired nor intended, but inevitable, the death of the fetus, such a act could no longer be called a direct attempt on an innocent life

But even if we select any of the definitions at random, there are moralists who would strenuously argue that the treatments for ectopic pregnancies do not qualify because a) such pregnancies are not always fatal for the mother and b) the pregnancy itself is the health threat and all treatments lead to fetal death.

That would, of course be a fallacious argument, since

a) if the mother’s life is not threatened, the act is not justified and
b) pregnancy is not such a condition as to justify killing the innocent child.

 

[SoCalRC]

That would, of course be a fallacious argument, since

a) if the mother’s life is not threatened, the act is not justified and
b) pregnancy is not such a condition as to justify killing the innocent child.

Exactly, I’m glad you are starting to get it. Ectopic pregnancies have various outcomes, the worst in rupture, hemorage, and death. But the procedures are all used shortly after detection, before the outcome for the mother is known.

And, of course, we can look closely at what Pope Pius XII said, in particular:

“*ndependently of her pregnant condition”

Cancer could, arguably, meet this. But an ectopic pregnancy is “her pregnant condition”.

Remember, moralists don’t object to this because they hate women and want them to die. They object because it is an application of Double Effect we would reject in almost any other case. For example, you are very fond of the concept that creating jobs and employing people is an excellent way to meet your Christian obligations.

If you do ‘good’ in helping these people keep their jobs by, say, having them use cheap lead paint on children’s toys, poison the city’s water supply through illegal dumping, etc. You could not claim that birth defects, miscarriages, etc. in the community were Double Effect. Not wanting to poison people, not wanting a swamp to leak into the ground water, etc. is not enough.

The concern is that a stretched argument is being used either to ‘fit’ secular medical laws and practices or skirt a distinct Church teaching. In practice, a different interpretation has two possible outcomes. Some mothers might choose to ‘wait and see’, which could result in serious injury or death. The Church has expressly declared that this is a moral course. Or, the mother could procur the procedure, then accept pennance and receive reconcilliation.

Personally, I do not see the latter as a bad thing. Lot’s of Catholics are ready to profess that they ‘believe’ a frozen zygote is a baby. Some, such as yourself, will even state that they see moles and cysts as human beings. But saying things is easy. Accepting an inherently doomed fetus as a human being, even when it presents a risk to your own life (or the life of a loved one) is, as we see so often in the Gospel of Matthew, demonstrating with works, not words.

Best Wishes*

 

[vern_humphrey]

Exactly, I’m glad you are starting to get it. Ectopic pregnancies have various outcomes, the worst in rupture, hemorage, and death. But the procedures are all used shortly after detection, before the outcome for the mother is known.

Wow! Did you think I didn’t know that?

And, of course, we can look closely at what Pope Pius XII said, in particular:

“*ndependently of her pregnant condition”

Cancer could, arguably, meet this. But an ectopic pregnancy is “her pregnant condition”. *
So you say. But the ectopic nature, not the pregnancy, is the issue. The child developing in the fallopian tube is a separate issue from basic pregnancy.
SoCalRC;2656063:

Remember, moralists don’t object to this because they hate women and want them to die. They object because it is an application of Double Effect we would reject in almost any other case. For example, you are very fond of the concept that creating jobs and employing people is an excellent way to meet your Christian obligations.

If you do ‘good’ in helping these people keep their jobs by, say, having them use cheap lead paint on children’s toys, poison the city’s water supply through illegal dumping, etc. You could not claim that birth defects, miscarriages, etc. in the community were Double Effect. Not wanting to poison people, not wanting a swamp to leak into the ground water, etc. is not enough.

I don’t follow you - no one is using lead-based paint, and so on in Pius XII’s comments, and no one is using it in dealing with an ectopic (tubal) pregnancy.

The concern is that a stretched argument is being used either to ‘fit’ secular medical laws and practices or skirt a distinct Church teaching. In practice, a different interpretation has two possible outcomes. Some mothers might choose to ‘wait and see’, which could result in serious injury or death. The Church has expressly declared that this is a moral course. Or, the mother could procur the procedure, then accept pennance and receive reconcilliation.

No – it’s as legitimate as say a morphine drip for a patient dying of pancreatic cancer.

Personally, I do not see the latter as a bad thing. Lot’s of Catholics are ready to profess that they ‘believe’ a frozen zygote is a baby. Some, such as yourself, will even state that they see moles and cysts as human beings. But saying things is easy. Accepting an inherently doomed fetus as a human being, even when it presents a risk to your own life (or the life of a loved one) is, as we see so often in the Gospel of Matthew, demonstrating with works, not words.

Best Wishes

And how do we not accept that an inherently doomed child is not human?

 

[DanB]

“But the life of the child takes precedence over all opinions. One cannot invoke freedom of thought to destroy this life.” (emphasis in the article, not in the original)

I have been trying to follow your threads. Being succinct isn’t your forte’.

So, now that you have rambled on in your dissertation, the question posed to you is, regardless of your gender. You are pregnant, have uterine and/or an ectopic pregnancy of which both will kill you and your fetus if you don’t get it surgically repaired. Regardless of your interpretation of Church doctrine, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO?

 

[DanB]

Okay SoCalRC,
Times up! Unless you are writing a book to answer my question of what you would do, I am sending a priest to administer the last rites to you and yours.

 

[SoCalRC]

I have been trying to follow your threads. Being succinct isn’t your forte’.

Believe it or not it is actually easy for me to speak in sharp, short, sound bites. But being accurate concerning complex subjects in such a format is beyond my skill.

So, now that you have rambled on in your dissertation, the question posed to you is, regardless of your gender. You are pregnant, have uterine and/or an ectopic pregnancy of which both will kill you and your fetus if you don’t get it surgically repaired. Regardless of your interpretation of Church doctrine, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO?

I cannot say what I will do in a future moral situations because they are generally complex. The best I can do is go over past choices by myself and people very close to me.

When my wife was having serious complications with a very high risk pregnancy, we both agreed to let the pregnancy proceed. I freely admit that at some very low points, my faith wavered. Had certain situations deteriorated and the decision fallen soley into my hands, I cannot say with certainty what decisions I would have made. Fortunately, my wife recovered, but could/can no longer bear children. Our son is severely developmentally disabled, but like his sisters, is one of the bright lights in my life.

Since then, we have had ectopic pregnancies close to home twice. In one case, a family member chose ‘wait and see’. In that case, the pregnancy naturally ended, with some internal damage. However, although it was a struggle, she and her husband have since had their first child.

In the other instance, a close family friend, because of her widow status and two small children, opted for a chemical treatment. Although (as I have shown), some Catholic care profiders argue that even this is permissible under double effect, she confessed the sin of procurred abortion and then reconciled with the Church. In her mind, selecting a surgical procedure would have been a compounding sin, because it would have left her sterile. Also, she was greatly concerned about her children so she saw no sense in opting for higher risk.

I, myself, am currently refusing a medial treatment because of the moral implications of it’s development. However, although my condition is not trivial it is also not life threatening, so it is not in the same moral catagory. However, I am mentioning it because the decision is largely because of my prior experiences.

One of the ways I cope with stressful situations is to study. So, having been close to these issues, it is probably obvious why I am so familiar with so many of the Church and theological writings on the matter. Truth be told, I was originally studying primarily to convince someone I love dearly not to ‘wait and see’. This person was, in turn, was partially inspired by our (well, my wife’s, I’ve admitted I wavered) decision with our son. However, with a seemingly hopeless pregnancy I truly did not see the point.

I eventually came to accept that the Church has refrained from drawing distinct lines for a reason. Some decisions ultimately must be a person’s best understanding of what God expects of them. So I stopped pestering and put my energy into prayer and support.

You are asking for a short, clear answer. I have none. I have two examples in my life where two different decisions were made and I am equally sure that both were made from the heart and with tremendous consideration to faith. It is not my place to judge, but my suspician is that both woman are more likely to go through the “narrow gate” we heard about in last Sunday’s Gospel reading than I.

The most direct consequence of all my study is that I have changed my own paperwork regarding end-of-life wishes and refused medical treatment I believe to be born from grave sin. So, while the detail and volume may seem a waste worth scorning to you, for me it has provided a few small steps closer God. That is the spirit in which I try to share it. I cannot help how it is received.

Certainly, this response, with admitting my own weakness regarding grave sin, opening moral decisions of people I care deeply about to the scrutiny of complete strangers, arming people who seem to not be above taking jabs at other’s hearts with the knowledge of my son’s disability - the perfect pointy stick, was not easy for me to write. But someone who presumably professes to be my brother in faith each week asked, so I believe I am compelled to answer honestly.

May the Peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you always.

 

[seekerz]

So you say. But the ectopic nature, not the pregnancy, is the issue. The child developing in the fallopian tube is a separate issue from basic pregnancy.

Exactly, the child developing in the tube is the problem, not necessarily the tube itself. Which is what I’ve struggled most with in the application of the PDE.

Early in many tubal pregnancies, there is no “disease” of the tube, unless the pregnancy in the tube is itself considered a disease. Some tubes are have preexisting disease or scarring, but that in itself would not merit removal if the pregnancy were not in it.

So the basic dilemma is one of removing a pregnancy that’s in the wrong location because of harm it may (or may not) cause the mother?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Exactly, the child developing in the tube is the problem, not necessarily the tube itself. Which is what I’ve struggled most with in the application of the PDE.

Early in many tubal pregnancies, there is no “disease” of the tube, unless the pregnancy in the tube is itself considered a disease. Some tubes are have preexisting disease or scarring, but that in itself would not merit removal if the pregnancy were not in it.

So the basic dilemma is one of removing a pregnancy that’s in the wrong location because of harm it may (or may not) cause the mother?

The standard requires it be life-threatening to both mother and child. And it is that status that makes pregnancy not the issue. And, of course, the surgery must be done to save the mother’s life, with the death of the child being an unwanted but inevitible end – with or without treatment.

So if we postulate a tubal pregnancy which is not life-threatening, then the surgery would be morally impermissible.

 

[SoCalRC]

So if we postulate a tubal pregnancy which is not life-threatening, then the surgery would be morally impermissible.

It is more complicated. Some untreated, or belatedly treated, ectopic pregancies do result in death. But the outcome varies wildly. Some woman suffer no long term effects, some become sterile, etc.

So, at most, we can only say that, upon early detection (now the norm here in the US), an ectopic pregancy is potentially life threatening. That is why some moralists object on the 4th general Double Effect test. We know the fetus will die, we do not know how much positive effect, if any, is gained for the mother. That is because treatment is not deferred, but administered on detection for best outcome for one of the patients.

However, I believe that Seekerz concerns are closer to another of the tests, that the act itself be directly of good effect. Moralists argue that none of the three treatments are, in of themselves, directly of good effect. In fact, the one you are most comfortable with is actually prohibited, in of itself. A non defective tube is removed, partially sterilizing the woman. They argue that the ‘good’, elliminating a potential threat to the woman’s health, is wholly derived from the removal of the fetus - which is expressly prohibited by Church decree.

 

[vern_humphrey]

It is more complicated. Some untreated, or belatedly treated, ectopic pregancies do result in death. But the outcome varies wildly. Some woman suffer no long term effects, some become sterile, etc.

Here’s what I wrote:

So if we postulate a tubal pregnancy which is not life-threatening, then the surgery would be morally impermissible.

So, at most, we can only say that, upon early detection (now the norm here in the US), an ectopic pregancy is potentially life threatening. That is why some moralists object on the 4th general Double Effect test. We know the fetus will die, we do not know how much positive effect, if any, is gained for the mother. That is treatment is not deferred, but administered on detection for best outcome for one of the patients.

We’re not performing real surgery over the internet. We’re discussing ethical and moral questions.

However, I believe that Seekerz concerns are closer to another of the tests, that the act itself be directly of good effect. Moralists argue that none of the three treatments are, in of themselves, directly of good effect. In fact, the one you are most comfortable with is actually prohibited, in of itself. A non defective tube is removed, partially sterilizing the woman. They argue that the ‘good’, elliminating a potential threat to the woman’s health, is wholly derived from the removal of the fetus - which is expressly prohibited by Church decree.

Note the conditions I stated –

The standard requires it be life-threatening to both mother and child. And it is that status that makes pregnancy not the issue. And, of course, the surgery must be done to save the mother’s life, with the death of the child being an unwanted but inevitible end – with or without treatment.

If those conditions do not hold, the surgery is not moral.

 

[Delphinus85]

The fetus does show certain reflexive responses, but there is little biological evidence to suggest that it is at all aware. Again, we can now scan the brain in ways that we could not imagine just a few years ago. At 9 weeks, there are neurons, but no synapses.

So, when doctors scan, we see no corresponding brain activity to match the reflexive actions. No offense intended, but the best example might be a chicken. It’s body can perform fairly complex actions, like running, even after decapitation.

I happen to feel the Church has this right. Just as conciousness does not really match our moral obligations at end of life, I do not think it is a proper measure for conception to birth issues either.

Best Regards

But doesn’t the arguement of “self aware” break down as soon as you start talking about mental patients who are not self aware? Does that give anyone the ability to end their life? It seems it is only okay to dispose of a mental patient if he or she is still in the womb, but does it make a difference if that person is never self aware, if we kill them in the womb or after birth?

I think that the best arguement I have heard is that life is technically “over” when the heart stops beating. When that happens a person is clinically dead. So doesn’t it make all logical sense that life should begin when the heart starts beating? That happens usually a week before the woman even misses her period which is when pregnancy “technically” begins. So there is a separate beating heart even before there is a techincal pregnancy.

Don’t get me wrong, I think life begins at conception, but this arguement doesn’t work there.

This may be off topic, but I think if we are ever going to do anything to stop this issue, we need to argue as much away from religion as possible. It’s obious the supporters of abortion don’t care about divine law.

 

[SoCalRC]

But doesn’t the arguement of “self aware” break down as soon as you start talking about mental patients who are not self aware?

That is not really the ‘concious’ test medical ethicists use. More of, ‘can the brain perform higher functions’. Even in a coma, until the brain atrophies, higher functions can potentially occur.

The ‘heart test’ used to be what we used. But now we not only revive people whose hearts stop, we can largely keep a heart beating indefinately with the right medical care.

I know that St. Johns Seminary here in CA teaches a course on this sort of bioethics. If you like, I can see about getting a copy of the course material and reading list.

Best Regards

 

[s4angel]

What is self aware and how do we know if a person is self aware??

 

[SoCalRC]

We’re not performing real surgery over the internet. We’re discussing ethical and moral questions.

But we are talking about a specific situation, ectopic pregnancy. We don’t have to postulate how they are treated, even in Catholic hospitals. We can read about it, right here, in the article you told me to go find via Catholic Answers:

cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=57

Near the beginning:

“A mother facing a tubal pregnancy risks imminent rupture of the fallopian tube”

Notice it doesn’t say death. The tube will likely rupture (but in some cases not, the pregnancy sometimes ends naturally before that point). One possible outcome of a rupture is death, but it is not the only outcome. Next:

“The Church has moral principles that can be applied in ruling out some options, but she has not officially instructed the faithful as to which treatments are morally licit and which are illicit.”

This is close to what I first said, and something you have vehemently disagreed with ever since. Finally:

“As is the case with all difficult moral decisions, the couple must become informed, actively seek divine guidance, and follow their well-formed conscience.”

This, of course, has been my ongoing advice. Now, to your current swipes and objections, scroll further and you’ll find:

“Catholic moralists generally assume in their discussion of treatments for ectopic pregnancy that treatment will not be postponed.” (emphasis added).

and

“Other options are generally not even considered, because the standard [medical] protocol calls for only one of the three treatments that have been discussed thus far.”

If the above is not clear, I’ll put it ‘succinctly’. Everything I have asserted can be found via Catholic Answers, precisely where you sent me when ectopic pregnancies were first broached.

If you changed your mind about what constitutes a reliable source, that’s fine. Just let us know. Having you repeatedly contest your own suggested source just gives the impression that you are more interested in debate and conflict than the actual subject at hand.

Best Wishes

 

[SoCalRC]

This may be off topic, but I think if we are ever going to do anything to stop this issue, we need to argue as much away from religion as possible. It’s obious the supporters of abortion don’t care about divine law.

Actually, that is waaay closer to the original topic. And I’m often thinking about it. Honestly, I’m with some others in thinking that you cannot directly win this debate with secular arguments.

But, I’m also in agreement with you that it cannot be won on religious grounds.

I think that our best course is to demonstrate our love of life in as many ways as possible. Basically, widen the debate. And, put our efforts behind our own faith. We know that effort in service to others, social justice, etc. do cut down on abortions. And, it is work we are called to do directly by Jesus.

I know that many Catholics are certain that the answer lies in secular law. But look at what has been covered here. We had a theocratic Catholic state impose a 3 year absolute ban. But even with the possibility of death, it was a failure. The principal effect was that it drove people away from confession and the Church.

That’s why I think efforts are best spent helping lowering the pressures (poverty, financial stress), providing support for pregnant women in distress, and providing alternatives like adoption.

But that is just my opinion.

Best Regards

 

[vern_humphrey]

Actually, that is waaay closer to the original topic. And I’m often thinking about it. Honestly, I’m with some others in thinking that you cannot directly win this debate with secular arguments.

You win it by showing how the right to life is a basic human right – and if all of us do not have the right to life, none of us have it.

 

[fix]

I would probably phrase it that Rome has stated that there are situations where fetal death is not a direct abortion and moral. But, has, at least at present, to weigh in on specific applications of this principle, but yes, the concept is Church doctrine.

You may phrase it that way but there is no evidence indirect abortion has been taught as illicit or intrinsically evil. I found this on the vatican website it refers to some errors in a book by a priest/theologian:

In his discussion of the possibility of medical intervention in some very difficult cases, it is not clear whether he is referring to what has traditionally been called “indirect abortion”, or if he admits the lawfulness of procedures which do not come under this category.

From that one quote it seems Rome admits indirect abortion is licit.

For some examples of why it is so difficult to know where, exactly, the lines are, look at the article you cited. In refuting a particular application of “Natural Law”, the article quoted the Church’s DECLARATION ON PROCURRED ABORTION (1974):

“But the life of the child takes precedence over all opinions. One cannot invoke freedom of thought to destroy this life.” (emphasis in the article, not in the original)

The Church has made some incredibly strong statements about fetal life, particularly since Roe v. Wade. This is understandable because it is nearly innocent (original sin), defenseless, human life in our eyes. Also, the Church has expressly stated that the mother’s life is equal, neither more or less important.

For another example, look at the explanation of Double Effect. The four criteria are slightly different from what you will find in the Catholic Encyclopedia. For example, the fourth criteria is stated as:

“There must be a resonably grave reason for permitting the evil effect.”

But the Encyclopedia phrases it as:

“That the good effect be as important at least as the evil effect.”

In the case of fetal death, this seemingly sets the bar at different places. Which is right? The article cites a book whose author, in turn, interpretted a number of moralists. The Catholic Encyclopedia does not source its interpretion. If you actually dig through the history of the concept, you can find citations to support either. In the case of conflicting tradition, we normally look to the Magesterium but the Encyclopedia does not carry the weight of a decree, encyclical, or papal bull.

My point remains that these are grave situations and the people involved must follow their concience. But given the wide variation of interpretations one can receive from different Catholic organizations (but not the Church), I would strongly encourage seeking the direct council of one’s pastor. And, should any doubts remain, I would strongly encourage seeking reconcilliation.

Best Regards

All medical/moral decsions may be very complex. The Church cannot speak to each case. She gives guidelines with definite boundaries.

 

[SoCalRC]

You may phrase it that way but there is no evidence indirect abortion has been taught as illicit or intrinsically evil.

Actually, then Cardinal Ratzinberger phrased it that way. I just left out the quote marks. With all respect, are you even reading my posts? The question isn’t rather or not indirect abortion is evil, the question is what is and what is not direct abortion.

All medical/moral decsions may be very complex. The Church cannot speak to each case. She gives guidelines with definite boundaries.

Well, we’ve already shown that the ‘boundaries’ most often being bandied about in these theoretical situations are represented somewhat differently by each source presented. Further, the majority of the articles (perhaps all, I’d have to go back and review) attribute them to ‘moralists’ and note that the Church has not spoken as to rather or not given applications are licit.

If it helps you to believe that there are clear and “definite boundaries”, be my guest. But I’ve posted the guidelines from the Church already in this thread. Most articles go to ‘moralists’ for further guidance, and the interpretations of what those moralists say varies.

Best Regards

 

[SoCalRC]

You win it by showing how the right to life is a basic human right – and if all of us do not have the right to life, none of us have it.

So how do you feel about the death penalty?

 

[fix]

It is more complicated. Some untreated, or belatedly treated, ectopic pregancies do result in death. But the outcome varies wildly. Some woman suffer no long term effects, some become sterile, etc.

So, at most, we can only say that, upon early detection (now the norm here in the US), an ectopic pregancy is potentially life threatening. That is why some moralists object on the 4th general Double Effect test. We know the fetus will die, we do not know how much positive effect, if any, is gained for the mother. That is because treatment is not deferred, but administered on detection for best outcome for one of the patients.

This is why it must be a case by case issue. One needs to have the opinion of the treating physician. While that opinion is not infallible it is very necessary to have to make the correct moral decision.