Help in replying to a pro-abortion "classmate"

[SoCalRC]

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.

The physician cannot tell you what the outcome of a tubal pregancy will be. An honest physician will tell you the range of possible outcomes and their statistical probability.

Listen, I know you want this to be clear cut. Sin/not sin. But try to simply put yourself in the place as described in all the articles presented so far. You are pregnant and the fetus is doomed. If you let the pregnancy proceed you run a high probability that your fel. tube will rupture. If that occurs, you run a risk of serious injury, sterility, and possibly even death. So what do you do?

Some people here are under the impression that the Church has approved one treatement. But that is not true. According to CHA, three treatments may be available to you via Double Effect but he Church has not ruled on any of the three. Secular society considers all three abortions. So again, what would you do, and why?

Edit: I am not trying to put you on the spot. Read above, I have been close to two different decisions in this case. I could not say if either was more morally correct than the other. I want to hear what you would do, not your assertion that the Church is ‘definate’.

Best Wishes

 

[vern_humphrey]

So how do you feel about the death penalty?

The right to self-defense is inherent in the right to life. Just war and the execution of a dangerous, duly convicted heinous criminal, when necessary to protect society, are acts of collective self-defense.

 

[SoCalRC]

The right to self-defense is inherent in the right to life. Just war and the execution of a dangerous, duly convicted heinous criminal, when necessary to protect society, are acts of collective self-defense.

So you are aserting that Pope John Paul II was incorrect when he rejected this argument in Evangelium Vitae?

He asserted that there is no justification for terminating a prisoner’s life if incarceration or other means can be used to protect society.

 

[vern_humphrey]

So you are aserting that Pope John Paul II was incorrect when he rejected this argument in Evangelium Vitae?

He asserted that there is no justification for terminating a prisoner’s life if incarceration or other means can be used to protect society.

Knock, knock!!

What did I just say?

Just war and the execution of a dangerous, duly convicted heinous criminal, when necessary to protect society, are acts of collective self-defense.

Did you miss the part in bold?

 

[fix]

The physician cannot tell you what the outcome of a tubal pregancy will be.

Not in each case, but depending on the history of the patient it is possible to make an educated guess. That is why case by case is necessary. It also depends how far along things are.

An honest physician will tell you the range of possible outcomes and their statistical probability.

In general yes, but the clinical history of the patient and the judgment of the physician play a role.

Listen, I know you want this to be clear cut.

I am saying the opposite. I am saying each case is different.

Sin/not sin. But try to simply put yourself in the place as described in all the articles presented so far. You are pregnant and the fetus is doomed. If you let the pregnancy proceed you run a high probability that your fel. tube will rupture. If that occurs, you run a risk of serious injury, sterility, and possibly even death. So what do you do?

It depends on what information the doctor gives us. I see you want to make every single case the same. They are not.

Some people here are under the impression that the Church has approved one treatement. But that is not true. According to CHA, three treatments may be available to you via Double Effect but he Church has not ruled on any of the three.

Let us be clear even surgical excision of part of the tube may be a direct abortion depending on certain conditions. We have several elements to consider including the intention of the patient and the doctor.

Secular society considers all three abortions.

Yep, they would think, but that is a different issue.

So again, what would you do, and why?

Give me specific details and I will tell you.

 

[fix]

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.

Honestly, what I am reading is that you are all over the place. You may want to make a larger point, but I am not seeing it yet.

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.

That is true in almost every single teaching. That does not make each side right.

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.

Science changes rapidly.

If it helps you to believe that there are clear and “definite boundaries”, be my guest.

So, we cannot know direct abortion?

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.

There will always be challenges as science moves forward. That does not mean we are left to wander around without being able to make good decisions.

I tell you even if the Vatican tomorrow gave a detailed and specfic document on this topic the next years would find people claiming the opposite.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Honestly, what I am reading is that you are all over the place. You may want to make a larger point, but I am not seeing it yet.

You picked up on that, too, eh?

You cite a source, and he pretends it was an authority (as in my cite of Tertullian.) But nothing he says offers a position relative to this thread.

 

[SoCalRC]

Knock, knock!!

What did I just say?

Did you miss the part in bold?

Oh, so you are asserting that we apply the death penalty in the US based on societal risk? That is, uh, novel.

Statistically, we appear to have a greater correlation between ethnicity and socio economic status and our seeking the death penalty than the actual acts committed.

Also, in a fair number of cases where we seek it, a verdict of life in prison is returned. Their appears to be no statistical differnce in the risk of society of as a whole.

The majority opinion in the Supreme Court decision reinstating it asserted that it is almost certain that the death penalty is more expensive, is not a deterrent, and costs the lives of innocents.

We execute people because we find their crimes particularly heinous. Why not just be intellectually honest?

You could make a better case that terminating ectopic pregancies is ‘self defense’. In fact, some moralists have made that argument.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Oh, so you are asserting that we apply the death penalty in the US based on societal risk? That is, uh, novel.

With Christian charity, I point out to you that you did not ask me the basis of applying the death penalty in the US. You asked me my position on the death penalty.

Please do not use this reprehensible tactic again.

You could make a better case that terminating ectopic pregancies is ‘self defense’. In fact, some moralists have made that argument.

Except one of the standards for self-defense is that it is used against an unjust aggressor.

 

[fix]

You could make a better case that terminating ectopic pregancies is ‘self defense’. In fact, some moralists have made that argument.

They can make it, but it will not be consistent with Church teaching. The fetus is not pathology, or an unjust aggressor.

 

[fix]

You picked up on that, too, eh?

You cite a source, and he pretends it was an authority (as in my cite of Tertullian.) But nothing he says offers a position relative to this thread.

It is very much like threads on contraception. There are never ending permutations that can be asked regarding specific cases.

 

[Amolibri]

With Christian charity, I point out to you that you did not ask me the basis of applying the death penalty in the US. You asked me my position on the death penalty.

Please do not use this reprehensible tactic again.

Except one of the standards for self-defense is that it is used against an unjust aggressor.

I feel a closure coming on… …when I see words like “reprehensible”… this goes beyond the guidelines of these forums, imo. Why attack people …as if this is a matter of ‘honor’ [as in taking on someone in a duel].

Seek peace; you will find it…seek discord; you will find that too.
…no comment is sought.

check out www.cacp.org

 

[SoCalRC]

Please do not use this reprehensible tactic again.

I already knew your position on the death penalty in the US. I can use the ‘search’ function on the forum.

The unstated question was rather or not you actually believed what you asserted about the best way to convince secular society about aboriton. You put all and none in bold, I was asking how you reconciled that with your other beliefs.

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.

You have wholly sidestepped addressing the contradiction. A tactic I believe you will use again, rather I ask you to refrain or not.

Regarding being all over the place, I believe that the situation with and and fix is different. In your case, the discussion is dragged all over, primarily on your insistance of using ‘proof’ that is in exact opposite to your point.

You: See, abortion has always been rejected.
Me: Ah, Tertullian was declaring a direct, late term, abortion morally just in the middle of that edited quote - and St. Jerome was declaring that some abortions are not murder in the same letter.

Me: The Church has not issued specific judgements on rather or not any applications of double effect are licit in the case of ectopic pregancy
You: Wrong, go to Catholic Answers
Me: Us, here at Catholic Answers it says what I just said

You: You are all over, why is this relevant?
Me: Because you brought it up to make a point. Since you thought it was worth bringing into the ‘discussion’, I thought it was relevant to actually examine it.

I believe that the situation with fix is different and will try to address it as such.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I feel a closure coming on… …when I see words like “reprehensible”… this goes beyond the guidelines of these forums, imo. Why attack people …as if this is a matter of ‘honor’ [as in taking on someone in a duel].

Seek peace; you will find it…seek discord; you will find that too.
…no comment is sought.

check out www.cacp.org

I have found peace.

I will find justice when people cease using such reprehensible tactics as asking me my opinion and then accusing me of somehow being responsible for what other people do.

Go back and read the thread – he asked me my position on the death penalty. The one I gave him was a straight Catholic position – and he accused me of supporting the **governent’s **position.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I already knew your position on the death penalty in the US. I can use the ‘search’ function on the forum.

Then you know my position is identical to that in the Catechism. And that, having some slight experience in the penal system, I understand that “lock them up and we will all be safe” is not always true.

The unstated question was rather or not you actually believed what you asserted about the best way to convince secular society about aboriton. You put all and none in bold, I was asking how you reconciled that with your other beliefs.

I don’t understand what you’re saying ere.

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.

We do in fact view all life as equally precious.

You have wholly sidestepped addressing the contradiction. A tactic I believe you will use again, rather I ask you to refrain or not.

What contradiction have I sidestepped?

Regarding being all over the place, I believe that the situation with and and fix is different. In your case, the discussion is dragged all over, primarily on your insistance of using ‘proof’ that is in exact opposite to your point.

You say – but have not demonstrated my proof is not on point. Your tactic is to either pretend I have said something I have not said, or to use “guilt by association” – as in your pretense that I support “the government’s” position on the death penalty.

You: See, abortion has always been rejected.
Me: Ah, Tertullian was declaring a direct, late term, abortion morally just in the middle of that edited quote - and St. Jerome was declaring that some abortions are not murder in the same letter.

And you statement is irrelevant. Tertullian is a source, not an authority. His statement about Christians is correct. His reasoning is his own.

Me: The Church has not issued specific judgements on rather or not any applications of double effect are licit in the case of ectopic pregancy
You: Wrong, go to Catholic Answers
Me: Us, here at Catholic Answers it says what I just said

Here you pretend that the answers are invalid because you don’t like them.

You: You are all over, why is this relevant?
Me: Because you brought it up to make a point. Since you thought it was worth bringing into the ‘discussion’, I thought it was relevant to actually examine it.

No, you thought it was worth playing silly games – although for what purpose I cannot fathom.

 

[SoCalRC]

They can make it, but it will not be consistent with Church teaching. The fetus is not pathology, or an unjust aggressor.

I would agree.

Now, as to being ‘all over’. Let’s start with the quote/not quote. This was a slightly sneaky tactic on my part. I took a quote from a high Church source which essentially restated your point but with a slightly different emphasis. And used it without crediting the source.

You seemingly rejected it (“You may… but”). Which is what I wanted to know. If I can’t use a Pope-to-be’s words to agree with you, then I know I have gotten you emotionally upset with something I have said, or something you may have read into my words.

I had hoped, by pointing out my small deception that, in large part, I agree with you. That way, we could focus our attention on seeming differences and discuss them. That seemingly failed, I’m sorry.

Let’s start with the original ‘disagreement’. Vern asserted that the Church has specific teachings with regards to ectopic pregnancy. I said, this is not so. The Church has given directives and judgements on the specific matter, none include examples of double effect. He stated flatly that I was obviously wrong and send me to a web site. The article you can find there stated what I had said. The Church has not given guidance, couples must, to a great extent, find spiritual guidance on their own.

So, in essence, this was like your discussion of ‘even if the Church…’ Vern was asserting that something was a specific Church teaching, I kept pulling up documents (including his own) to show that it was not. You are right, such arguments go on for years. But it does not change objective reality (ie, what the Church has actually said and written vs. what has been written by others).

Now, in the hypothetical situations you keep saying, give me more information. The sad point I was trying to make, from personal experience, is, I’d already given you all the information you really have to make these decisions. I noted some real cases above, and we can go into fairly agonizing detail if you really think that will help, but my experience makes me doubt that it will.

Which brings us to probably what is the major diversion in our viewpoints. You asked, pointedly, am I saying that we cannot know direct abortion? My answer, yes, that is what I am saying.

In these cases, the distinction is very subtle. Look at the CHA article. Catholic hospitals ending ectopic pregnancies with an abortion pill! Because the distinction is subtle, there is disagreement. Normally, in disagreement, we Catholics look to the Magisterium. But, in this case, the Magisterium has declined to comment beyond the directives and rulings already given.

If you disagree, that is, if you believe that in every instance the correct moral decision is clear, then fine. I respect that. My only comment would be that, speaking from personal experience, they seem a lot less clear when you are in the middle of them and full of grief and fear. I sincerely hope and pray you never have to experience such a thing yourself.

Best Regards

 

[vern_humphrey]

If you disagree, that is, if you believe that in every instance the correct moral decision is clear, then fine. I respect that. My only comment would be that, speaking from personal experience, they seem a lot less clear when you are in the middle of them and full of grief and fear. I sincerely hope and pray you never have to experience such a thing yourself.

Best Regards

Now, see, you’re doing it again. You’re pretending that it’s his position that " in every instance the correct moral decision is clear."

That is not proper debate.

 

[fix]

You seemingly rejected it (“You may… but”). Which is what I wanted to know. If I can’t use a Pope-to-be’s words to agree with you, then I know I have gotten you emotionally upset with something I have said, or something you may have read into my words.

It seemed you were disagreeing with the assertion that the Church allows for indirect abortion. The wording was confusing. I simply restated things for greater clarity.

Now, in the hypothetical situations you keep saying, give me more information. The sad point I was trying to make, from personal experience, is, I’d already given you all the information you really have to make these decisions. I noted some real cases above, and we can go into fairly agonizing detail if you really think that will help, but my experience makes me doubt that it will.

I missed those details? What I was commenting on, again, is that every single medical case is different. If every single case were the same we would have no discussion here at all. My point there was that we ought not diminish medicine and physicians to a cookbook. I cannot speak to your experience.

Which brings us to probably what is the major diversion in our viewpoints. You asked, pointedly, am I saying that we cannot know direct abortion? My answer, yes, that is what I am saying.

It depends on the circumstance.

In these cases, the distinction is very subtle. Look at the CHA article. Catholic hospitals ending ectopic pregnancies with an abortion pill! Because the distinction is subtle, there is disagreement. Normally, in disagreement, we Catholics look to the Magisterium. But, in this case, the Magisterium has declined to comment beyond the directives and rulings already given.

Yes, there is disagreement.

If you disagree, that is, if you believe that in every instance the correct moral decision is clear, then fine.

Obviously not. Stress, emotions, etc make these things very difficult. What you are arguing about is whether the Church allows or disallows certain medical proceures to cure the ectopic pregnancy. If the Church has not forbid then one should have a clear conscience.

You want to impute to me the notion I see these issues as simply right or wrong and easy to decide. I am saying the opposite. They are terribly hard decisions for many reasons. What I am arguing against is that the Church has left no guidance. She does.

How that gets applied will vary. Yes, moralists are divided about things like methotrexate for ectopic pregnancy. No, that such a division exists does not mean we cannot have peace of mind or are left floating around unsure.

 

[seekerz]

I feel a closure coming on… …when I see words like “reprehensible”… this goes beyond the guidelines of these forums, imo. Why attack people …as if this is a matter of ‘honor’ [as in taking on someone in a duel].

Seek peace; you will find it…seek discord; you will find that too.
…no comment is sought.

check out www.cacp.org

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.

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?

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.

 

[SoCalRC]

If the Church has not forbid then one should have a clear conscience.

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