Interesting viewpoint. I think this theological argument harks back to a time when scientific and medical knowledge differed significantly from what obtains today.Let me get this straight. You have four options:
You are supposed to choose the last option, which is the most dangerous (short of doing nothing), the most invasive and resulting in permanent harm to the patient, because the last option causes the death of the ebryo indirectly? As far as the embryo is concerned, the options are equivalent: it is dead. Therefore, one should focus one minimizing the harm done to the woman.
- do nothing, which leads to death of the embryo
- administer methotrexate, which leads to death of the embryo
- remove the embryo, which leads to death of the embryo
- remove the embryo AND the fallopian tube, which leads to death of the embryo
Plus, the whole reasoning strikes me as deeply faulty. The discussion of methotrexate clearly demonstrates the fallacy:
The reasoning here is that inhibiting growth of placenta-like cells is not permitted, because these cells are part of the embryo and such action is directed against the embryo. But, if one engineered a drug which interacts with the cells the embryo attaches to, inhibiting the placenta attachment, then such drug would not act on the embryo, and would be permitted under such logic.
However, from the point of view of the outside observer, both drugs are equivalent, as they both lead to death and discarding of the embryo. The difference is a technical detail, amounting to which particular chemical reaction in a long interlocking chain gets disrupted and which does not.
Another self-contradiction is present in the argument presented against the second method:
Here, the author himself admits that “scooping out” embryo does not cause the death of the embryo; instead, the embryo dies thereafter (because it cannot survive on its own). Thus, one can argue that the death of the embryo is an indirect effect, as the aim of the procedure is removal of the embryo, not killing the embryo. If an artificial uterus, capable of supporting the embryo existed, then the embryo could have been transfered there.
There is no practical difference between removing the embryo from the tube and removing the tube with the embryo, as in both cases this is the removal which has the curative effect.
The same paragraph contains another leap of logic:
This argument, again, rests on a technical detail of how a procedure is performed. In case of cancer, the goal is to remove the tumor. Although the standard procedure is to remove the tube together with the tumor, one can imagine a procedure where only a tumor is removed, and the tube itself is reconstructed and remains in place. This renders the argument invalid, demonstrating that author’s supposed absolute moral truth depends on what procedures are currently technically possible and what are not.
Is that a justification for abortion then?Gotta be a guy, because I don’t think any woman would call pregancy a mere inconvenience.
Hi Flavius,I’ve lost faith in the pro-life side so I’ll ask this.
This argument in the thread when people put the woman’s life at risk to force an ultimatum from pro-life people. Don’t get me wrong I hate the pro-choice side infinitely more, but maybe if God or the embryo place themselves in a position to do nothing more than die then they should receive just that and die without having to remove a woman’s reproductive organs just because that’s the only moral choice the Church gives you.I can’t answer your questions - I’m still learning a lot myself - but what made you “lose faith” in the pro-life side? What arguments/acts made by pro-choice commentators convinced you?
Removing the fallopian tube is by definition invasive, since it involves surgery. In contrast, administering drug is by definition non-invasive. The more invasive (and complicated) a procedure is, the more risk it carries.Hi Kama,
Can you offer medical or scientific evidence that the 4th option is the most “dangerous” and “invasive”? Also, in what way is the permanent effect “harmful”? Have there been tests done that prove it increases the odds of death in the long-term?
What you’re presenting is contrary to Catholic teaching.I think if the mother & embryo are both going to die anyway unless the embryo is aborted.
Then it is the more ethical thing to abort the embryo and save the mother.
Embryo’s do not have souls anyway (except in late term) so are not yet persons.
Abortion aside, it looks like some catechesis is in order here, Catharina. Without that foundation, much of this discussion would be on entirely different planes.What you’re presenting is contrary to Catholic teaching.
In the very recent past, all Catholics were called on to accept the
infallible doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, meaning that Mary,
the mother of Christ, was conceived immaculately, bearing no burden of
original sin and instantly conceived and created with her own immortal soul.
What you are stating is the exact opposite of Catholic doctrine.
So I ask you, where did you get such an idea?
Where do you get this idea? On what do you base it?I think if the mother & embryo are both going to die anyway unless the embryo is aborted.
Then it is the more ethical thing to abort the embryo and save the mother.
Embryo’s do not have souls anyway (except in late term) so are not yet persons.
The Sanctity of Human Life from Conception to Natural DeathAbortion aside, it looks like some catechesis is in order here, Catharina. Without that foundation, much of this discussion would be on entirely different planes.
Your book is wrong. Taking away one of the fallopian tubes does not take away half of her fertility.Removing the fallopian tube is by definition invasive, since it involves surgery. In contrast, administering drug is by definition non-invasive. The more invasive (and complicated) a procedure is, the more risk it carries.
As for removal of fallopian tube not being harmful – well, a woman has two of these. Removing one takes half of her fertility away. This is harmful in my book.
The Catholic Church does not teach that ensoulment occurs at conceptionWhat you’re presenting is contrary to Catholic teaching.
In the very recent past, all Catholics were called on to accept the
infallible doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, meaning that Mary,
the mother of Christ, was conceived immaculately, bearing no burden of
original sin and instantly conceived and created with her own immortal soul.
What you are stating is the exact opposite of Catholic doctrine.
So I ask you, where did you get such an idea?
Where do you get this idea? On what do you base it?
There were some discussions on the topic on here a few months back. It was readily apparent that the only definition of the soul that made sense without introducing arbitrary distinctions and exceptions was one linking it to consciousness.
I think everyone here agrees that in a situation where both will die anyway you remove the child from the womb even if that means the child will die. The debatable issues concern
The Catholic Church does not teach that ensoulment occurs at conception
There were some discussions on the topic on here a few months back. It was readily apparent that the only definition of the soul that made sense without introducing arbitrary distinctions and exceptions was one linking it to consciousness.
I missed those discussions. It isn’t readily apparent to me–but then, I might be happy with what you would consider “arbitrary distinctions.”There were some discussions on the topic on here a few months back. It was readily apparent that the only definition of the soul that made sense without introducing arbitrary distinctions and exceptions was one linking it to consciousness.
This is false. If you wish to reject the Church’s teaching on this matter, please be aware that there is risk of scandal and heresy in that comment.The Catholic Church does not teach that ensoulment occurs at conception
Erm, no - I’m afraid you are the one mistaken on this:This is false. If you wish to reject the Church’s teaching on this matter, please be aware that there is risk of scandal and heresy in that comment.
A human has an immortal soul that is with our human body from conception to death and one member has provided you documentation of such. I encourage you to go back and re-read whatever it is that leads you to believe the contrary and post it here so that others can see where you are mistaken and correct you accordingly.
-ahs
hey often suppose that the Catholic Church teaches that destroying human embryos is unacceptable because such embryos are persons (or are “ensouled”). While it is true that the Church teaches that the intentional and direct destruction of human embryos is always immoral, it would be incorrect to conclude that the Church teaches that zygotes (a single-cell embryo) or other early-stage embryos are persons, or that they already have immortal, rational souls. The magisterium of the Church has never definitively stated when the ensoulment of the human embryo takes place. It remains an open question. The Declaration on Procured Abortion from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1974 phrases the matter with considerable precision:
Code:This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation [implantation in the uterus]. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent.
I missed those discussions. It isn’t readily apparent to me–but then, I might be happy with what you would consider “arbitrary distinctions.”
I don’t think that one’s anthropology should be wholly based in empiricism.
**De facto, in declaring the Immaculate Conception of May, the mother of Jesus, as a fully incorporated human soul from the very instant of her conception, there can be no doubt or argument as to Church Teaching regarsding conception as the moment of ensoulment.erm, no - i’m afraid you are the one mistaken on this:
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8268
The link presented from above quoted
an opinion, not a definition. Surely catjolicculture
would be surprised to learn anyone does this!
well i was discussing with st anastasia (and others) and she had some excellent points on the difficulty of equating souls with unique human dna (and she’s a catholic theologian so should know).
Basically the ‘arbitrary distinctions’ i refer to are simply subjectively saying that x entity has a soul, because you personally feel like it should have a soul but entity y doesn’t because you personally feel that it doesn’t have a soul. While both x and y fit in with the previously stated definition of what has a soul.
For me, unless we have a definition of a soul that is consistent and works for all cases without having to introduce exceptions, then the definition is worthless. This is the precise reason the church hasn’t definitively declared ensoulment occurs at conception, as there are problems with this definition.
But please suggest a consistent definition if you have one.
Typos above reflect my angst.**De facto, in declaring the Immaculate Conception of May, the mother of Jesus, as a fully incorporated human soul from the very instant of her conception, there can be no doubt or argument as to Church Teaching regarsding conception as the moment of ensoulment.
Theologians might disagree with this truth but they are in error if they do so.**