Is there ever a circumstance under which abortion would be justified?

[kpwhite777]

I can only assume you are talking to me when you say something about impressing ourselves by spouting off…I clearly stated I, being human, would probably have made the same decision. I was not trying to impress anyone with my comment and I really am dissappointed you read it that way…but, from a secular standpoint, of course most will see it that way…so having said that, I apologize if it sounded in anyway offensive or spouting…the real question we all must asks ourselves…how much have we allowed human intervention to push our faith aside…I do know there have been tons of people who have faced this situation as well as many other life threatening situations…some choose to take a chance and let their faith be their guide…some may call them ignorant, not sure what your stance would be, but I would call them very faithful…and if it is God’s will for them to pass, then let God’s will be done…you never know, He may cure instead!..if our faiths were stronger.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

kpwhite777:

I can only assume you are talking to me when you say something about impressing ourselves by spouting off…

Dear kpwhite777

From this third person observer point of view, it did not appear to me that Cece’s comments applied to you, nor were directed at you. I don’t intend to speak for Cece, but only offer my observations.

Dear Cece,

As far as the AAA section answering it, I am anxious to see what they came up with. One thing I fear is a semantic issue – when we say, “is an abortion ever OK” then as we’ve seen, we can avoid the issue of an illicit abortion by performing another procedure, which is not an abortion, which however accomplishes the same thing. If it were evil to perform a procedure in which the baby dies, then we are using good means to accomplish an evil end when we use a substitute procedure which does not bear the stigma of being called an “abortion.” If it were not necessarily evil to perform a procedure in which the baby dies, then we’re back to deciding whether to perform greater harm or using a “licit” means.

Therefore, it confuses the issue because as I gain feedback and refine my own understanding and position, I realize that this issue has been so programmed into people that it prevents them from thinking clearly. It is absolutely amazing that people would increase harm for the sake of what we call the procedure. You are right that people like to rail on with great piety about this and that, but unfortunately I think a good many people actually do carry those ideas with them when they do get into these situations, and when the reality hits them that they have a choice between doing something they once thought was wrong or doing greater harm to innocent people (the mother is also innocent) they either make the more harmful decision, or make the less harmful one and experience guilt for who knows how long?

Alan

 

[Zerith]

1ke:

In a word: No.

No to most circumstances.

If there is a threat, which would end in both dying, but which could be reduced to only one dying (Unfortunately the child). Yet this is abused in many cases around the world. For example, suicide, statistics show that suicide levels are low in pregnant women (Though threats are high), yet after an abortion they literally skyrocket, if an abortion clinic were to open in Ireland, our law permits that, and therefore, anyone (Of course, only those of whom are women, and pregnant), with no proof except: “I’m suicidal” can recieve an abortion. And in many other medical cases, I cannot list any from memory at the moment, but in this case, an abortion doesn’t have any positive or negative affect on the person’s health.

Basically, I believe that abortion should be banned outright, but unfortunately, there are cases where it’s either: One, or both. And you must remember the importance of the woman in family life. Albeit, these cases are very few, and therefore, will not have a massive impact.

In the history of Irish medicine, there has only been one case of Ectopic pregnancy.

(Note: Around the year 2000 there was a referendum in Ireland, to revert back to the pre-X-Case (A rape case which changed Irish abortion laws in the late eighties/early nineties) laws on abortion, the side against the reversion (I shall not call it “Pro” abortion, or “pro choice”, due to the fact that if there were a general referendum on legalising abortion (Still not legal) in this country, the pro-choice would fail miserably) won by less than one per cent - The pre-X-Case laws had absolutely no exceptions)

 

[Suzie1962]

AlanFromWichita:

Dear kpwhite777

One thing I fear is a semantic issue – when we say, “is an abortion ever OK” then as we’ve seen, we can avoid the issue of an illicit abortion by performing another procedure, which is not an abortion, which however accomplishes the same thing. If it were evil to perform a procedure in which the baby dies, then we are using good means to accomplish an evil end when we use a substitute procedure which does not bear the stigma of being called an “abortion.” If it were not necessarily evil to perform a procedure in which the baby dies, then we’re back to deciding whether to perform greater harm or using a “licit” means.

Alan, I also feel that a lot of this is being tied up in semantics and in what the intent of the procedure is. I agree with your point regarding self-defense, but I also think defense of the use of methotrexate can be made by clarifying the intent of such use.

In the case of an ectopic pregnancy obstructing the fallopian tube, the purpose of using the methotrexate is actually to clear the blockage. Unfortunately, the baby must die in order for the blockage in the tube to clear, but the primary purpose of using the drug in this instance is to clear the blockage and prevent rupture of the tube. I am still having difficulty seeing how this differs from a salpingectomy, in which the purpose of the procedure is to remove the blocked or ruptured section of tube when, again, the baby must die for the removal to take place. The only difference I can see is that the salpingectomy carries a greater risk of permanent physical harm to the mother than the methotrexate.

 

[BlindSheep]

I was part of a previous discussion here on ectopic pregancy, and I’m still not really satisfied with the Church’s stance (though I’m not saying the Church is wrong, only that I don’t understand). It just seems to me that while abortifacient drugs are certainly direct killing, removing the baby, intact, from the tube would not amount to directly killing the baby because:
a) The tube is not a safe environment for the baby; the baby cannot survive there anyway Having the baby in the tube is an illness for the mother, but being in the tube is not a healthy situation for the baby either.
b) If it were possible to move the baby to the uterus, detaching the baby from the tube would necessarily be the first step; therefore, it cannot be said to directly kill the baby; it is the lack of implantation in the uterus that kills the baby in either case (left in the tube or removed).

 

[Suzie1962]

BlindSheep:

I was part of a previous discussion here on ectopic pregancy, and I’m still not really satisfied with the Church’s stance (though I’m not saying the Church is wrong, only that I don’t understand). It just seems to me that while abortifacient drugs are certainly direct killing, removing the baby, intact, from the tube would not amount to directly killing the baby because:
a) The tube is not a safe environment for the baby; the baby cannot survive there anyway Having the baby in the tube is an illness for the mother, but being in the tube is not a healthy situation for the baby either.
b) If it were possible to move the baby to the uterus, detaching the baby from the tube would necessarily be the first step; therefore, it cannot be said to directly kill the baby; it is the lack of implantation in the uterus that kills the baby in either case (left in the tube or removed).

I’m not really satisfied with it, either. I think my problem is that I don’t understand how one method is any more or less “directly killing” than the other. The purpose of each procedure (use of methotrexate or salpingectomy) is to relieve the tubal blockage through a procedure that will inevitably lead to the death of the fetus, so it doesn’t make sense to me that one (the one that is more dangerous to the mother and has permanent consequences to maternal fertility) is licit and the other (safer to the mother with fewer long-term physical aftereffects) is not.

 

[martino]

AlanFromWichita:

If I die as a result of somebody bulldozing down my house (which is exactly comparable to the situation at hand) with FULL KNOWLEDGE that I am inside, then the driver is no less responsible for my death because the intent was only to get rid of a house…Injecting deadly chemicals is considered one of the most humane ways to “terminate” criminals because they don’t feel it. Is tearing apart their home and killing them in the process any more humane? In practice, do they give the baby an analgesic before this procedure? If not then the deadly chemicals are probably more merciful…No, the baby isn’t being killed. It just dies as a result of us tearing its house apart.

Your house analogy just doesnt work because i can see no reason to tear down your house to begin with… does tearing down the house in some way save the life of someone else? Dont you see that in the situation we are all talking about there is a grave reason for removing the tube in the first place?
The baby’s “house” isnt being torn apart for the hell of it.

This is very strange to me. Are you saying that all we have to do is “pretend” we’re not killing the baby and that makes the difference?

There is no need to pretend as long as we are not killing the baby. If there was no life saving benefit to the removal of the tube then the procedure would be completely immoral. Again I think you are missing the key point; we are not talking about going in the woman’s body and tearing apart the baby’s little world and leaving it to die because we have nothing else to do. We are talking about a grave situation, a life or death situation for both mother and child, the tube is removed because if it bursts the woman will die. In this scenario there is no way to save the life of the baby so we are focused on saving the one life that can be saved…the mother. For you to imply that we are intentionally killing the baby and then pretending we didnt do it only goes to show that you may not fully understand what we are talking about.

OK, you win because I don’t want you scared. We cannot directly and intentionally kill one innocent person to save the life of another…Along with those lines, I just realized we really aren’t killing the baby at all – and certainly without intent to kill the baby. We are simply removing it from a situation where its doomed existence endangers life of another. Does that help?

Now you really confused me here because you seem to do a complete 180. I was the one talking about removing the tube (with baby inside) so that it does not endanger the life of another…remember?? You were saying that everyone would be better off if we killed the baby so as not to harm the tube. I am not really even sure if your admission that we cannot kill one innocent person to save the life of another was real or sarcastic because that statement goes against everything you have been arguing for this entire time.

The people in the hospital won’t cause anyone an internal rupture or worse by their continued existence.

My point was that there are people in the hospital who will die unless they receive a new heart; there are also people with good hearts that will die regardless. So according to the principle you at one time supported; that of killing one person to save another, it would be licit to remove the still beating heart from the one to save the life of the other.

Perhaps if you need another angle to see how Catholic my opinion is, consider the Catechism teaching on killing to defend oneself. In this case all the criteria apply; death to the person threatening the mother is not the intent,but is a reaction to a reasonable effort to protect the mother from harm and possibly death.

I would say that teaching applies to my position but not to yours. In your position you actually are intending to kill the baby (the deadly chemicals have no other benefit except to kill the fetus). Secondly the baby cannot be considered in the same light as an evil perpetrator…the fact that you make this comparison says volumes about your mindset. I do not think your opinion is in accord with Catholic teaching even though you say that it is. You seem to have twisted it around so that it may seem to fit one or another Catholic teaching…but as they say, the devil is in the details and the details you provided to support you opinion reveal as much.

Thank you for the spirited banter, martino. It’s good to be back here.
Alan

DITTO!

 

[martino]

Cece:

I have heard it several times that in this case, it is okay to take the Methotrexate. Methotrexate is a chemotherapy drug. We give it for cancer. It attacks rapidly dividing cells in the body.

Is there a reason other than to kill the baby that this drug would be given to a woman during an ectopic pregnancy?

You guys all seem to like to impress yourselves by spouting off, but God forbid any of you should have to face such a decision. This is a real situation that actually occurs more than you realize.

Who are you talking about spouting off and impressing ourselves? This is what we like to call “debate”. And how would you know that none of us have ever been faced with this decision…that is unbelievably presumtuous on your part! You seem to be saying that your opinions are above scrutiny because according to you none of us have a right to be “spouting off” about this topic because you presume that none of us have ever been there!

No one is talking about saving the mother or the tube instead of the baby. The baby is doomed, no exceptions. Ask God for an explanation, not me.

Well I have to admit I have not read through all the posts but did anyone really ask you for such an explanation?

 

[Vincent1560]

Wow this is a really complicated case. I am not Catholic by the way, but a pro-life evangelical. I honestly don’t know what I would do if ever faced with this situation. I have another tricky case and would like your opinions.

In certain cases of conjoined twins only one set of vital organs is present. If one twin is not killed, both will die. This would have to be a direct killing since you would need to directly sever one baby from its heart and other vital organs inorder to save the other. In this case is it moral to directly end an innocent life inorder to save another innocent life, if both would die if nothing was done. For argument’s sake lets say there is no medical way to determine which child should be killed (i.e. both would have an equal chance of surviving the procedure if they were elected to get the shared organs)

 

[Mike_Rainville]

AlanFromWichita:

Yes, that sounds just like what I heard before.

What doesn’t make sense to me, though, is that under various assumptions, it sounds like the “licit” way does more damage than the “illicit” way. It may be exactly correct, but it’s hard for me to believe that the Church would require that either the mother die or at least the mother undergo mutilating surgery, when doing so does nothing to help the baby. If that’s official Church teaching, then either it needs to be reviewed or I am crazy after all. :whacky:

Alan

If the baby were to continue to grow in the fallopian tube, it would be fatal to both the mother and her child. The surgery is not mutilating, as the tube is already damaged, and would be utterly destroyed, regardless. Perhaps a doctor would venture to explain if there is any possibility of saving what remains of the tube for future pregnancies…

I do not believe it’s possible, with present technology, to save the unborn child implanted in a fallopian tube, though perhaps someday… If there were a way, every effort would have to be made to save both the mother and child.

See “The Facts of Life, 2nd ed.” by Brian Clowes, published by Human Life International.

Anyone faced with such difficult decisions ought to confer with a trusted confessor and perhaps a Catholic specialist in biomedical ethics. The Catholic positions are always about respecting the commandments and the natural law, both of which come from the same Divine source, and ensuring that no wrong is done that good may come. In every extreme case I am aware of, the unintended wrong is never desired and always unavoidable.

The cure for this condition, an ectopic pregnancy, is NOT an abortion, but a SALPINGECTOMY, the removal of a tubal pregnancy. Even when abortion was a crime, there was never any problem with this.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

martino:

Your house analogy just doesnt work

Dont you see that in the situation we are all talking about there is a grave reason for removing the tube in the first place?
The baby’s “house” isnt being torn apart for the hell of it.

Exactly. Neither, if we “abort” the baby are we just aborting it for the hell of it. We are doing it to save a life – every single life that can possibly be saved in this situation with no exceptions.

There is no need to pretend as long as we are not killing the baby. If there was no life saving benefit to the removal of the tube then the procedure would be completely immoral.

Save a life with elective mutilation surgery, when one can do it without it? That’s evil to accomplish good – when there is an alternative.

Again I think you are missing the key point; we are not talking about going in the woman’s body and tearing apart the baby’s little world and leaving it to die because we have nothing else to do. We are talking about a grave situation, a life or death situation for both mother and child, the tube is removed because if it bursts the woman will die. In this scenario there is no way to save the life of the baby so we are focused on saving the one life that can be saved…the mother.

I agree with your argument; I just think it is misapplied. Let me see if I can clarify:

Again I think you are missing the key point; we are not talking about going in the woman’s body and killing out a “potentially viable” baby because we have nothing else to do. We are talking about a grave situation, a life or death situation for both mother and child, the baby is removed because if it causes the tubes to burst the woman will die. In this scenario there is no way to save the life of the baby so we are focused on saving the one life that can be saved…the mother.

Yes, I believe that is an excellent way to explain my point here. Thanks for the help.

For you to imply that we are intentionally killing the baby and then pretending we didnt do it only goes to show that you may not fully understand what we are talking about.

For you to imply that we are intentionally killing the baby one way and not the other only goes to show that you may not fully understand what we are talking about.

Hey, this is a great – excellent scripts, ready for my customization, as in “adaptation.”

Now you really confused me here because you seem to do a complete 180. I was the one talking about removing the tube (with baby inside) so that it does not endanger the life of another…remember??

Then you are also talking about performing elective invasive mutilation surgery which is not needed to save the life of the mother. We could also take out both tubes, the ovaries, and the uterus to accomplish the same goal, but medical science has progressed beyond that, as it apparently has beyond the need for such invasive surgery.

BTW, subjecting a person to elective surgery also introduces the risk as with any surgery that the mother will die from any number of factors, including infection or complications with anesthesia.
(continued)

 

[AlanFromWichita]

(continued)

You were saying that everyone would be better off if we killed the baby so as not to harm the tube.

It’s not my intent to convey that. The baby is not better off. Nor, however, is it worse off. That’s my point. Baby: same fate. Mother: save intact or save after mutilation.

I use the term “mutilation” because that is the term I believe the Church applies to elective surgery that degrades the functioning of the reproductive system. If the woman was only fertile on one side to begin with, it could mean the end of her fertility entirely. Doing this with only rhetorical benefits is very suspect.

Something has to give here; we seem to keep going around the same circle, and it seems my position is only getting stronger in my mind, as everything you write feeds pretty directly into my position.

I am not really even sure if your admission that we cannot kill one innocent person to save the life of another was real or sarcastic because that statement goes against everything you have been arguing for this entire time.

Whether sarcastic or not, it does not contradict anything I've written, at least intentionally.

We agree it is licit to remove a baby to save a life, conceding one life which is inevitably lost. On top of that, we have the choice to destroy half or more of the fertility potential for the mother. We disagree that we must take that approach.

Why is the name we call what we do more important that the reality of the results of our actions? When we do more damage than necessary, we justify it by saying we are not “killing the baby” but only removing a diseased tube. This is straight out of pro-choice rhetoric.

The more I hear about this, the more it does sound like there are nefarious undertones involved, or possibly despair. What could possibly possess someone to conclude that more damage than what is inevitable is “good?”

 <cut to reduce length>

So according to the principle you at one time supported; that of killing one person to save another, it would be licit to remove the still beating heart from the one to save the life of the other.

Yes, I believe I understood that point. Honestly, in this case, if we choose to preserve the mother’s reproduction system intact when we could have damaged it, the baby dies – same result as removing the baby without damaging the mother. If we can’t understand that then I will ask you this way: who is it that has determined that the baby will die when the tubal removal is performed – the person doing the surgery?

The hospital analogy does not apply. Closer would be this scenario: one patient in the hospital is near death, and will clearly die within the next few days – and in fact does. In the meanwhile, we pick a healthy woman and do damage to her reproductive system because somehow that ameliorates the tragedy of the other patient having died.

I feel like this is a contest in how far can we stretch pro-life cliches beyond their applicable limits.

(continued)

 

[AlanFromWichita]

(continued)

I would say that teaching applies to my position but not to yours. In your position you actually are intending to kill the baby (the deadly chemicals have no other benefit except to kill the fetus).

How can you honestly suggest, after all this discussion, that we are intending to kill the baby?  That is absurd.

What do you intend to do by removing the mother’s tube, save the baby? Ah, is it that the baby “just dies all by itself” this way; we just “pull the plug” as it were, no its life support.

Back to the hospital analogy, if a person is removed from a life support machine and dies, then we must also destroy the machine so it can no longer help support another life?

How many different analogies does it require to convey the principle that mutilation surgery which accomplishes no offsetting benefit, is illicit? Is that not exactly what the Church teaches – especially with regard to elective reproductive mutilation surgery?

From [CCC 2297](http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art5.htm):

Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended *amputations*, *mutilations*, and *sterilizations* performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.

Your solution involves directly intended mutilation, performed on an innocent person, without any therapeutic effects for either mother or child, does it not?

Or are you claiming that removing the tube with the baby, as opposed to just removing the baby, is “therapeutic” somehow to the baby?

The only thing your way preserves that mine doesn't is the illusion that we have been more righteous.

This sounds terrible, but it’s almost as if we are punishing the mother because we want to pretend that by doing so the baby is somehow better off. Now I think I’m beginning to understand; this is really about selfishness. The baby dies, but we want to feel good about ourselves so we mutilate the mother, thus killing the baby and saying, “oh my I really wish that baby didn’t have to die.” It’s about our feelings, not about our salvation or especially the life or health of the baby’s body or soul.

Secondly the baby cannot be considered in the same light as an evil perpetrator…the fact that you make this comparison says volumes about your mindset.

Yes. It says I am able to use abstractions that are targeted to the situation, without calling in unnecessary irrelevant complications.

Keep in mind that the Church does not allow self-defense because the perp is evil. It allows self-defense because one is allowed, and even expected by the Church, to value one’s life over that of another.

 Again, from CCC 2964:

 Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.[66](http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art5.htm#66)

Notice it does say, “killing the other man,” which shows that “killing” is not absolutely prohibited, or the Church would consider it necessary to avoid it in all situations. The intent to kill must not be there, but “killing” per se can be justified as this paragraph proves.

This addresses the absurd rhetorical construct that somehow one procedure does not kill the baby, because even if I were to concede this odd notion that my method alone “kills” the baby while your method does not by way of technicality, that does not imply that my method is thereby illicit.

 Rome has spoken.  What say you?

(continued)

 

[AlanFromWichita]

(continued)

  I do not think your opinion is in accord with Catholic teaching 
  
  <cut to reduce length>
   
   as they say, the devil is in the details and the details you provided to support you opinion reveal as much.

What you said, back at you! My best defense is your offense, I say. Throw me another inert grenade, and I’ll pull out the pin and throw it back!

If I didn’t know better, I might be tempted to think that you have me pegged as a person who is hostile to Catholic teachings, and therefore whatever I say is automatically suspect --guilty until proven innocent and all that.

On a similar note, I want to make a comment that I do not doubt your intent here in terms of following Catholic teaching, nor do I glean any hint of ad hominem attack. With an argument this contentious, I wish to applaud you for hanging in there without getting nasty – many others would have either become vicious (threatening the life of the thread – lol) and/or have given up with optional parting sarcasm by now.

I’m hoping we’ll come to a point when we will quit talking past each other and actually distill what the real issue is between our views – somehow I don’t believe we’ve really touched it yet.

  DITTO!

No matter how fun it is to argue, I am happy we agree on at least this. You have fought with passion and honor, and if you wish to continue, I am pleased to oblige!

Gawrsh, I can hardly believe this post came out this long. Well I’ve worked on it over an hour and I really need to get back to writing software, so I’ll post as is – with apologies but a feeling of hope that it may help to explain or even to remove our contention. Also one of these days I’ll hopefully learn the meaning of the word, “succinct.”
Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Mike Rainville:

If the baby were to continue to grow in the fallopian tube, it would be fatal to both the mother and her child. The surgery is not mutilating, as the tube is already damaged, and would be utterly destroyed, regardless. Perhaps a doctor would venture to explain if there is any possibility of saving what remains of the tube for future pregnancies…

OK, that’s new information. If it is true, then it changes the whole discussion. Most of my arguments above are based on the assumption that the tube could be preserved if the baby were removed another way. That doesn’t settle the issue of “which is more invasive” or “which is higher risk,” so the issue of elective surgery for no reasons remains intact.

I do not believe it’s possible, with present technology, to save the unborn child implanted in a fallopian tube, though perhaps someday… If there were a way, every effort would have to be made to save both the mother and child.

We can hope and pray for such a technique to be developed.

The cure for this condition, an ectopic pregnancy, is NOT an abortion, but a SALPINGECTOMY, the removal of a tubal pregnancy. Even when abortion was a crime, there was never any problem with this.

I realize your last comment was just incidental and not a material factor in your point, but I would like to emphasize that I would not look toward political law for guidance in moral issues involving abortion.

Again, though, why not an abortion? Is there a better survival rate, faster healing, and/or cost savings associated with salpingectomy, as compared to abortion, for the mother?

If not then we’re back to putting the mother at risk so we can avoid applying the “A” word to the specific manner in which concede the fate of the baby and save the mother’s life.

edit: any non-trivial medical procedure, including abortion, contains risk. If the risk (to the mother) of the salpingectomy is higher than of the abortion, then I stand by my position. I am against putting the mother at unnecessary risk, when by doing so does nothing to help the baby, and in addition (here’s the new twist) if the baby has siblings, puts them at higher risk of becoming orphans.

Alan

 

[Katie1723]

quote=AlanFromWichita…Gawrsh, I can hardly believe this post came out this long. Well I’ve worked on it over an hour and I really need to get back to writing software, so I’ll post as is – with apologies but a feeling of hope that it may help to explain or even to remove our contention. Also one of these days I’ll hopefully learn the meaning of the word, “succinct.”

Alan
[/quote]


And hell will freeze before that happens.
~ Kathy ~

 

[Katie1723]

Cece:

… You guys all seem to like to impress yourselves by spouting off, but God forbid any of you should have to face such a decision. This is a real situation that actually occurs more than you realize. No one is talking about saving the mother or the tube instead of the baby. The baby is doomed, no exceptions. Ask God for an explanation, not me. Anyway, I have asked the apologists to show me where I can find it exactly spelled out and that should pretty much settle things.

An ectopic pregnancy is a potentially dangerous situation. If it ruptures, you could conceivably end up losing the mother also. We all sit here and debate the pros and cons of both sides, but like you said …" but God forbid any of you should have to face such a decision." I bet you would opt for the salpingectomy hands down. And FYI, ectopic pregnancy is any pregnancy that occurs outside the uterus. They can occur in the abdomen also.

                  ~ Kathy ~

P.S. for the poster Mike Rainville…the correct term for removal of the uterus is hysterectomy…not uterectomy

 

[martino]

AlanFromWichitaI'm hoping we'll come to a point when we will quit talking past each other and actually distill what the real issue is between our views -- somehow I don't believe we've really touched it yet.:

You are correct for the first time in this discussion!! Either neither one of us is speaking effectively or neither of us is listening to what the other is saying.

The only point we disagree on is this: I see a big moral difference between removing the fallopian tube in an ectopic pregnancy to save the life of the mother…and…killing the baby in an ectopic pregnancy to save both the mother and her fallopian tube.

I whole heartedly admit that this is a very complicated situation from the stand point of moral theology. What creates the confusion is the fact that neither scenario saves the baby…we both agree that we cannot save the life of the baby regardless of which procedure is performed.

I am simply sticking to the moral principle that we can never take a life (innocent life that is) to save a life! Do you realize that it would be wrong to kill one innocent person even if by doing so you could save an entire city? The end NEVER justifies the means. The position I have been trying to describe is called the principle of the “double effect”, and it was formulated to support the moral teachings of the Catholic Church. The principle asserts that a procedure that saves the life of the mother (a good thing) but results in the death of the baby (a bad thing) can be tollerated as long as the death of the baby was not the direct result of the procedure…the baby’s death would be an unwanted side effect. This position rules out any form of direct abortion because abortion by definition is the direct and intentional killing of the unborn baby. So if an abortion is the the only option then the mother could not be saved. Fortunately in almost every case there is another option that not only saves the life of the mother but does so in a way that avoids directly killing the baby.

From what you have said so far, I am under the impression that you agree with me that there is a difference between the two approaches. The only difference is that you would assert that it would be immoral to save the mother’s life in a way that damages her reproductive organs, unless there is no other option of course. Your position remains absolutely neutral on the abortion issues; if direct abortion is necessary to save the reproductive organs than by all means have the abortion. I am trying to restate your position as accurately as possible, i do not think i have put words in your mouth.

So to recap: our goal is the same; to save the mother’s life. we both see that we must be very careful how we go about doing this. my concern is that the baby is not directly and intentionally killed and your concern is that the reproductive organs are not damaged. My position will certainly limit the womans fertility and your position will certainly result in the direct killing of the baby.

Actually, i think our biggest problem can be summed up with one 2-word phrase that i just used…Direct Killing.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

And hell will freeze before that happens.

            ~ Kathy ~

Brrr. Did someone open a window?

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

martino:

You are correct for the first time in this discussion!!

Ummm, thank you for noticing!

Either neither one of us is speaking effectively or neither of us is listening to what the other is saying.

Maybe it’s also lost as I scramble to chase my own uncertainty amidst verbage. (I learned a new trick recently – I now like to take blame because that gives hope I can do something to correct the situation.)

We do agree on the premises it would seem, so it’s just the final good/bad conclusion at stake. Out of the first section of your post, here is probably the most telling snippets that might explain our differences here.

take a life (innocent life that is) to save a life!

I do not view it as taking a life in this scenario. I view it more like burying the dead.

The only objection I can see to that view, is the temporal control we have over the moment of death. To that I counter, if that is the distinguishing characteristic, then it is no more or less present with the tube removal.

as long as the death of the baby was not the direct result of the procedure…the baby’s death would be an unwanted side effect.

Frankly this reminds me of the ostrich effect. We know it will happen by our hands, so I’d say it’s a pretty direct result. Even if it were a secondary result, it is inevitable and the baby suffers no greater harm.

If we are not arguing in favor of whether one does less harm to the baby, then to whom are we showing kindness by bringing about its demise by a Rube-Goldberg sort of setup or Domino effect. It’s as if we know we must kill it but we are afraid to touch it while doing so.

The end NEVER justifies the means.

True statement, and I can agree with it. It is not relevant to the discussion of WHETHER they are evil.

because abortion by definition is the direct and intentional killing of the unborn baby. {bold added by Alan}

I think this is the big one; the biggest stumbling block between our views.

A doctor, a woman, and a baby go into a room. The baby does not come out alive. In one case the woman and doctor also come out with their reproductive organs about as intact as they were upon entry. In the other case the woman’s reproductive organs are irreparably damaged.

Those are the facts, as I think we agreed, with a bit of repackaging for emphasis to my point.

Now, given the reality of the events that just happened, I maintain that to judge them purely on the basis I just presented them, it would appear more real, physical harm has been done by the tubal. I don’t think that can be denied (assuming the medical facts are right, yada yada).

Now, in judging the two alternatives, you apply the definition of the word “abortion” as somehow relevant, and I don’t think the reality of the situation in terms of which one is more damaging is altered because of the way we apply terminology to what it is we are doing.

Either that, or one must conclude that ones ostensible intentions are more significant than actual damage. That is why I’m claiming symbolism over substance. Symbolism (definition of words) over substance (greater harm done in the name of obedience to God).

Actually, i think our biggest problem can be summed up with one 2-word phrase that i just used…Direct Killing.

To that I offer:

Indirect killing is still killing, but I’m OK with that when that is what one is morally obligated to do.

Alan

PS thank you for being patient. I think we’re getting somewhere now.