Is this Chrisian love the woman?

[vester444]

Well, I respectfully disagree. I dont think that it needs its own section. Its a direct response to what people here are posting.

Their argument is that removing the tube is ok but removing the baby is not. My POINT is that technically the church is against IVF and against egg extraction and freezing, but in the case of these ice babies, they are not.

So my point is that in certain circumstances, circumstances will allow the Catholic church to clarify a very broad generalization (i.e. dont abort) in certain circumstances, etc.

My question is whether or not this SPECIFIC issue (ectopic pregnancy) has been SPECIFICALLY addressed by Holy Mother Church.

Vester

 

[kage_ar]

The Catholic church has allowed “ice babies.” These are babies that are embreyos that for whatever reason (wrong) have been put on “ice” and frozen. Now, TECHNICALLY IVF is wrong. But in this case, although the original act of putting them on ice was wrong, and the act of IVF is wrong, in this case, the Catholic church is saying that it will bring life and is the more pro-life action.

A few weeks ago, a Moral Theologian addressed the matter of embryo adoption and implantation on CA Live. Would be worth going to the archives and finding that.

 

[TAS2000]

My question is whether or not this SPECIFIC issue (ectopic pregnancy) has been SPECIFICALLY addressed by Holy Mother Church.

that depends on what you mean by “addressed by Holy Mother Church.” Many of the documents published address EXACTLY this topic, and even use the proper medical terms. So there is now doubt they knew exactly what they were referring to.

As I mentioned before though, there is no consensus on how long they should wait, as some argue that the very fact of an ectopic means there is a defect in the tube and then its removal is to prevent the rupture from happening, while others would prefer to adopt a more “wait and see” which requires closer monitoring, but again, as many ectopics can resolve themselves naturally, the surgery would be unnecessary. No one advocates waiting until the mother’s life is in dire jeopardy. It is just that some argue for a more conservative time frame and other do not agree. Remember medical science is more of an art, and less of a science.

A lot also depends on how much effort your physicain is willing to put into it. It is very easy to say after one vist that you need to schedule surgery and be done with it. and a lot more work (and expense) to say come back every other day, and we’ll keep checking it. Again, the real problem is the attitude that the baby is disposable because it is going to die anyway. Church teaching is that it is wrong to directly kill the baby. The fact that medical science has not yet found a way to save both people doesn’t mean the church should re-shape its teaching around what is currently available. It just means medical science has something it should be striving for.

 

[vester444]

But just as you would be closing off the possibility of life if you used a condom, so wouldnt you be if you chose to remove a fallopian tube? That would be removing something healthy that would allow for life. To me, that would be a sin also?

Again, no one has shown me exactly where the Holy Mother Church specifically says you cant do this (ectopic pregnancy etc.) and no one has stated how its any different than the church clarifying a stance on IVF/snowflake babies.

Vester

 

[vester444]

The fact that medical science has not yet found a way to save both people doesn’t mean the church should re-shape its teaching around what is currently available. It just means medical science has something it should be striving for.

This doesnt make sense. How can you ‘strive’ to both keep something and remove something. You either have it intact and remove what will die anyway and kill the mother, or you keep it there. No amount of medical science would be able to allow you to have something and not have something. ???

Vester

 

[TAS2000]

Did you actually read the thread? If so you should have picked up the fact that the church is 100% for saving both the mom, and the baby. The church is not saying the removal any particular organ is good. What it is saying is that removing only a living baby is equal to a direct abortion. If they could operate and MOVE the baby to a safe location (the mom’s uterous or an artifical incuabtor) where it could grow, then all would rejoice!!! This is what I meant medical science should strive for.

The church doesn’t particularly care about the tube itself at all. If we knew the baby was already dead, you could do the exact same procedure discussed above and it would be perfectly fine. Slit open the tube, remove the dead baby, and sew the tube up. The moral problem only occurs when the baby is still alive, as it typically is. No where does the church either direct you to do anything at all medically to “keep” your fertility intact. What it does direct is that you not intentionally do anything to harm your fertility, like a vasectomy, unless there is some other medical reason for doing so.

I’ll cover more later.

 

[vester444]

Did you actually read the thread?

Yes, I did.

Again, no one is addressing my analogy to snowflake babies. Oh well. I think its a good point/argument. Either no one else has a good argument against it, or they dont think its a good point. Sigh.

Vester

 

[rpp]

The church doesn’t particularly care about the tube itself at all. {snip} No where does the church either direct you to do anything at all medically to “keep” your fertility intact. What it does direct is that you not intentionally do anything to harm your fertility, like a vasectomy, unless there is some other medical reason for doing so.

I’ll cover more later.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the context you are writing, but I do not believe these are accurate statements.

The Church cares very much about the fallopian tubes as they are an essential part of female fertility. And the Church does direct us to protect our fertility. You are correct that we cannot do anything intentional to harm or endanger our fertility without good reason.

Treating an ectopic pregnancy by the removal of the fallopian tube does put a woman’s fertility at risk as she only has two of those. I have a very good friend whose first two pregnancies were ectopic, rendering her sterile. These were caused by an infection that left scar tissue on the walls of her tubes. Years earlier when she foolishly had an IUD contraceptive device implanted. It was only in place for a few months, but that was all it took. Despite the fact that many years had passed after she had the IUD removed, she still lost both her children and her ability to conceive. In her case, the tubes, not the baby, were the problem.

Earlier I saw a post that said removing the fallopian to treat an ectopic pregnancy was the a better moral choice than saving the tube and removing the developing baby. First, I did not know it was possible to save the tube. That is news to me. Good news, in fact. However, it seems to me that saving the tube, thus preserving the mother’s fertility, would be a better moral choice. Of course it is tragic that the child cannot be saved.

 

[kage_ar]

Yes, I did.

Again, no one is addressing my analogy to snowflake babies. Oh well. I think its a good point/argument. Either no one else has a good argument against it, or they dont think its a good point. Sigh.

Vester

Right now, I do not have time to dig through the radio archives. A known Moral Theologian spoke to this topic, and it is my recollection that his interpretation was that while there has been no official document from the Holy See on the matter of adopting frozen embryos, that he felt it was morally problematic.

 

[rpp]

But just as you would be closing off the possibility of life if you used a condom, so wouldnt you be if you chose to remove a fallopian tube? That would be removing something healthy that would allow for life. To me, that would be a sin also?

Again, no one has shown me exactly where the Holy Mother Church specifically says you cant do this (ectopic pregnancy etc.) and no one has stated how its any different than the church clarifying a stance on IVF/snowflake babies.

Vester

What is a “snowflake” baby?

 

[TAS2000]

Sorry, I didn’t have time earlier to go into detail. The church has never said that we should purposely do everything possible to maintain our fertility in all cases. Rather it leaves that decision up to the individuals, and their circumstances. For example, a woman might be having recurring problems stemming from ovarian cysts. For this arguement lets say she has 2 medical choices. She can take a very expensive medication for the rest of her life that will preserve her fertility and cut in half the debilitating pain she gets from these cysts. Or she can have the ovaries removed, and all pain will cease, but so will her fertilty. The church does not mandate the woman has to choose fertility because the church is pro-life. It rather says both options are a medical treatment that the woman and her family need to decide which course is best. Maybe the pain is too much, or the cost would mean real hardship for her family. Maybe she just wants to be rid of the problem and not have the hassle of medication. Whatever she chooses, it is up to her. However, going in to have her tubes tied for the direct purpose of contraception, and not to treat some other medical problem is morally wrong.

In the case of the ectopic, again the key is that the surgery can’t be to simply remove a living baby. If the baby were already dead, then removing it alone and “saving” the tube would be fine. If we had any other moral alternative, we should take it. But if the baby is alive, then the treatment must (currently) be to remove or repair the damaged tube, which will also cause the death of the baby, but is not a direct act upon the baby. Many people see this as a fake, an attempt to “cover up” what you are really doing. They do not understand the difference. Try this for an analogy. In one case the mother has cancer, and the chemo will save her, but kill the child. In the other case, the mother has some placenta problem where if she carries the child to term and tries to deliver, she will surely bleed to death, so she has a D&C. Both result in the death of the child and save the mother, but one is done as a medical treatment for another issue, the other is a direct act upon the child. The intent is good, but the act is bad. It is the same with the ectopic. Assuming the baby is still alive, removing just the baby is a direct act on the child, and therefore an abortion. Removing the damaged part of the tube the baby is attached to is not a bad act, even though it has a forseeable bad end. Again, if there were a way to save both mother and child, we should take it, and then removing the tube with the baby would become morally wrong because it has a forseeable bad end and could have been avoided.

 

[kage_ar]

What is a “snowflake” baby?

The frozen embryos that are “left over” from IVF. They are kept in a frozen state.

Some people advocate “adopting” these unwanted embryos and having them implanted in order to bring the child to term.

 

[rpp]

TAS2000, okay, I understand your position now on preserving fertility. That is my understanding as well. But I would amplify it to say that when there are treatments of equal efficacy, but one harms fertility while another attempts to preserve it, the latter is preferred.

First let me start by repeating that I did not previously know it was possible to treat an ectopic pregnancy without removing the fallopian tube as well. This thread is the first place I had every heard this.

I still do not understand the difference you make when distinguishing between the removal of the portion of the tube, which I do not believe can be repaired, and the removal of just the developing baby who is threatening the life of the mother.

Even if only the developing baby is acted upon directly, it is done for the purpose of saving the mother.

Are you able to cite a source or provide a link to some authoritative source?

An attempt to preserve her fertility would also be a good thing would it not?

 

[TAS2000]

It is possible to remove a portion of the tube and sew the ends back together. I am unsure of the exact medical term as it is very close to the term for slicing into the tube and then sewing up the incision, and I don’t want to use the wrong one.

Some links were provided earlier in this thread to documents and sources, but I will see if I can find some of the ones I have used in the past. Remember they were writen by various theolgians, so you will not see a document with “from the mouth of the pope” stamped across the top, which is what it takes to convince some people of a church teaching.

The key to it all is remembering that the act and intent can not be seperated. Both must be good. In one case the act is bad, directly acting on the baby, even if the intent is good. Like killing an innocent person because they have the right match for an organ transplant to save another person. But in the other case, removing a defective tube, or even a portion of the tube is not in and of itself a bad act. So both intents were good, but one had a bad act, the other did not. Thus one was morally wrong, the other is not.

 

[TAS2000]

Actually, there are many treatments for ectopics that can save the tube, though all are morally unacceptable if the baby is killed.

They can take a drug used for cancer patients that will casue the baby to die, methohex something. This is used quite often as it avoids surgery. They can also remove a portion of the tube and sew the ends up. Or just slit the tube open remove the baby, and sew the slit up. Or they can “milk” the tube, like squeeze the tube and stroke it so that the baby is forced down the tube.

Again, if the baby is still alive these are all morally unacceptable.

 

[rpp]

It is possible to remove a portion of the tube and sew the ends back together. I am unsure of the exact medical term as it is very close to the term for slicing into the tube and then sewing up the incision, and I don’t want to use the wrong one.

Some links were provided earlier in this thread to documents and sources, but I will see if I can find some of the ones I have used in the past. Remember they were writen by various theolgians, so you will not see a document with “from the mouth of the pope” stamped across the top, which is what it takes to convince some people of a church teaching.

The key to it all is remembering that the act and intent can not be seperated. Both must be good. In one case the act is bad, directly acting on the baby, even if the intent is good. Like killing an innocent person because they have the right match for an organ transplant to save another person. But in the other case, removing a defective tube, or even a portion of the tube is not in and of itself a bad act. So both intents were good, but one had a bad act, the other did not. Thus one was morally wrong, the other is not.

Actually, there are many treatments for ectopics that can save the tube, though all are morally unacceptable if the baby is killed.

They can take a drug used for cancer patients that will casue the baby to die, methohex something. This is used quite often as it avoids surgery. They can also remove a portion of the tube and sew the ends up. Or just slit the tube open remove the baby, and sew the slit up. Or they can “milk” the tube, like squeeze the tube and stroke it so that the baby is forced down the tube.

Again, if the baby is still alive these are all morally unacceptable.

Okay. Thank you.

We can only continue to pray that some treatment will be developed to permit the child to be moved to the mother’s womb.

 

[Linnyo]

Whether you remove the baby from the tube or remove part of the tube, you are still acting directly on the baby because either way, we all know what the result will be. The analogies given up until now are flawed because they do not contain the case where the child will definately die anyway. However you look at it, it is a traumatic experience for both mother and baby and mother’s should not be considered bad for doing what they have to do. Removing the tube is a direct attack on the baby as is removing the baby itself but one of these must be done or there will be 2 dead bodies rather than one. Lets remember that several women have had to go through this trauma and that none of us, not even one has any right to pass judgement.

 

[rpp]

Whether you remove the baby from the tube or remove part of the tube, you are still acting directly on the baby because either way, we all know what the result will be. The analogies given up until now are flawed because they do not contain the case where the child will definately die anyway. However you look at it, it is a traumatic experience for both mother and baby and mother’s should not be considered bad for doing what they have to do. Removing the tube is a direct attack on the baby as is removing the baby itself but one of these must be done or there will be 2 dead bodies rather than one. Lets remember that several women have had to go through this trauma and that none of us, not even one has any right to pass judgement.

First, the context of this discussion as always been the case of an ectopic pregnancy, with is always fatal for both the mother and the child. So there is nothing flawed in the discussion nor were there any analogies.

As for the second highlighted part of your post, none of us is passing judgment on any woman who has gone through this. Or if we are, our judgment is that she is the victim of a tragic disease that took the life of her baby, nearly took her life, and that she has **no **moral culpability at all.

For my part, one of my closest friend’s first **two **pregnancies were ectopic pregnancies, rendering her sterile and childless. So no, we have not forgotten the women here.

 

[Julian_Peters]

Thank you to all who have participated. This thread is now closed.