Judaism: emphisizes the importance of life

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Essentialy. When one has to choose between the potential human and the known human, Judaism chooses the known human.

Yes. I understand what Judaism chooses.

But God says of Jeremiah…

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

God also says…

Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies.

God again says…

For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.

I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.

…so if God does not consider a child in the womb a full human but only a potential human, this doesn’t seem to be explicitely stated.

In fact, I think one could argue the exact opposite of the ‘potetential human’ argument based on the numerous texts within the Hebrew Scriptures.

Valke2:

Ok. I never heard anyone argue that Catholicism ever desires to terminate the life of the mother, but the concern for the fetus makes sense.

I’ve heard some extremely radical feminists essentially claim that Catholicism’s stance against abortion stems from a desire to suppress and subjugate woman within the prison of marriage under the bondage of motherhood.



On a different note, however…

Valke2:

But, as has been posted here, the Church permits medical procedures on the mother, in certain situations that will have the unintended but inescapble effect of aborting the fetus.

Unintended is the key point here.

If someone is trying to save the life of the woman for something that is not directly related to the living child within the womb, it is permitted under careful guidelines.

If someone is trying to save the life of the woman by deliberately terminating the living child within the womb, it is not permitted under any circumstances.

Note the focus on the morality of intention in regards to the actions being taken and to whom the action is directed toward.

Valke2:

Karin disagrees with me on this, but that seems to be dodging the theological bullet and, in effect, endorsing the theology of Judaism, which places a higher priority on the life of the mother.

No. Actually, I think that Karin did an excellent job explaining the distinction between the Catholic and Judaic positions-- and I agree with her wholeheartedly on the Catholic side.

I’ll go look up some information on this to explain this disctinction in more detail later tonight.

 

[Valke2]

No. Actually, I think that Karin did an excellent job explaining the distinction between the Catholic and Judaic positions-- and I agree with her wholeheartedly on the Catholic side.

I’ll go look up some information on this to explain this disctinction in more detail later tonight.

I’m not saying she didn’t do an excellent job explaining it. I’m saying the explanation is weak. It is a “cop out” to say we can’t abort the fetus to save your life but we are going to do this operation which will almost certainly result in the fetus being aborted."

 

[bones_IV]

Valke2, are you telling me that the life of the mother is more important if the birth of a child involves the death of a mother? I don’t think so. Perhaps you don’t recognize abortion as a violation of human rights. So a person inside the womb is a fetus? Fetus is latin for baby. Plus have you seen an ultrasound? The ultrasound indicates that the child inside the womb is alive! How can you say that this is not a living thing? To say a child inside the womb is not a living thing is ignoring the facts.

 

[Valke2]

Valke2, are you telling me that the life of the mother is more important if the birth of a child involves the death of a mother? I don’t think so. Perhaps you don’t recognize abortion as a violation of human rights. So a person inside the womb is a fetus? Fetus is latin for baby. Plus have you seen an ultrasound? The ultrasound indicates that the child inside the womb is alive! How can you say that this is not a living thing? To say a child inside the womb is not a living thing is ignoring the facts.

I am discussing Judaism’s position regarding when it is permissible to have an abortion. I understand that you disagree. I never said it was not a living thing. Go read my posts. I don’t know if I’ve exhausted this issue but I definately know I don’t want to keep repeating myself.

 

[Valke2]

Fetus is latin for baby.

for offspring. And so?

 

[bones_IV]

for offspring. And so?

Cause fetus is used to say it’s not a living thing.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I’m not saying she didn’t do an excellent job explaining it. I’m saying the explanation is weak. It is a “cop out” to say we can’t abort the fetus to save your life but we are going to do this operation which will almost certainly result in the fetus being aborted."

theme from Twilight Zone plays in background

There is a woman and a child in the path of an oncoming car.

The woman is closer to you than the child is-- so you can reach the woman but you cannot reach the child.

You know that if you do something good by reaching out and grabbing the woman, you can save the woman even though this will still result in the child perishing.

However, you also know that if you do nothing at all, you can neither save the woman nor the child.

What do you do?

 

[Valke2]

theme from Twilight Zone plays in background

There is a woman and a child in the path of an oncoming car.

The woman is closer to you than the child is-- so you can reach the woman but you cannot reach the child.

You know that if you do something good by reaching out and grabbing the woman, you can save the woman even though this will still result in the child perishing.

However, you also know that if you do nothing at all, you can neither save the woman nor the child.

What do you do?

You just gave a twilight zone explanation for the Jewish concept of saving the mother’s life.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

You just gave a twilight zone explanation for the Jewish concept of saving the mother’s life.

No. Actually, I didn’t.

You unlock this door with the key of imagination. Beyond it is another dimension - a dimension of sound, a dimension of sight, a dimension of mind. You’re moving into a land of both shadow and substance, of things and ideas. You’ve just crossed over into the Twilight Zone.

Look very carefully at this post again…

 

[Valke2]

No. Actually, I didn’t.

Look very carefully at this post again…

It is the same principle. Except in Judaism, we will not sit back and do nothing if we know it will result in the death of the mother. The whole point is that if a choice must be made, if only one can be saved, we save the mother.

So let’s keep it simple. If only one choice can be made, who do you save?

 

[Karin]

It is the same principle. Except in Judaism, we will not sit back and do nothing if we know it will result in the death of the mother. The whole point is that if a choice must be made, if only one can be saved, we save the mother.

Yes lets keep it simple …the **WHOLE **point is how a jew goes about saving the mother…by performing an action, a direct abortion (sole purpose to kill the child to save the mother), you have sinned .

.

 

[Valke2]

Yes lets keep it simple …the **WHOLE **point is how a jew goes about saving the mother…by performing an action, a direct abortion (sole purpose to kill the child to save the mother), you have sinned .

.

you didn’t answer the question.

 

[Karin]

Valke2-
Quick question…if a jewish woman has an etopic pregnancy how do you (jewish people) save her?
Do you remove the effected tube that has the baby in it or do you give a her shot of (cant think of the drugs name right now) which has the sole purpose of aborting the baby and saving the tube?

 

[Karin]

you didn’t answer the question.

anwser post #90…then I can word my awnser for you to better understand the Catholic point of view… thank you

 

[Valke2]

Valke2-
Quick question…if a jewish woman has an etopic pregnancy how do you (jewish people) save her?
Do you remove the effected tube that has the baby in it or do you give a her shot of (cant think of the drugs name right now) which has the sole purpose of aborting the baby and saving the tube?

I don’t know the answer. I would guess we would use whatever medical procedure is most effective. I’m assuming either of the two choices you listed results in the termination of the embryo.

 

[Karin]

I don’t know the answer. I would guess we would use whatever medical procedure is most effective

Fair enough…thank you.

valke2:

. I’m assuming either of the two choices you listed results in the termination of the embryo.

yes either of the two options would have that end result…but only one option is an abortion the other is not

 

[Valke2]

Fair enough…thank you.

yes either of the two options would have that end result…but only one option is an abortion the other is not

Ok. I don’t think it would have a significant part on the decision. I don’t think that according to Judaism, it is less acceptable to save the mother’s life by the abortion method as opposed to removing the tube.

 

[Karin]

Tubal Ectopic Pregnancy
In the tubal ectopic pregnancy the fertilized ovum lodges in some
part of the Fallopian tube. The reason that it does not continue its
descent into the uterus may be the pathological condition of the tube
itself or of the ovum. Once the fertilized ovum takes up its nesting
place in the tube, it begins to bore into the wall of the tube,
seeking as it does life-giving nourishment. This “boring-in” action
on the part of the tiny embryo perforates the inner layers of the
tube and the tube soon becomes weakened by internal hemorrhaging.
There is present a pathological condition of the tube, caused by the
erosive action of the trophoblast which is destroying the muscle wall
and penetrating blood vessels. The growing fetus causes the tube to
swell, and this swelling dangerously stretches the tube’s outer wall.
Left in this condition, the tube will ordinarily rupture; and unless
surgery is performed very soon after the rupturing, the mother may
die.

When the Fallopian tube is in this condition, would it be licit to
slit it open and remove the fetus? Obviously this action would be
gravely evil, for it would constitute a direct, unjust attack on the
life of an innocent fetus. It would, in short, be murder. In such a
procedure the operating surgeon would set out to destroy the fetus as
a means of curing the mother, and thus he would directly intend its
death. The same conclusion would follow if the physician used drugs,
X ray, or any other method directly to terminate the life of the
fetus.

Would it, however, be likewise illicit to excise a Fallopian tube
which contains a living fetus? If the tube itself is healthy, there
would of course be no justifying reason for the excision. But in the
case of an ectopic pregnancy the Fallopian tube is in a definitely
pathological condition. Its inner portion is riddled, greatly
weakened, and full of internal hemorrhaging.
Once the tube has ruptured externally, the physician may and should
immediately tie off the arteries which supply blood to the tube and
then remove the tube by surgery. This operation is obviously
justified, for in it are fully verified the four conditions required
for the application of the principle of the twofold effect. The
excision of this ruptured and gravely dangerous part of the mother’s
body is similar, in respect to the moral law, to the removal of a
pregnant uterus whose cancerous condition is at present gravely
threatening the mother’s life.
But let us suppose that the tube in the case of an ectopic pregnancy
has not yet ruptured. Must the surgeon, before the excision, wait
until an external rupture occurs? The answer is that, if the tube is
at present in a gravely dangerous condition and if its excision
cannot be delayed without a notable increase of danger to the mother,
this Fallopian tube may be removed at once. This conclusion is based
on two principles: ( 1) Mutilation is licit if it is required to
conserve the health of the whole body. (2 ) An act which has two
effects, one good, the other bad, may be licitly performed, given
certain conditions. The latter principle is correctly applied to the
present case. The first condition is fulfilled, for the surgeon’s
intention is good. He has as his purpose in operating the saving of
the mother’s life. He foresees, it is true, that the fetus will die
when the tube where it is resting is removed from the woman’s body,
but he does not desire its death. This is a merely permitted evil
effect. The second condition is fulfilled, for the surgeon’s action
is not intrinsically evil. That which he sets out to accomplish is
cutting away a pathological or diseased part of the woman’s body. The
third condition is fulfilled, for the action’s evil effect (the death
of the fetus) does not cause the good effect (the preserving of the
mother’s health). Whether the fetus died or not would hardly affect
the mother’s health. It is the ridding the body of a seriously
corrupted part which directly promotes the mother’s well-being. It is
not the fetus which at present constitutes the threat to the mother’s
life; it is the diseased organ. The fourth condition is fulfilled,
for there is due proportion between the evil effect and the good
effect. The death that will result for the fetus is compensated for
by the life that will be saved for the mother.

CONT’

 

[Karin]

In the analysis of the application of the fourth condition to our
present case, it is well to bear in mind the following facts. Tubal
pregnancies practically never go to term. In about ninety-nine cases
out of a hundred the fetus is aborted (and usually this will occur
before the twelfth week), or the tube ruptures externally; and in
either case the fetus will perish. Hence when one considers excising
a dangerously weakened but externally unruptured tube in ectopic
pregnancy, the choice lies between the following two modes of
procedure: ( 1) permitting the tube to remain in the woman’s body
until it ruptures externally. This will bring death to the fetus and
will imperil the life of the mother; or (2) excising the tube at
once. This latter operation will bring to the mother safety but to
the fetus death. In the first procedure the fetus is, practically
speaking, just as certain to die as in the second procedure. As far
as the fetus is concerned, the difference between the first procedure
and the second procedure is that in the first procedure its life
probably would be lengthened by a few weeks. Hence in evaluating the
fourth condition the physician must have sufficient cause for
permitting the life of the fetus to be shortened because of the
excision of the tube.

Is it, then, licit in every case of ectopic pregnancy to excise the
diseased Fallopian tube? The answer is that the operation is licit
if the tube is at present gravely dangerous to the mother, or if
putting off the operation would involve grave danger. The physician
is the one who must decide when the tube may be considered to be
gravely dangerous. He must judge each individual case on its own
merits. The general rule which should be followed is this: If delay
in excising the diseased Fallopian tube would gravely jeopardize the
mother’s life, the physician may operate at once. The ultimate
decision in a particular case is in the hands of the physician. It
may be that in most cases where an ectopic pregnancy is found, the
removal of the tube at once is required to avert existing and grave
danger from the mother. But this is not true in all cases. In some
few cases at least there is no grave danger to the mother when the
ectopic is first discovered. In these few cases the immediate removal
of the tube is not licit. The diseased tube may not be excised until
it is a source of grave danger to the mother. To excise the tube
before this time would indirectly shorten the life of the ectopic
fetus without a sufficient reason, and this would be illicit. Hence
in all cases in which grave danger is not actually present the
physician must adopt the expectant treatment.

There are cases in which the surgeon discovers an ectopic pregnancy
during the course of a surgical operation; for example, an
appendectomy. May he immediately excise the tube if to wait would
necessitate performing another grave operation? In this event,
because the expectant treatment would involve so great an added
danger to the mother, the surgeon may at once remove the pathological
tube. The same solution is to be given when the patient would have to
be kept under constant observation in a hospital and she refuses to
be hospitalized because she cannot afford the expense.

There are circumstances when the physician will sincerely doubt about
the gravity of the danger in a particular ectopic pregnancy. In that
event he may and should give the mother the benefit of the doubt. The
reason is that an immediate operation will probably have the good
effect of saving the mother’s life, and will probably have the bad
effect of indirectly shortening to some extent the fetus’ life. The
good effect will thus greatly outweigh the evil effect. Hence the
physician preferably will excise the diseased tube at once.

Misconceptions concerning the principles involved can arise because
of the fact that the diseased condition of the tube is due to the
fetus. Is it not true, one may argue, that the tube’s weakened and
hemorrhaging condition was brought about by the fetus? Is not the
excision of the tube intended to rid the mother of the fetus, the
cause of her danger? We reply to this objection by admitting that
the fetus did cause the present riddled condition of the tube; but,
we add, the tube itself is now seriously diseased and would remain
diseased quite independently of the fetus. It is the tube itself, not
the fetus, which constitutes the present grave danger to the mother;
and so, given certain conditions, it may be excised.

CONT"

 

[Karin]

Some who are not acquainted with the facts believe that the Catholic
Church has changed her attitude in regard to the licitness of doing
surgery on ectopic pregnancies. Up to the present day the Church has
made only a few official pronouncements on this question, and these
pronouncements refer to the direct attack of the surgeon on the fetus
or to the direct removal of a nonviable fetus from the mother’s womb.
Such procedures even today are condemned by all Catholic moralists.
On these questions the Church has not changed her view. Catholic
ethicians, however, have changed their view with regard to the
licitness of excising the unruptured Fallopian tube in an ectopic
pregnancy, but this change of opinion stemmed from new medical
findings on this matter. Fifty years ago there was little medical
knowledge available with reference to the pathology of an ectopic
pregnancy. When medical authorities provided the information that the
diseased condition of the Fallopian tube, even before its external
rupture, in many cases of ectopic pregnancy constituted a grave and
present danger to the mother’s life, the moralists declared that the
excision of the tube was licit even though the death of the fetus
could not be prevented. The moralists made no change in regard to
principles or in the application of principles. They merely applied
the principles to new facts and arrived at a new conclusion. It is
for physicians accurately to present the facts to the moralist. He
depends on them for medical information. Given the medical
information necessary, he will then apply the ethical principles to
the case and pronounce upon the licitness or illicitness of certain
procedures.
ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/INDIRECT.TXT