Pro-abortion arguments...those who are pro-choice, what do/did you really believe?

[jack_hawkins]

I am going to tread very carefully here. Although not familiar with that chemical, from the context I am going to presume it is a “dissolving chemical” for lack of a better term and so is a non-surgical alternative. The question remains, since the growth of the ovum has stretched and weakened the tube, why would you want to preserve the tube? A weak tube raises the possibility of a second ectopic. That was the “defective tube” I was referring to.

As I said I am treading carefully here.

methotrexate is a folate antagonist, used in chemotherapy and for immunosuppression - it also works on the rapidly dividing tissues of the embryo
yes, tubal preservation increases the possibility of a further ectopic pregnancy - but also the chance of a future successful pregnancy
that is a matter of patient choice, quite rightly - esp if IVF is not deemed acceptable

 

[jack_hawkins]

Yes, I am aware of that but it is the intent. It gives dignity to the child and the mother, not one over the other.

well the intent is exactly the same - except one preserves reproductive function
the pregnancy is not viable, and threatens the mother’s life
in those circumstances the only possible pro-life option is destruction of the embryo

 

[ElizabethAnne]

well the intent is exactly the same - except one preserves reproductive function
the pregnancy is not viable, and threatens the mother’s life
in those circumstances the only possible pro-life option is destruction of the embryo

I’m not sure what your definition of pro-life is. You seem to be suggesting that anyone who is pro-life must support every woman in the world having as many babies as she possibly can. That is not the case.

 

[LittleDeb]

methotrexate is a folate antagonist, used in chemotherapy and for immunosuppression - it also works on the rapidly dividing tissues of the embryo
yes, tubal preservation increases the possibility of a further ectopic pregnancy - but also the chance of a future successful pregnancy
that is a matter of patient choice, quite rightly - esp if IVF is not deemed acceptable

Thank you for the reasonable response. From what I have studied a second ectopic has a higher chance of fatality because a weak tube would rupture earlier. Tube preservation still seems to not be in the best interest of the mother either.

 

[church_mouse]

well the intent is exactly the same - except one preserves reproductive function
the pregnancy is not viable, and threatens the mother’s life
in those circumstances the only possible pro-life option is destruction of the embryo

The differences in intent are the saving of the mother’s life with the unfortunate death of the unborn baby (salpingectomy) or the “destruction of the embryo” to save the life of the mother. Are you familiar with the principle of double effect? It is not immoral to remove a diseased organ even if it renders one infertile.

 

[Island_Oak]

Since when is it a right to be able to kill another? If the situation happened in questionable situations. Why does the mothers rights come before the child’s? Why is the mother more important than the child’s?

St. Lucy:

You raise good questions for which I don’t have all the answers. The **point **of my post is not to argue one position or the other–though I do not view abortion as a morally neutral form of birth control–but to underscore the fact that the abortion debate is far from simple because it involves the interplay of rights of two individuals. The fundamental questions are 1) when does a fetus acquire rights as a “person;” 2) who/what ethic governs this for a secular society; and 3) to what extent can a pregnant woman be legally required to sacrifice her interests/health/life for the sake of the fetus she carries.

Being personally opposed to the practice and easy availability of abortion, I think perhaps the most effective angle, if you will, for the pro-life cause would allign the unborn to a status similar to disability–in that it is a living being which though not fully able-bodied, is fully human, and thus entitled to legal protection. The sticky issue remains the extent to which a pregnant woman can be required to submit her rights /interests/health to those of an unborn child.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The fundamental questions are 1) when does a fetus acquire rights as a “person;”

All living human beings have the right to life. If they don’t, it isn’t a right at all, but merely a privilige.

1. who/what ethic governs this for a secular society; and

If “society” determines when you get the right to live, it isn’t a right at all, but merely a privilige.

1. to what extent can a pregnant woman be legally required to sacrifice her interests/health/life for the sake of the fetus she carries.

The rights and interests of the mother and child are exactly equal. If we can ask the child to sacrifice itself for the mother, we can ask a similar sacrifice of the mother for the child.

 

[jack_hawkins]

The differences in intent are the saving of the mother’s life with the unfortunate death of the unborn baby (salpingectomy) or the “destruction of the embryo” to save the life of the mother. Are you familiar with the principle of double effect? It is not immoral to remove a diseased organ even if it renders one infertile.

the purpose of the salpingectomy is to destroy the embryo tho
there is no double effect at all - that is the effect required, hence the reason why tubal preservation is an option

 

[jack_hawkins]

Thank you for the reasonable response. From what I have studied a second ectopic has a higher chance of fatality because a weak tube would rupture earlier. Tube preservation still seems to not be in the best interest of the mother either.

well that’s a choice for the mother to make tho - not the doctor
bearing children is such a gift that people are loathe to deny themselves this even at the risk of their own life - surely in line with Catholic thinking?

 

[jack_hawkins]

I’m not sure what your definition of pro-life is. You seem to be suggesting that anyone who is pro-life must support every woman in the world having as many babies as she possibly can. That is not the case.

err, no, that is not what I’m saying

 

[church_mouse]

the purpose of the salpingectomy is to destroy the embryo tho
there is no double effect at all - that is the effect required, hence the reason why tubal preservation is an option

The definition of salpinectomy as you know is: encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861700744/salpingectomy.html
The purpose is not “to destroy the embryo”, as you have said previously, there are other ways to “destroy the embryo” in ectopic pregnancy.

Salpingectomy can be done for other reasons besides ectopic pregnancy and in ectopic pregnancy, it is done (by surgeons concerned with moral approaches) to remove the diseased portion of the tube not to destroy the baby. The baby’s death is the unfortunate double effect of removing the infected tube.

I apologise to the OP for my part in taking this thread off-topic. Not much more I can say about this, Jack. Your agenda is apparent. Take care.

 

[LittleDeb]

well that’s a choice for the mother to make tho - not the doctor
bearing children is such a gift that people are loathe to deny themselves this even at the risk of their own life - surely in line with Catholic thinking?

I can see where you are coming from, and yes, I am willing to (possibly) risk my own life to keep my uterus. I wanted it removed only if it was truly diseased. But, I would not knowingly risk the death of a second child by keeping the tube. I also wouldn’t risk my own life by keeping the tube. A diseased organ can morally be removed.

Edit to add: I still have both my tubes and all my parts. It is because of my endometriosis that I was advised to study up on ectopic pregnancy.

 

[jack_hawkins]

The definition of salpinectomy as you know is: encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861700744/salpingectomy.html
The purpose is not “to destroy the embryo”, as you have said previously, there are other ways to “destroy the embryo” in ectopic pregnancy.

Salpingectomy can be done for other reasons besides ectopic pregnancy and in ectopic pregnancy, it is done (by surgeons concerned with moral approaches) to remove the diseased portion of the tube not to destroy the baby. The baby’s death is the unfortunate double effect of removing the infected tube.

I apologise to the OP for my part in taking this thread off-topic. Not much more I can say about this, Jack. Your agenda is apparent. Take care.

yes, the fact that salpingectomy is done for other reasons is irrelevant to the topic at hand - btw why do you say “infected tube”? why do you think a salpinx with an ectopic pregnancy is infected? again you persist with this notion that the tube must be defective, which isn’t necessarily the case either
my agenda is apparent? yes, I’d hope so - educating people on the science involved
I take it from the context you believe I have another agenda - could you state explicitly what that is?
why do “pro-lifers” constantly make these false dichotomies?
you assume everyone that disagrees with your erroneous science is for abortion for example - that is just irrational and fanatical

 

[jack_hawkins]

I can see where you are coming from, and yes, I am willing to (possibly) risk my own life to keep my uterus. I wanted it removed only if it was truly diseased. But, I would not knowingly risk the death of a second child by keeping the tube. I also wouldn’t risk my own life by keeping the tube. A diseased organ can morally be removed.

Edit to add: I still have both my tubes and all my parts. It is because of my endometriosis that I was advised to study up on ectopic pregnancy.

but that was your choice, someone else is free to choose otherwise
yes of course it is acceptable to remove the tube - my purpose in looking at tubal preservation was to illustrate to people the aim of treatment of tubal/ectopic pregnancy

 

[vern_humphrey]

I apologise to the OP for my part in taking this thread off-topic. Not much more I can say about this, Jack. Your agenda is apparent. Take care.

I thought I was the only person who noticed that.

 

[estesbob]

I thought I was the only person who noticed that.

No Vern-at least three did.

 

[mapleoak]

Much of what many pro-life people say, who do not fully understand what ectopic pregnancy is or why it may occur, are poor attempts to justify the unfortunate death of the unborn child. Based on such grounds they have very little in the way of argument for defending the decision to solve this ‘problem’. In fact they are easily refuted when they fall from their moral basis. A perfectly healthy tube can become the site of implantation with no other abnormality than the fact that an embryo implanted there. Endectomy in this case will not be the removal of a diseased organ. In the same way, if an embryo implanted in the colon, it does not mean the colon is diseased. It must be stressed that one must be very careful that they are not being mislead into justifying a certain type of abortion by calling it a fancy name. Whether an action is performed to directly end the life of the unborn child or not is the determinant of morality in any such decisions.

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

 

[LittleDeb]

T
I apologise to the OP for my part in taking this thread off-topic.

Me too!

Now in an effort to get it back on topic… The idea of “the best interest of the mother” is another pro-choice argument I encountered. This was especially relevant in the case of rape. In being both a rape survivor and a lay counselor in support groups I discovered that this argument too was inconsistent.

Rape survivors who conceived and did not abort were more likely to heal from their rape. Rape survivors who aborted had a lower level of healing regardless of their views on abortion before their rape. Most would talk about their rape and then seamlessly start talking about their abortion without even realizing it. When this was pointed out they would reveal that the abortion had many similarities to the rape. Some called it “another attack.”

We found that women who were helped to heal from their abortion also healed from their rape. Since both were a violation, the skills involved healing one healed the other. I have often encountered rape only and abortion only survivors having deep conversations of healing.

 

[estesbob]

Me too!

Now in an effort to get it back on topic… The idea of “the best interest of the mother” is another pro-choice argument I encountered. This was especially relevant in the case of rape. In being both a rape survivor and a lay counselor in support groups I discovered that this argument too was inconsistent.

.

The Best interest of the Mother argument also tends to ignore the physcological damage a woman suffers from Abortion. In just about every CPC I know of the post Abortion Sydrome support groups are full. I even one time ran across a PAS group for Pro-choice women. Their premise was yes they were adrversely effected by the abortion but it was all the fault of pro-lifers making them feel guilty.

 

[jack_hawkins]

Much of what many pro-life people say, who do not fully understand what ectopic pregnancy is or why it may occur, are poor attempts to justify the unfortunate death of the unborn child. Based on such grounds they have very little in the way of argument for defending the decision to solve this ‘problem’. In fact they are easily refuted when they fall from their moral basis. A perfectly healthy tube can become the site of implantation with no other abnormality than the fact that an embryo implanted there. Endectomy in this case will not be the removal of a diseased organ. In the same way, if an embryo implanted in the colon, it does not mean the colon is diseased

exactly what I’ve been saying

It must be stressed that one must be very careful that they are not being mislead into justifying a certain type of abortion by calling it a fancy name. Whether an action is performed to directly end the life of the unborn child or not is the determinant of morality in any such decisions.
In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

is it? on what grounds do you say that?
so you would let an ectopic pregnancy kill a woman would you?