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

[st_lucy]

let’s try and think like Jesus would
we are allowed to use our common sense

You seem to forget what Our Lord did say and did do.

John 15:13 Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

 

[guanophore]

Did I phrase the statement in an ambiguous way? I said it is not justifiable to kill the person stuck in the tube on merit of it just so happening to be there. Now, I ask YOU to reread my earlier posts to see if I understand what I am talking about. In all fairness, then please enlighten me of my failure to understand the science behind this issue.

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

It is not a merit in any way to terminate an ectopic. The removal of the malplaced embryo is not done for “merit”. I am curious what you recommend as a treatment for this condition that meets with your standards of ethics.

 

[jack_hawkins]

You seem to forget what Our Lord did say and did do.

you are asking for women to be allowed to die for the sake of a pregnancy doomed to failure
we don’t have to stop using our common sense when we become Christians - far from it

 

[guanophore]

Morality of course, depends on intent behing the treatment. Treatment can be of different varieties. Some are intended to kill, others just so happen to result in death. Some treat the unborn itself as a disease.

Yes, I see your point.

In this instance, there is still no justification in directly intending the death of the person. Are you now choosing between the life of the psychosis patient or the person he/she may kill?

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

No, it is a choice to protect as many lives as possible. If one of those students or faculty at the college had a gun, and emptied it on that psychotic killer, many lives would have been saved. Would the intention be to kill the shooter? Perhaps not. Perhaps only to stop the action to protect more people from getting killed.

In the same way, the removal of the embryo in the case of an ectopic pregnancy preserves the life and health of the mother. If the tube is left intact, then it also preserves the possibility of another pregnancy. If the embroyo dies in the course of attempting these goods, then it is a double effect.

Removing an infected fallopian tube which contains a fetus is not a direct abortion (the intention is not to kill the child but rather the removal of the infected tube) and is considered an ethical procedure.
Do you have another example of the life of the mother vs the life of the baby?

This is true, but the fallopian tube may not be infected. Should the embryo be allowed to continue growing in the tube in that case?

The fetus is never an unjust aggressor and never guilty. The fetus is innocent. Medical treatment should be aimed at treating pathology, not killing innocent people.

Of course! But would you consider the wayward implantation “pathology”?

The baby is not pathology. In the example used here that portion of the tube is pathological and that should be the subject of medical intervention. That science does not have the capability to sustain the baby at this time does not mean we are justified in intentionally killing the fetus.

What if there is no problem in the tube? What if the implantation was in the intestine? Does it become pathologized at the moment implantation occurred?

You seem to forget what Our Lord did say and did do.

Are you saying that the reproductive specialist should somehow try to exchange his life for that of the embryo? Or that the mother who is having the ectopic pregnancy is called upon to allow the embryo to grow?

 

[st_lucy]

you are asking for women to be allowed to die for the sake of a pregnancy doomed to failure
we don’t have to stop using our common sense when we become Christians - far from it

No I am not saying that, I am just replying to your statment:

Originally Posted by jack hawkins

let’s try and think like Jesus would
we are allowed to use our common sense

Just so you don’t confuse those who are aren’t sure Jesus would not have thought of saving Himself first.

 

[guanophore]

No I am not saying that, I am just replying to your statment:

It is true that there is no greater love than one should lay down one’s life for another. I am just confused as to how that applies in this context.

Just so you don’t confuse those who are aren’t sure Jesus would not have thought of saving Himself first.

No, but there were times when they wanted to kill him and He removed himself. However, that is even more off topic than we already are! In the case of ectopic pregnancy, what would it look like to lay down one’s life for another?

 

[st_lucy]

It is true that there is no greater love than one should lay down one’s life for another. I am just confused as to how that applies in this context.

No, but there were times when they wanted to kill him and He removed himself. However, that is even more off topic than we already are! In the case of ectopic pregnancy, what would it look like to lay down one’s life for another?

I am aware of that all I am saying is that NO it would be wrong that Jesus would not have given His life for another, or put His life higher up than another. as Jack was saying.

 

[st_lucy]

It is true that there is no greater love than one should lay down one’s life for another. I am just confused as to how that applies in this context.

No, but there were times when they wanted to kill him and He removed himself. However, that is even more off topic than we already are! In the case of ectopic pregnancy, what would it look like to lay down one’s life for another?

and just so know no one is saying that in ectopic pregnancy that one should should just die. We are saying that one must treat both of the patients with dignity. Although some here would think it is better to refer to one of the patients here as something other than a human.

 

[jack_hawkins]

No I am not saying that, I am just replying to your statment:that is what you are effectively calling for
Just so you don’t confuse those who are aren’t sure Jesus would not have thought of saving Himself first.
the mother can save the embryo, can she? NO
can the embryo develop into a child? NO
is an ectopic pregnancy a pathological condition? YES
is treatment of ectopic pregnancy allowed by the church? YES
basically you are asking mothers to make an empty gesture just because you are misapplying your beliefs against all common sense

 

[church_mouse]

This is true, but the fallopian tube may not be infected. Should the embryo be allowed to continue growing in the tube in that case?
QUOTE]

My use of “infected” is a poor choice of words. Many ectopic pregnancys will resolve spontaeously with no treatment at all. If this does not happen then removal of the tube is is warranted.

 

[jack_hawkins]

guanophore;2225595:

This is true, but the fallopian tube may not be infected. Should the embryo be allowed to continue growing in the tube in that case?
QUOTE]
My use of “infected” is a poor choice of words. Many ectopic pregnancys will resolve spontaeously with no treatment at all. If this does not happen then removal of the tube is is warranted.

removal of the tube is not always necessary - removal of the ectopic pregnancy is

 

[guanophore]

I am aware of that all I am saying is that NO it would be wrong that Jesus would not have given His life for another, or put His life higher up than another. as Jack was saying.

What Jack said was that God intended us to use our common sense. He never suggested that he should put his own life above that of another! That is a slanderous accusation.

Now that you have made it, I am asking that you respond through it to the topic of the thread, which is about pro-abortion arguements. Jack has said that it is moral to remove an embryo that has implanted outside the uterus, in such a manner as to endanger the life of the mother. As a result, he has been slandered wit h all manner of rabid “pro-life” accusations, including yours.

Having said that, I call upon you to state clearly how a reproductive specialist is to “lay down his life” before this embryo that is on the intestine (or some other place where it cannot survive and neither can the mother).

and just so know no one is saying that in ectopic pregnancy that one should should just die. We are saying that one must treat both of the patients with dignity. Although some here would think it is better to refer to one of the patients here as something other than a human.

Please demonstrate where anyone here has treated either patient without dignity! In fact, I think that asserting that the woman’s tube is “diseased” because the zygote implanted in it is undignified, as well as erroneous. Now, I admit that Jack was undignified in his initial attitude, and I did get on him about that. He needs to have more patience in dealing with fanatics. However, he NEVER made a comment about either patient that indicated anything disrespecful. I was the one who did that .

 

[fix]

Of course! But would you consider the wayward implantation “pathology”?

The proximate pathology is whatever is being deleteriously effected by the ectopic pregnacy. In other words, the tube is the pathology because it may rupture due to the fetus being there.

What if there is no problem in the tube? What if the implantation was in the intestine? Does it become pathologized at the moment implantation occurred?

The physician must decide how grave the danger is. If he/she determines there is serious risk to life then it would be licit to treat. That does not mean it is licit to intend the destruction of the innocent baby. It may happen as an unintended consequence of trying to save both lives.

 

[fix]

Jack has said that it is moral to remove an embryo that has implanted outside the uterus, in such a manner as to endanger the life of the mother. As a result, he has been slandered wit h all manner of rabid “pro-life” accusations, including yours.

*Removing *the embryo is the problem. I think you would agree the end result we want is health and to save lives. Those goals must be achieved through moral means and with good intentions.

 

[jack_hawkins]

the pregnancy in the instance cannot be regarded as a patient, for the reasons I have outlined
with current technology, it is impossible to transfer the pregnancy to the uterus
if that were possible (reasonably safely) the situation would be entirely different
that is not the case though, so there is nothing we can do to enable that pregnancy to continue
that pregnancy if it continues to grow will almost certainly kill the woman without intervention
allowing this to happen is pointless
as I have pointed out ad nauseum, removing the tube works because it removes the pregnancy - so let’s not try and fool ourselves that the tube is the primary problem
we have illustrated this point amply by considering non-tubal ectopic pregnancies, and the role of treatments where the tube is not removed

 

[fix]

the pregnancy in the instance cannot be regarded as a patient, for the reasons I have outlined
with current technology, it is impossible to transfer the pregnancy to the uterus

Yes, science cannot support the baby at this point. That does not mean we intend to kill the baby. Your point about the baby not being a patient seems to be an attempt to minimize the import of the baby’s life?

if that were possible (reasonably safely) the situation would be entirely different
that is not the case though, so there is nothing we can do to enable that pregnancy to continue
that pregnancy if it continues to grow will almost certainly kill the woman without intervention

That the baby will not be viable does not mean we become callous. It seems you dismiss intention and means when using moral calculus?

allowing this to happen is pointless
as I have pointed out ad nauseum, removing the tube works because it removes the pregnancy - so let’s not try and fool ourselves that the tube is the primary problem

So, the baby is pathology? The existence of that immortal soul is pathologic? The body may be in the wrong place, but that does not mean we have authority to destroy that life.

we have illustrated this point amply by considering non-tubal ectopic pregnancies, and the role of treatments where the tube is not removed

Then that portion of the organ, or other structure, may be removed in the same way. There is no reason to intend to kill an innocent person, is there?

 

[jack_hawkins]

Yes, science cannot support the baby at this point. That does not mean we intend to kill the baby

I have stated several times that this is the aim of treatment - which for the reasons I mentioned is dictated by circumstances

Your point about the baby not being a patient seems to be an attempt to minimize the import of the baby’s life?

you infer that, but incorrectly - you no doubt have your own agenda for doing this

That the baby will not be viable does not mean we become callous. It seems you dismiss intention and means when using moral calculus?

not at all - if you read what I have posted I have consistently included intention - unlike the “pro-life” stroke “pro-death” fanatics

So, the baby is pathology? The existence of that immortal soul is pathologic? The body may be in the wrong place, but that does not mean we have authority to destroy that life

an ectopic pregnancy is a pathological process - FACT
how is an ectopic pregnancy a “baby” - it isn’t
does an ectopic pregnancy have an immortal soul? personally I doubt it
you are appealing to emotion rather than looking at the facts

Then that portion of the organ, or other structure, may be removed in the same way. There is no reason to intend to kill an innocent person, is there?

the portion of what organ? have you understood what has been said because it doesn’t seem like it at all
what organ would be removed for an intra-abdominal pregnancy? please tell me

I will have to reiterate yet again
the treatment of an ectopic pregnancy where treatment is required is directed at the pregnancy
the tube does not have to be removed in all circumstances, and removing the tube entails removing the pregnancy not as a side-effect but as a main effect
I don’t know how much clearer I can make it

 

[Amolibri]

Originally Posted by Amolibri
As far as the viability issue, I agree with Jack on the ectopic pregancy. Modern medicine is meant to help women in such circumstances. The women and their doctors are the ones who need to decide.

I repeat/add:*** The women, their families and their doctors are the ones who need to decide.*** What is so difficult to understand? Who are we to insert ourselves into situation like this? [ok, so take it as a rhetorical question, if you must]

 

[fix]

I have stated several times that this is the aim of treatment - which for the reasons I mentioned is dictated by circumstances
you infer that, but incorrectly - you no doubt have your own agenda for doing this
not at all - if you read what I have posted I have consistently included intention - unlike the “pro-life” stroke “pro-death” fanatics
an ectopic pregnancy is a pathological process - FACT
how is an ectopic pregnancy a “baby” - it isn’t
does an ectopic pregnancy have an immortal soul? personally I doubt it
you are appealing to emotion rather than looking at the facts
the portion of what organ?

You redefine reality. If there is a growing life outside the uterous that is a real life regardless of your attempt to redefine it. I will concede not every case is the same and particulars will vary but you have presented no proof that it is licit to kill innocent life.

have you understood what has been said because it doesn’t seem like it at all
what organ would be removed for an intra-abdominal pregnancy? please tell me

Please note I said organ or other structure. Take the omentum for example. Would not some of that be removed if the baby where attached? Would perforation of any particular structure not cause a problem?

I will have to reiterate yet again
the treatment of an ectopic pregnancy where treatment is required is directed at the pregnancy
the tube does not have to be removed in all circumstances, and removing the tube entails removing the pregnancy not as a side-effect but as a main effect
I don’t know how much clearer I can make it

I repeat again that procedures are done with bad intentions, even frequently, does not morally justify them. And unjust means are unjust means regardless of what one mistaknely thinks.

Jack,

you present your observations as “facts”. The fact is your observations, while valid, do not constitute proof of morally good acts. They simply relate that people act badly.

 

[jack_hawkins]

No I do not redefine reality. Just because I use a different definition from you, does not mean I have redefined anything.
Coming to resection, the fact is the tube can be preserved and other organs. The reason for resecting the part to which the placenta is attached is due to the problem of uncontrolled haemorrhage, not due to the organ being diseased or defective -m so this confirms the fact that the primary objective is removal of the pregnancy. You are trying deliberately to muddy the waters by mentioning omentum. Do you understand what omentum is?
What is the function of the omentum fix?
What problems does the resection of omentum cause?
What problems does the resection of a salpinx cause?
Your arguments are specious.
You would rather a mother die unnecessarily to satisfy your illogical moral requirements?