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

[fix]

No I do not redefine reality. Just because I use a different definition from you, does not mean I have redefined anything.

Can truth contradict truth? How can a life be a life and not a life?

Coming to resection, the fact is the tube can be preserved and other organs. 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.

Jack, you are the one who introduced abdominal pregnancy in an attempt to prove the baby was the real pathology. I showed that the proximate pathology is not the baby. If not the tube than some other structure may be pathologic and require treatment.

So can we take the gross anatomy and systems pathology lectures to another thread?

You would rather a mother die unnecessarily to satisfy your illogical moral requirements?

No, I would rather both live. That cannot happen so i support proper medical treatment which may include the unintended death of an innocent child as per double effect.

 

[jack_hawkins]

Can truth contradict truth? How can a life be a life and not a life?

I’m not a Zen Buddhist? If you have a coherent question, please ask it

Jack, you are the one who introduced abdominal pregnancy in an attempt to prove the baby was the real pathology

that is misquoting me. an ectopic pregnancy is pathological. an ectopic pregnancy is not a baby, and with incredibly rare exceptions can never become one

I showed that the proximate pathology is not the baby. If not the tube than some other structure may be pathologic and require treatment

which is totally irrelevant to the acute treatment of ectopic pregnancy - as you well know

So can we take the gross anatomy and systems pathology lectures to another thread?

it is fundamental to the issue

No, I would rather both live

which is a stupid answer in the circumstances - you think I don’t want that? however I deal in reality

That cannot happen so i support proper medical treatment which may include the unintended death of an innocent child as per double effect.

but it isn’t a double effect - as you well know - the entire purpose of treatment is to remove the pregnancy

 

[jack_hawkins]

Can truth contradict truth? How can a life be a life and not a life?

I’m not a Zen Buddhist? If you have a coherent question, please ask it

Jack, you are the one who introduced abdominal pregnancy in an attempt to prove the baby was the real pathology

that is misquoting me. an ectopic pregnancy is pathological. an ectopic pregnancy is not a baby, and with incredibly rare exceptions can never become one

I showed that the proximate pathology is not the baby. If not the tube than some other structure may be pathologic and require treatment

which is totally irrelevant to the acute treatment of ectopic pregnancy - as you well know

So can we take the gross anatomy and systems pathology lectures to another thread?

it is fundamental to the issue

No, I would rather both live

which is a stupid answer in the circumstances - you think I don’t want that? however I deal in reality

That cannot happen so i support proper medical treatment which may include the unintended death of an innocent child as per double effect.

but it isn’t a double effect - as you well know - the entire purpose of treatment is to remove the pregnancy

 

[jack_hawkins]

Can truth contradict truth? How can a life be a life and not a life?

I’m not a Zen Buddhist? If you have a coherent question, please ask it

Jack, you are the one who introduced abdominal pregnancy in an attempt to prove the baby was the real pathology

that is misquoting me. an ectopic pregnancy is pathological. an ectopic pregnancy is not a baby, and with incredibly rare exceptions can never become one

I showed that the proximate pathology is not the baby. If not the tube than some other structure may be pathologic and require treatment

which is totally irrelevant to the acute treatment of ectopic pregnancy - as you well know

So can we take the gross anatomy and systems pathology lectures to another thread?

it is fundamental to the issue

No, I would rather both live

which is a stupid answer in the circumstances - you think I don’t want that? however I deal in reality

That cannot happen so i support proper medical treatment which may include the unintended death of an innocent child as per double effect.

but it isn’t a double effect - as you well know - the entire purpose of treatment is to remove the pregnancy

 

[apricot_yogurt]

If Grandma was lying fatally wounded in a doorway, and she needed to be removed in order to let the person in the room out, should we gently remove her, along with the doorframe and take her out where she will die, or pour hydrocloric acid over her so she will dissolve, thus saving the antique doorframe and saving the person who was stuck the annoyance of stepping over her corpse.
Grandma’s death, like the unborn baby’s is sadly inevitable. Both being made in the image and likeness of God need to be treated with dignity.

 

[jack_hawkins]

If Grandma was lying fatally wounded in a doorway, and she needed to be removed in order to let the person in the room out, should we gently remove her, along with the doorframe and take her out where she will die, or pour hydrocloric acid over her so she will dissolve, thus saving the antique doorframe and saving the person who was stuck the annoyance of stepping over her corpse.
Grandma’s death, like the unborn baby’s is sadly inevitable. Both being made in the image and likeness of God need to be treated with dignity.

and the point of your story is…?
it certainly resolves nothing as regards the topic of discussion, since it is a singularly inappropriate story
are you suggesting that we remove the pregnancy in acompaniment to a choral composition of Psalm 23 with priests ready to perform some rite over the removed ectopic pregnancy?
I’m not sure where the relevance of an antique doorframe comes in??? it seems totally irrelevant

 

[apricot_yogurt]

An analogy!

Many women who have their babies removed as a result of an ectopic pregnancy choose to have their babies baptised. This recognises the dignity and immortal soul of the unborn. Some women *do *have a priest in attendance to baptise the child, although anyone can do it, and the latter is more appropriate in a surgical setting.

 

[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.

I don’t know how to rephrase any better. Let’s try a third time: One cannot justify the termination of the baby nor cannot justify the removal of the fallopian tube with the baby when the only abnormality is that the baby is located in the fallopian tube. Ready for a fourth?

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.

This is different from what I said how? The “intention” cannot be to kill the shooter.

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?

Yes. No imminent danger, no treatment. You can make assumptions that the woman is going to die if you do not intervene.

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?

No.

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

No it isn’t. Sorry.

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.

Not neccessarily. The fetus merely being present does not automatically equate to pathology.

if you read what I have posted I have consistently included intention - unlike the “pro-life” stroke “pro-death” fanatics

What do you mean when you say “pro-death?” Curious.

an ectopic pregnancy is a pathological process - FACT

No it isn’t. Pathologic events may develop as a result however.

what organ would be removed for an intra-abdominal pregnancy? please tell me

None. No disease, no removal can be justified.

I will have to reiterate yet again
the treatment of an ectopic pregnancy where treatment is required is directed at the pregnancy

No, the treatment for a diseased fallopian tube is either repair or removal. It certainly should not be directed at the baby.

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

Agreed the tube does not have to be removed in all circumstances.

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

 

[fix]

I

Not neccessarily. The fetus merely being present does not automatically equate to pathology.

I agree. It is up to the physician to determine if danger is likely.

 

[mapleoak]

what organ would be removed for an intra-abdominal pregnancy? please tell me

One cannot perform PREVENTATIVE surgery which results in the death of a person on the basis of possibility of pathology. A baby growing whether in the fallopian tube or some other odd place may not be killed just because it might pose a danger.

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

 

[jack_hawkins]

One cannot perform PREVENTATIVE surgery which results in the death of a person on the basis of possibility of pathology. A baby growing whether in the fallopian tube or some other odd place may not be killed just because it might pose a danger.

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

you obviously have no idea about medical practise, and your comments have no validity
you have not digested the comments made here at all either
when you don’t understand the medicine, then you have no right to comment on medical practise

 

[jack_hawkins]

An analogy!

Many women who have their babies removed as a result of an ectopic pregnancy choose to have their babies baptised. This recognises the dignity and immortal soul of the unborn. Some women *do *have a priest in attendance to baptise the child, although anyone can do it, and the latter is more appropriate in a surgical setting.

that’s entirely up to them
I’m not sure for the reasons mentioned that the ectopic pregnancy has a soul, but we don’t know
the latter what? you have not mentioned two options for there to be a latter?
how can an ectopic pregnancy be baptised in a surgical setting without compromising sterility?

I still don’t see what relevance this has to the subject - sorry

 

[jack_hawkins]

One cannot justify the termination of the baby nor cannot justify the removal of the fallopian tube with the baby when the only abnormality is that the baby is located in the fallopian tube

you might not be able to, but I can - it’s called saving a woman’s life
does that bother you?
it is true that when the ectopic is below a certain size, expectant management can be considered, but only because these ectopic pregnancies are resorbed - otherwise the mother’s life WILL be threatened
thank goodness not too many physicians take this attitude or there would be many more mortalities from this condition
having dealt with ectopic pregnancies myself, I know it is not a condition to take lightly - women can bleed to death in a very short period of time

 

[mapleoak]

you obviously have no idea about medical practise, and your comments have no validity
you have not digested the comments made here at all either
when you don’t understand the medicine, then you have no right to comment on medical practise

No, I think it is the other way around. Don’t pretend. No, if you are looking for me to boast about my background, sorry.
Still waiting to see you indicate where you derive my lack of knowledge about medical practice from. To just say there is no validity to my comments certainly doesn’t make a very persuasive argument and really only points out a lack of a cohesive comeback.

you might not be able to, but I can - it’s called saving a woman’s life
does that bother you?

Saving a woman’s life from what? Again preventative surgery, unless there is immediate threat. My comment was “One cannot perform PREVENTATIVE surgery which results in the death of a person on the basis of possibility of pathology.” Note the term pathology and what it means in medical linguistics. Then note the term possibility. There is a possibility I can go outside and get hit by a car. Does that mean my life is in emminent danger?

it is true that when the ectopic is below a certain size, expectant management can be considered, but only because these ectopic pregnancies are resorbed - otherwise the mother’s life WILL be threatened

This is where it is presumptious to assume anything WILL happen. It is no different than killing someone because they might die anyway. What if the argument were reversed?

thank goodness not too many physicians take this attitude or there would be many more mortalities from this condition
having dealt with ectopic pregnancies myself, I know it is not a condition to take lightly - women can bleed to death in a very short period of time

Certainly not from the mere fact that an ectopic pregnancy exists. The condition must be very carefully analyzed to determine if there is any immediate danger, and if need be action taken to repair the damage, even removing the damaged portion if need be. Unfortunately this cannot be done with current technology without also resulting in the death of the child. Still no effort directed at the child itself. Cannot get around that one.

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

 

[guanophore]

that’s entirely up to them
I’m not sure for the reasons mentioned that the ectopic pregnancy has a soul, but we don’t know
the latter what? you have not mentioned two options for there to be a latter?
how can an ectopic pregnancy be baptised in a surgical setting without compromising sterility?

I still don’t see what relevance this has to the subject - sorry

I think the relevance would be that the Catholic Church teaches that the human life begins at the moment of conception. Treating the implanted life as if it is not human, and is just a “blob of tissues in the wrong place” is what is getting you into trouble here.

 

[mapleoak]

you might not be able to, but I can - it’s called saving a woman’s life
does that bother you?
.
.
thank goodness not too many physicians take this attitude or there would be many more mortalities from this condition…

In any case, the disposal to perform a particular procedure does not automatically equate to licitness. If the solution to ectopic pregnancy is poisoning and removing the fetus, it is not a morally acceptable solution. We are not free to use any and all means at our disposal to cause a beneficial result. If as you have said, the only option were to destroy the fetus, it is not permissable. True, desirable outcomes definately can come as a result of evil means. Of course we need an example (by no means perfect, but an example is only a parallel). If you had two brothers being held hostage and you were given the option to shoot one of your choosing, the other would be let free. If you choose not to shoot one, then the hostage taker would kill both of them. Are you morally free to shoot one of them? You would be saving the life of one of them, wouldn’t you?

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

 

[jack_hawkins]

mapleoak, your comments about ectopic pregnancy are so off the mark that I can’t believe you have any relevant experience
I certainly wouldn’t want you looking after any of my nearest and dearest with an ectopic pregnancy!
as for the comment about preventative surgery - HUH?
again I wouldn’t want you looking after any of my nearest and dearest with say an abdominal aortic aneurysm
I’ll happily PM you my credentials

 

[jack_hawkins]

In any case, the disposal to perform a particular procedure does not automatically equate to licitness. If the solution to ectopic pregnancy is poisoning and removing the fetus, it is not a morally acceptable solution. We are not free to use any and all means at our disposal to cause a beneficial result. If as you have said, the only option were to destroy the fetus, it is not permissable. True, desirable outcomes definately can come as a result of evil means. Of course we need an example (by no means perfect, but an example is only a parallel). If you had two brothers being held hostage and you were given the option to shoot one of your choosing, the other would be let free. If you choose not to shoot one, then the hostage taker would kill both of them. Are you morally free to shoot one of them? You would be saving the life of one of them, wouldn’t you?

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

that analogy is in no way appropriate
in any case we have established all means of treatment except expectant management result in killing the embryo
it is self-deception to justify it as “double-effect”, and even worse to deny the woman future fertility because of this self-deception

 

[jack_hawkins]

Saving a woman’s life from what?

the answer is obvious - the high risk of haemorrhage
that really shouldn’t have to be spelled out at this stage
surely you understand the concept of risk?
as I say, I hope you aren’t involved in managing such situations - it sounds like you would sit on your hands until death was imminent then act ineffectually

 

[mapleoak]

that analogy is in no way appropriate

Sure it is appropriate. In what way is it not appropriate? To directly kill the embryo is murder (of course your basis of argument is that you don’t believe in the personhood of the embryo).

in any case we have established all means of treatment except expectant management result in killing the embryo

Sorry, but I haven’t disagreed in any way in what the various forms of treatment are and what results from it. (I asked for specific example and have not received one). Which is what makes the analogy all the more appropriate. It may be medically possible to perform a certain action, however it may not be morally licit to do so just because it is possible.

it is self-deception to justify it as “double-effect”, and even worse to deny the woman future fertility because of this self-deception

Now I ask the question: On what grounds?

mapleoak, your comments about ectopic pregnancy are so off the mark that I can’t believe you have any relevant experience
I certainly wouldn’t want you looking after any of my nearest and dearest with an ectopic pregnancy!

Thanks for the compliment, although I maintain that I will refuse to make the basis of my arguments on catchy sounding put downs.

I wouldn’t want you looking after any of my nearest and dearest with say an abdominal aortic aneurysm

I don’t see how THIS is relevant or appropriate to the issue.

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak