How absurd !The pro-life community and action groups have made a HUGE mistake by focusing on the law. Father Pavone and his organization panders to Congressmen, Senators, anyone in government who will listen to him. But the minds and hearts of the one million women who had abortions last year were not even approached, much less changed. They have been a monumental failure in this effort.
Actually, that was another one of my questions. I’m glad you asked it.I have to say that though I am familiar with the principle, in some aspects I find it confusing but for different reasons than Mesquite does.
We all know how procreation is viewed in the Church and how interference with the ability to procreate is generally regarded as wrong. So in ectopic pregnancy how is it better to do a procedure that may destroy the woman’s ability to have more children (tube removal) than to do a procedure that saves the tube and her fertility? Whatever treatment she gets, the baby will die; that is also true even if she gets no treatment whatsoever. Really, I have struggled with this one and I just don’t get it.
Thanks but that doesn’t really settle the matter for me and I’m not being argumentative here - this really has caused me a lot of struggle.Mesquite Magic and Seekerz,
It is not only Catholic teaching that says the direct killing of a patient is always wrong. For two thousand five hundred years the conduct of physicians has been guided by the Hippocratic Oath, which states, in part: " …I will neither prescribe nor administer a lethal dose of medicine to any patient even if asked nor counsel any such thing nor perform an act or omission with direct intent deliberately to end a human life. I will maintain the utmost respect for every human life from fertilization to natural death and reject abortion that deliberately takes a unique human life ."
Prescribing a woman a drug used in chemotherapy, which has never been approved by the FDA for the treatment of ectopic pregnancies by the way, is lethal for the embryonic human being while opening the fallopian tube to suction out the embryo is likewise a direct attack on the young patient. Both means are immoral because they directly intend the destruction of the embryo.
There is a world of difference between a doctor who knows he is treating two patients and the one who coldly dehumanizes his second patient with the label “the product of conception”.
laparoscopy.com/pictures/ectopic.html
As for the future fertility question, a salpingectomy does not necessarily result in infertility if the other one remains intact.
Read more about the moral management of ectopic pregnancies at:
all.org/article.php?id=10335&search=ectopic
Of course its absurd. But then when one is supporting the slaughter of 1.2 million children a year all sorts of mental mastrubation is required to try a rationalize it.How absurd !
Why not do away with prisons since murderers and rapists, etc… will always exist anyway !
Do you know of any law that completely wipes out the crime it intended for ?
The point is, having laws to make abortion illegal will *discourage *more abortions.
no… the medical community does not use the term “spontaneous abortion” because it will minimize the stigma associated with planned termination. And it is not “some” in the medical community, spontaneous abortion is a formal medical term that is taught and used. There is a number system used for pregnant patients at many hospitals, for example, with the acronym GTPAL.seekerz: First of all, abortions don’t happen naturally. This is called MISCARRIAGE. Some in the medical field like to refer to them as spontaneous abortions (my guess is to minimise the stigma associated with real abortions), but in every day language you will not find a woman lamenting her spontaneous abortion. And of course this adds nothing to the conversation on murdering unborn children which is what we are talking about here.
no… the medical community does not use the term “spontaneous abortion” because it will minimize the stigma associated with planned termination. And it is not “some” in the medical community, spontaneous abortion is a formal medical term that is taught and used./quote]
Aleii: So when informing a woman she has miscarried does the doctor enter the room and say, “I’m sorry Mrs. Smith, but you’ve had a spontaneous abortion”? No. I am fully aware that spontaneous abortion is a medical term. But it is not used in common conversation, as miscarriage is the common term, and abortion has a negative connotation due to morally bankrupt doctors who induce it on purpose these days. And as I asked before, what exactly does this have to do with a discussion on women who hire doctors to murder their baby?
Aleii;2158574:
It has a lot to do with the issue because unless people understand the terms and specific medical situations some poor women get stigmatised - especially with the tendency for name-calling that exists today.no… the medical community does not use the term “spontaneous abortion” because it will minimize the stigma associated with planned termination. And it is not “some” in the medical community, spontaneous abortion is a formal medical term that is taught and used./quote]
Aleii: So when informing a woman she has miscarried does the doctor enter the room and say, “I’m sorry Mrs. Smith, but you’ve had a spontaneous abortion”? No. I am fully aware that spontaneous abortion is a medical term. But it is not used in common conversation, as miscarriage is the common term, and abortion has a negative connotation due to morally bankrupt doctors who induce it on purpose these days. And as I asked before, what exactly does this have to do with a discussion on women who hire doctors to murder their baby?
For example, I had a friend who had to deal with not only the natural loss of a much desired pregnancy, but the whispers and condemning looks of acquaintances, after it became known that the doctor had written the word “abortion” on an official form for work. Somehow, during the rumor-mongering, the word “spontaneous” got lost in the shuffle. Nobody should have to go through that.
Your comment made it seem like you thought doctors were deliberately manipulating terms to dull us to the gravity of their misdeeds.
The only reason I brought up the term is to say that spontaneous losses are always going to occur and in a situation where abortion is illegal often the only people who can certify whether the loss was natural or criminally induced, are the woman and her the doctor .
This is exactly why most doctors today do not use the term, but instead substitute miscarriage. Those that continue to use the term abortion for a natural miscarriage are, in my opinion, stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the stigma attached to the term. My comment reflected my thought that the only reason I can think of for this stubborn attitude is rejection of that stigma, which indicates a pro-abortion perspective. But you are free to disagree, as it was only a thought, and I certainly have no proof to back it up.It has a lot to do with the issue because unless people understand the terms and specific medical situations some poor women get stigmatised - especially with the tendency for name-calling that exists today.
For example, I had a friend who had to deal with not only the natural loss of a much desired pregnancy, but the whispers and condemning looks of acquaintances, after it became known that the doctor had written the word “abortion” on an official form for work. Somehow, during the rumor-mongering, the word “spontaneous” got lost in the shuffle. Nobody should have to go through that.
seekerz: Yes, but your point also, I understood, was that because of this, abortions would continue regardless of the legality. I would beg to differ. Only a very careless doctor, or perhaps one who is rather unintelligent, would continue to do abortions if they were illegal. The reason for this is that a medical license is very valuable. It takes many years of work, and much money to obtain that license. Only a very few hard core death advocates would continue to do the procedure after a ban, because all the smart doctors will want to keep their license to practice medicine.The only reason I brought up the term is to say that spontaneous losses are always going to occur and in a situation where abortion is illegal often the only people who can certify whether the loss was natural or criminally induced, are the woman and her the doctor .
As seekerz also tried to explain, I replied to your claim that me and my coworkers in health care have an “agenda”. There is no big conspiracy to use the medical term “spontaneous abortion” to decrease the stigma attached to the word abortion, and it is a term that is used by many health care professionals as a medical term, nothing more than that.Aleii: So when informing a woman she has miscarried does the doctor enter the room and say, “I’m sorry Mrs. Smith, but you’ve had a spontaneous abortion”? No. I am fully aware that spontaneous abortion is a medical term. But it is not used in common conversation, as miscarriage is the common term, and abortion has a negative connotation due to morally bankrupt doctors who induce it on purpose these days. And as I asked before, what exactly does this have to do with a discussion on women who hire doctors to murder their baby?
The principle of double effect says the intent must be morally good or neutral.The act may be done knowing there will be two results one good and one evil and the evil result is not greater than the good result.Thanks but that doesn’t really settle the matter for me and I’m not being argumentative here - this really has caused me a lot of struggle.
It’s just that removal of the tube does result in the death of the embryo; I can’t see how that can be described as a “side effect”. The reason you’re removing the tube is that there’s a pregnancy inside of it that’s causing or going to cause damage. Or are we saying the tube must be ruptured first before we can do the procedure?
It’s not like the tube has some disease - it contains a human embryo which cannot develop normally there and which if allowed to remain there can cause the mother’s death. It’s like saying you can’t stab a man you’re angry with but you abandon him in the desert with no food or water; the end result is the same.
As for the fertility part, often there’s prior damage to the tubes that caused the ectopic to begin with, so the other one may already be gone or useless; sometimes it’s healthy.
I agree my example of stabbing the man was a bad one. The difficulty for me was understanding why one method of treatment was considered moral and the other not. It has been explained satisfactorily to me on a different thread. Thanks.The principle of double effect says the intent must be morally good or neutral.The act may be done knowing there will be two results one good and one evil and the evil result is not greater than the good result.
Stabbing a man in anger is morally bad. It does not fit the equation. Leaving a man to die because you are angery is morally bad, again does not fit.
A baby growing in the tube is pathology and must be treated or both patients may die. The intent of surgically removing that portion of the tube is not morally evil. The intent is to save lives, both if possible. That is a good intention.
At this point in time technology does not allow for the baby to survive. That foreseen but unintended result does not make the act evil.
Aleii: I doubt that a medical professional would purposely use a term so laden with stigma unless they had an adgenda. At least not with the patient. So I quote my thought again below. But once again…what exactly does this have to do with women murdering their children? We are talking about abortion here, not miscarriages. Why are you going on and on about miscarriages, unless you too are trying to distract from the real issue?As seekerz also tried to explain, I replied to your claim that me and my coworkers in health care have an “agenda”. There is no big conspiracy to use the medical term “spontaneous abortion” to decrease the stigma attached to the word abortion…
Those that continue to use the term abortion for a natural miscarriage are, in my opinion, stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the stigma attached to the term. My comment reflected my thought that the only reason I can think of for this stubborn attitude is rejection of that stigma, which indicates a pro-abortion perspective. But you are free to disagree, as it was only a thought, and I certainly have no proof to back it up.
ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=470839&Forums=10&Experts=10&Days=2006&Author=&Keyword=principle+of+double+effect&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=4&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=When a doctor performs a medical procedure like that needed to treat damaged fallopian tubes, the object of the doctor’s surgery is the damaged tube, not the normally developing child. If one day, and this is quite likely, the child is able to be removed from the tube and implanted into the uterus, the child could be saved specifically because the point of that surgery is not to kill the child. Today, the only option is to remove the damaged portion of the fallopian tube and in the process the little child who is in it. The doctor’s instruments never were aimed at killing the child, but were aimed at a part of the mother’s body that was damaged and caused the child to implant there. Cutting a fallopian tube is not a direct act upon the baby’s body, all known abortions are: saline solution, dismemberment, chemical expulsion from the uterus, barriers to implantation, etc
lifeissues.net/writers/air/air_vol17no1_20021.htmlInduced abortion is implicated in the death of women as a result of neglect of abortion facilities by not undertaking prompt pathology tests after an attempted abortion to determine whether or not an ectopic pregnancy was present.35 In addition, induced abortion, particularly where there are post-abortion infections, or repeat abortions, significantly increases the risk of ectopic pregnancy36.
Another important cause of pregnancy-related deaths is **obstetric hemorrhage…**Retained placenta is a major risk factor for life-threatening obstetric hemorrhage. Several studies have found that a history of induced abortion increases by several fold the likelihood of retained placenta in subsequent pregnancies compared to other pregnancy outcomes, and particularly if the induced abortion is immediately preceeding a current pregnancy37,38.
Meta-analysis of published studies on the incidence of **placenta previa **and reproductive history found that placenta previa is significantly more likely to occur in subsequent pregnancies intended to be carried to term where there has been a prior induced abortion…
According to the CDC, pregnancy-related deaths from **infection **(usually sepsis) among U.S. women in 1987-90 represented 12.1% of pregnancy-related deaths from live births and 19.1% of pregnancy-related deaths from stillbirths.(34) Prior induced abortion has been found to significantly increase the risk of septic infection in subsequent childbirth compared to other prior pregnancy outcomes.41 Prior induced abortion has also been found to significantly increase the likelihood of premature rupture of the membranes, which is a major factor causing infections in childbirth. The risk of intraamniotic infection in a subsequent pregnancy is significantly increased in women who have had an elective abortion compared to women who have had a previous birth(41).