The opinion piece is devoid of the reality of the situation. There is no discussion of probability the child will survive, which is 0%. When an opinion has no basis in reality, it is purely theoretical with no practical application.The author of this piece is a good friend of mine, and in my humble opinion, the best moral theologian in the world. And, believe me, I do not say that lightly. He arrives at a very different conclusion that what I’ve come to. I would trust Christian Brugger’s judgment in all matters relating to moral theology. He is not the magisterium, and does not pretend to speak for them. But, he is an expert in the field, faithful to the magisterium, whose knowledge far exceeds my own.
I don’t think he would say that his conclusion is definitive. But, at least for the time being, I would trust his judgment over mine. I think the error in my reasoning was not considering the unborn child as a patient.
cultureoflife.org/blog/fundamental-questions-marlise-munoz-case
And how exactly do you know the child is suffering?Putting the mother on support in this case will not save the child based on previous cases, but it WILL cause the child more suffering until it dies. We should not cause an increase in suffering to others when our actions do nothing to change the outcome.
You speak as though the death was certain to be the outcome.I see this argument repeated over and over, and I will challenge it again. What particular new procedure was utilized in the case to save the child? Using the same futile procedure over and over and expecting a different result is not medical advancement. If a new reasonable procedure was utilized, I will review this procedure, and adjust my opinion accordingly.
We have no requirement if there is no hope for the child.And what does that Church teaching state?
There is no requirement to put the mother on support in the first place, especially since there is no hope of survival for the child.
I agree. I also understand that he is probably extremely emotionally fragile at the moment.Well if it was my daughter I’d do everything I could to save my grandchild. And I’d hope my husband would want to save the child growing in me if I was this position. I just can’t even fathom how this father wants to cut off life support to his child. Especially at 18 weeks. Another few weeks and this child could probably be born, admittedly very premature but with a reasonable chance of survival. Why the rush? Why not even an attempt to give this child a chance at life?
You equated dependence with sameness.This is not what I stated. I stated “mother,” not parents. Situations must be examined in their context. I’ve already addressed this issue, and addressed it rather clearly. A fetus under approximately six month of age is solely dependent on its mother, whether you wish to ignore it or not; that’s reality. If the fetus is 6 months old, the answer is straightforward; remove the child ASAP, because the child no longer has to be reliant on its mother (obviously will be reliant on others, though). There is no hole in this logic.
The easy answer to someone taking potshots at logic is to make sure the logic hold firm.BTW, is your opinion on this matter based on anything other than taking potshots at others logic?
You keep stating the survival chance to be 0%, but no one knows this with any certainty.The opinion piece is devoid of the reality of the situation. There is no discussion of probability the child will survive, which is 0%. When an opinion has no basis in reality, it is purely theoretical with no practical application.
I’ve researched the matter, and the success rate for a fetus at 14 weeks is 0%. If you evidence to the contrary, present it. A fetus at 14 weeks is approximately 2 months away from a limited chance of survival. There is not evidence that a fetus can survive 2 months off of a decaying corpse. Evidence of dying and/or being stillborn? Yes. Survival? No.You keep stating the survival chance to be 0%, but no one knows this with any certainty.
It’s often indicates that one does not have support for their opinion.The easy answer to someone taking potshots at logic is to make sure the logic hold firm.
My opinions are logical and consistent (I have training in logic and reasoning, BTW). Stating that it is not to not make it true.In this case, it does not.
A twenty-minute Google search isn’t “research”.I’ve researched the matter, and the success rate for a fetus at 14 weeks is 0%. If you evidence to the contrary, present it. A fetus at 14 weeks is approximately 2 months away from a limited chance of survival. There is not evidence that a fetus can survive 2 months off of a decaying corpse. Evidence of dying and/or being stillborn? Yes. Survival? No.
No evidence means you have no basis for your opinion.
Exactly. Your repetition of things you can’t prove shows that you’re scraping the bottom of the barrel on this one.It’s often indicates that one does not have support for their opinion.
Training in anything only means you’re a good student (we hope; who knows?). Your positions are against Catholic moral theology. You are wrong.My opinions are logical and consistent (I have training in logic and reasoning, BTW). Stating that it is not to not make it true.
You cannot prove the child wouldn’t live.The opinion piece is devoid of the reality of the situation. There is no discussion of probability the child will survive, which is 0%. When an opinion has no basis in reality, it is purely theoretical with no practical application.
Reading medical journals regarding the matter is. I have a science background, and don’t rely on other’s opinions to form my own; I read the studies. Given your accusatory tone, I assume you do the same.A twenty-minute Google search isn’t “research”.
Stating I am wrong does not make me wrong. Nothing I have said is against Church teaching, and you cannot provide any Church teaching that demonstrates that I am wrong. Baseless accusations seem to be very prevalent in this thread.Training in anything only means you’re a good student (we hope; who knows?). Your positions are against Catholic moral theology. You are wrong.
Can anyone prove anything with 100% certainty? No. However, I can prove via medical case studies that 100% of children in utero have died; no exceptions. The simple reason is that a fetus cannot be supported by a corpse for two months.You cannot prove the child wouldn’t live.
You can’t prove with 100% certainly that a ball will fall when you drop it from a roof, because you cannot see the future.
Actually, they are not. I am virulently anti-abortion. But I am also a realistic, and do not believe that others should force a child to suffer when their is an established 0% chance of survival.Pride and arrogance are rife in your stance.
I never claimed to be. Nor do I judge others, like you are doing; that is playing God.You are not God.
guardianlv.com/2014/01/baby-born-from-brain-dead-mother-confirm-texas-dilemma-video/I’ve researched the matter, and the success rate for a fetus at 14 weeks is 0%. If you evidence to the contrary, present it. A fetus at 14 weeks is approximately 2 months away from a limited chance of survival. There is not evidence that a fetus can survive 2 months off of a decaying corpse. Evidence of dying and/or being stillborn? Yes. Survival? No.
No evidence means you have no basis for your opinion.
Can you please explain in what way, specifically, he is against Catholic moral theology?Your positions are against Catholic moral theology. You are wrong.
Murder is murder, no matter how small.
Please, how is this murder? Simply saying something is murder does not make it so.Murder is murder, no matter how small.
Very interesting. Of course, these news articles aren’t very detailed. In particular it appears that the mothers in these cases were brought to the hospital and treated immediately. In the case in Texas, Mrs. Munoz was alone when she collapsed and is thought to have been without oxygen for at least an hour.guardianlv.com/2014/01/baby-born-from-brain-dead-mother-confirm-texas-dilemma-video/
huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/14/baby-born-brain-dead-mother-3-months_n_4274609.html
These babies seem to have survived 3 months in their mothers’ wombs starting from when they were at 15 weeks gestation.
They are currently the youngest to have been born alive.
They seem to be referencing the same baby. The information on this baby only became available recently.guardianlv.com/2014/01/baby-born-from-brain-dead-mother-confirm-texas-dilemma-video/
huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/14/baby-born-brain-dead-mother-3-months_n_4274609.html
These babies seem to have survived 3 months in their mothers’ wombs starting from when they were at 15 weeks gestation.
They are currently the youngest to have been born alive.
I wanted to touch on this section from Dr. Brugger’s writing on this case.Can you please explain in what way, specifically, he is against Catholic moral theology?
I’m quite confident that there would be a range of opinions from moral theologians on the matter. I referenced an article from Dr. Christian Brugger. I reference him because I know him and studied under him. I have more respect for that man than I can possibly put into words on this page. He will most likely forget more about moral theology than any of us will know in our lifetimes.
But, I’ll bet that if I asked him, he would be very quick to say that his opinion is just that, an opinion. Others may reason to a different opinion. And again, I’ll bet there are faithful moralists who have done so.
Honestly, I was on the other side of the fence. But, disagreeing with someone of this caliber gives one pause. It would be like an amateur disagreeing with Gary Kasparov about a move in chess. The amateur might be right, but dollars to donuts, he’s missing something that the grandmaster and greatest chess player of all time (Kasparov) noticed.
That said though, I suspect that there are other “grandmasters” (to go with the analogy) who do come down on the other side of things.
You keep using this line,
Please, how is this murder? Simply saying something is murder does not make it so.
Dr. Brugger’s line of reasoning is the most solid in favor of it being immoral to remove life support.
He isn’t saying that every attempt must be made and removing life support from mother would be categorically wrong.. In the latter case, i.e., there is no more Ms. Munoz, only her mortal remains, we have one party who deserves proper attention, the baby. The mother is gone and so her “right to choose”, however that’s construed, no longer exists; she had a right, of course, to designate how she wanted her mortal remains dealt with; but that preference wouldn’t trump another person’s life. If the baby’s life can be saved, and the saving can be done without really grave consequences to the family or community, then Ms. Munoz’s family, doctors, and the community as a whole have the duty to provide what’s needed to save the baby’s life. - See more at: cultureoflife.org/blog/fundamental-questions-marlise-munoz-case#sthash.3RSIFqhI.dpuf
I feel some trepidation as I start to disagree with the world’s best moral theologian, but off I go where angels fear to tread…The author of this piece is a good friend of mine, and in my humble opinion, the best moral theologian in the world. And, believe me, I do not say that lightly. He arrives at a very different conclusion that what I’ve come to. I would trust Christian Brugger’s judgment in all matters relating to moral theology. He is not the magisterium, and does not pretend to speak for them. But, he is an expert in the field, faithful to the magisterium, whose knowledge far exceeds my own.
I don’t think he would say that his conclusion is definitive. But, at least for the time being, I would trust his judgment over mine. I think the error in my reasoning was not considering the unborn child as a patient.
cultureoflife.org/blog/fundamental-questions-marlise-munoz-case