T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
read the bottom of post # 56
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
D
dranzal
Guest
Yes. I just wanted to introduce a little food for thought.read the bottom of post # 56
S
SoCalRC
Guest
Actually, no. The prognosis for the fetus is death. That is, there are no known cases of ectopic fetal survival.The mother & the baby are going to die, if no procedure is done.
However, the mother’s prognosis is far less clear. Prior to plasma and antibiotics, the risk of maternal death was in the 25-50% range. However, now the majority of maternal deaths are the result of late or no access to emergency medical treatment. The most likely outcome is some organ damage and sterility.
It is still a serious matter, and I am speaking as a parent whose daughter elected to wait and see (the pregnancy self resolved), but we now detect and treat the pregnancies so much earlier it is hard to say what the actual statistical risk is.
On a different note, I had missed that Texas Roofer had applied the principle of Just War in #56. The Church has not taken a stance on rather or not any of the interventions in ectopic pregnancies are ethical, but it has rejected the application of Just War. Remember, in the application of Just War all conditions have to be met. Two thorny ones are protection of non combatants and an absolute prohibition on torture. The Church noted that not only are these conditions not clearly met, the simple existance of helpless, innocent life, cannot be argued to be an act of aggression.
S
SoCalRC
Guest
Although folks would like to talk about war and double effect, the actual Church teaching seems pretty clear. You cannot give precedence to the life of a mother, or the life of a fetus. They are two patients who must be given equal weight.What about the very rare situation with conjoined twins when one twin lacks essential organs and is, effectively feeding off the other twin. If they remain joined, both will die. If they are separated, the one without the missing organ(s) will certainly die at the moment of separation. The very act of separation will kill one twin and save the other.
The same in true in the case of the twins. We cannot abort or euthanasia one for the direct benefit of the other (for even the most permissive application of double effect to apply, the good effect cannot be the direct result of the bad act).
It is a difficult teaching, but see Pope Pius XII’s Allocution to Midwives from 1951. Simply put, two deaths are preferrable to one murder.
Rather or not people chose to follow this is another question. But it is a Church teaching, which has been reitterated by the Church since 1889. People must follow their hearts and concience, but should they choose to end the life of an innocent, for even the most noble cause, I would strongly encourage them to seek reconcilliation with the Church.
S
strngrnrth
Guest
An ectopic baby or one feeding off and thereby killing a twin is in the process of dying already. To save the one who can be saved actually doesn’t end a life at all. It alters the place of death for one who is already going to die soon anyway. It may also very slightly alter the timing of that death, but if steps are taken to prolong the life of the child, the timing may turn out the same after all. A fetus or a child missing vital organs can be kept alive by existing medical equipment for months, even years depending on which organs are absent. That child’s life may turn out just as long as it would have been if no procedure had been done. Wouldn’t that mean a life saved and no lives taken at all?
S
SoCalRC
Guest
The problem with this is that we are all dying, from the moment we are conceived. It is just a matter of when.An ectopic baby or one feeding off and thereby killing a twin is in the process of dying already. To save the one who can be saved actually doesn’t end a life at all.
I think that Pope Pius XII’s ALLOCUTION TO MIDWIFES covers this very well, but I’ll try another analogy.
Why does your seem reasoning not apply to euthanasia of the critically ill elderly for financial need? They are dying, and quite likely don’t want their lingering death to drive their familes to financial ruin…
Our core belief is that we are each a unique creation by God, who loves us each infinitely. We are also prohibited from judging relative moral worth and warned that our idea of living in grace and God’s are likely different. When we make ‘pragmatic’ decisions to sacrifice the weak for the strong, or other decisions on who should live and die, we defy these teachings. We also embrace evil means, which the Church warns us, makes us evil in turn.
The Church has also argued that this thinking is a slippery slope to other grave evils, like eugenics. We tend to forget that the eugenics movement thrived in the US and was even supported by the Supreme Court in a contrived case. It took the holocaust to make many people realize that they were pursuing mortal sin, and even then, forced sterilizations occured in some states until the 1970’s, when the Supreme Court again looked at constitutionality.
S
strngrnrth
Guest
The point I was making was that the baby or twin could be removed and possibly kept alive in the hospital as long as she or he would have lived anyway. This would save one life and not shorten the other.The problem with this is that we are all dying, from the moment we are conceived. It is just a matter of when.
I think that Pope Pius XII’s ALLOCUTION TO MIDWIFES covers this very well, but I’ll try another analogy.
Why does your seem reasoning not apply to euthanasia of the critically ill elderly for financial need? They are dying, and quite likely don’t want their lingering death to drive their familes to financial ruin…
Our core belief is that we are each a unique creation by God, who loves us each infinitely. We are also prohibited from judging relative moral worth and warned that our idea of living in grace and God’s are likely different. When we make ‘pragmatic’ decisions to sacrifice the weak for the strong, or other decisions on who should live and die, we defy these teachings. We also embrace evil means, which the Church warns us, makes us evil in turn.
The Church has also argued that this thinking is a slippery slope to other grave evils, like eugenics. We tend to forget that the eugenics movement thrived in the US and was even supported by the Supreme Court in a contrived case. It took the holocaust to make many people realize that they were pursuing mortal sin, and even then, forced sterilizations occured in some states until the 1970’s, when the Supreme Court again looked at constitutionality.
S
SoCalRC
Guest
Attempts have been made, also reimplantation. The technology simply isn’t there. It was asked, how about if the baby is simply removed, but not harmed? The Church answered with an emphatic no in 1902.The point I was making was that the baby or twin could be removed and possibly kept alive in the hospital as long as she or he would have lived anyway. This would save one life and not shorten the other.
I understand what you are trying to say, and that you are speaking from compassion. It is a hard teaching, but I have come to believe that it is correct.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.