No, she was fully healthy, according to her husband, until after she had the operation. If she had presented with septicemia, she would have been induced at once - as ethically, she could die and hence so would the baby (say if it had been a longer term foetus).
Not dead, damaged. They are very much alive.
follow my exchange with thewanderer and you will understand what i’m driving at.
I honestly think that either the Priests for Life stance is being misunderstood, or they are simply wrong on this matter.
no it really doesn’t, but like I said, I’m not getting into that discussion with you right now. Trust me, I have done enough studying to know the difference between potentiality and actuality.
I have said nothing either way with respect to this. My opinion is that doctor’s actions ought to be restricted by morality, problem is, people disagree about morality, and it is not just because of religion, I would hold the same system of morality whether or not I was Catholic. There are just certain actions which are never in themselves permissable. This does not come from religion so much as reason, sometimes people accept this because of religion, sometimes because of reason, and sometimes people reject it. But do you really think that doctors should not be bound by ethics and morality(for now ignoring what system of morality we are refering to)? That seems like an extreme and unreasonable position.
Umm, no, thats really not. You again are showing that you really have no understanding about how this principle works. You have to look at the action of removing the child from the mother. This particular action will have multiple effects, it is only permissable to take this action so long as the good effects from this action are equal to or greater than the bad effects. Bad effect, loss of the life of the child. I’m sorry but the only thing that can be proportionate to that is in saving someone’s life. The fact that someone would otherwise have an abortion of the same child makes no difference, the death of the child must be an unintended and unwanted secondary effect which must be balanced out by a proportionate good effect. In your scenario, not only is there not a proprtionate good effect resulting from this, but the death of the child would clearly be the intended and desired end, making tha action immoral.women are going to london to kill the fetus. isnt that sufficient reason enough? so why wont the good catholic just ‘move’ the fetus? i think you know the answer. because moving it would kill it. the distinction between direct and indirect becomes blurred.
The point of the ectopic preg issue is that removal of part, or all of, the tube is done to treat pathology. It is not done to kill the baby. The diseased tube is the object of treatment.
okay
How much must be absent before you take away some person’s humanity? There are brain damaged people who cannot speak or much else.
Well, when the danger to the mother’s life is caused by the child’s presence in her womb, then removing the threat to her life involves removing the child from her womb. The action of removing a child from a woman’s body is not intrinsically evil, in fact, it is often very clearly the right thing to do. So all that is left is ensuring that the death of the child is not intended and ensuring there is a proportionate reason (threat to mothers life)
And totally arbitrary.
wow isnt it a wonder that all those medical staff in Galway hospital didnt think of that?
My mother died at a young age from a very rare cancer. When she was diagnosed, they had a new treatment option that was very risky. They presented her with 2 options; take the treatment and she could die the first time it was administered, but then again, it could extend her life. Or, refuse it, in which case she was given about a year to live.
A test for humanity? No such thing can exist.
You are the one confusing terms here.you must realize that though brain death is a form of brain damage, not all brain damage results in brain death. so please dont confuse between the two
From your second link:
I think when talking about these complex issues we have to be careful to define our terms well. A child is never pathology. Treating pathology is fine, but the presence of the child is not pathology. Some other process involved is patholgical, not the baby growing in the womb.
I could have just read those in the first place. Maybe I just felt like debating? LOL, thank you so much. The articles put it much more efficiently and clearly than I could have.