IVF and emergency abortion

Cappadocious

Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2012
3,885
860
✟30,661.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Well, I understood something; you have a perception of what I understood that may be true or false...
I meant that such actions would have nothing to do with the Christian faith, in that the such actions are incompatible with it.

Jeez, Kerdy, lighten up.
 
Upvote 0

Crandaddy

Classical Theist
Aug 8, 2012
1,315
81
✟21,142.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
I thought I was in the Eastern Orthodoxy subforum. *looks up* The Ancient Way, yep I am in the Orthodox subforum, so that makes you the guest in house not me. That means you should probably take your initial post and this one to the debate forum or to your home forum. You didn't really think I was going to treat your question as a sincere inquiry after you already implied we would be okay with denying Christ to avoid martyrdom did you?

I implied no such thing. I asked what the relevant moral difference is. Given that you seem to indicate that the consequence of saving lives makes the difference between allowing and not allowing abortion, I'd like to know why it wouldn't make the difference between allowing and not allowing denial of Christ. I'm looking for consistent application of your principles.

Nor am I looking for debate. I'm merely asking questions. Yes, I ask tough questions. I do that because I understand the importance of critical thinking. Don't get mad at me if you haven't done the requisite homework to be able to answer them.

If for some reason you actually thought I would treat your questions as sincere inquiry instead of hostility then okay. Your comparing a living baby, outside of the womb to an ecotopic pregnancy tells me more about your sanity than it shows how unChristian our Church is for allowing abortion in cases of ecotopic pregnancies. And yes your implying we would be okay with murdering a baby crying or denying Christ does smack of saying the EOC isn't following Christ.

The only point I see here worth addressing is your contention that only the baby outside the womb is living. Both babies are living. The only difference is that they're in different stages of development. The rest are ad hominems.
 
Upvote 0

rusmeister

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian
Dec 9, 2005
10,394
5,011
Eastern Europe
Visit site
✟432,591.00
Country
Montenegro
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I meant that such actions would have nothing to do with the Christian faith, in that the such actions are incompatible with it.

Jeez, Kerdy, lighten up.
Oh, me duh.
Yes, I misunderstood your intent.

But the way you put it ("have to do with") DOES also look like " Christianity has nothing to say on this".
Anyway, I get your meaning now.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2008
19,375
7,272
Central California
✟274,069.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
IVF is absurd and unnatural. I think the Catholic Church's position on IVF is the right one. I find it fascinating how one of my co-workers, who has divorced three times and gravitates to creepy thug men, wanted to be a mother, but figured she couldn't meet the right guy, so she got loaded up with a baby boy. She has a real "I don't give a ____ what people think about my choice. Screw 'em!" and yet she is the first one to blast homosexuality and the "immoral world we live in" all over Facebook and in the staff room. I often wonder what the difference is between this coworker getting impregnated without a man, and a lesbian who does the same thing? sigh....

I realize that IVF is also for married couples. Despite the fact that it seems like a boon to a couple who can't get pregnant, perhaps sterility and being barren is a call from God to adopt? I think the proponents fail to look at the bioethics on this issue, which are plentifully bad, and they fail to see the scary byproducts---frozen embryos in a type of limbo, unethical doctors inserting THEIR OWN sperm into the embryos (yes, we all know that has happened), the idea that couples have the RIGHT to have children rather than a healthy desire to remain open to the gift of them by God's graces, 'fertility' in the womb isn't the call of us all---'fertility' in our openness to adoption is another aspect of family-building. Ultimately, the marital act is to be the epicenter of new life in the couple's cooperation with God, not a laboratory that sounds more like something out of a Bradbury novel than God's will for us....
 
  • Like
Reactions: rusmeister
Upvote 0

Crandaddy

Classical Theist
Aug 8, 2012
1,315
81
✟21,142.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
No I didn't say the difference was the baby being born and outside the womb. I stated your scenario is not the same as ectopic pregnancy. Nor is the scenario of denouncing Christ the same thing as ectopic pregnancy.

You know if you think both your scenarios are the same thing as killing the baby in an ectopic pregnancy, you should really read a little more on the medical situation. You cannot save the baby in an ectopic pregnancy. All that one is doing by standing around picking their nose while they wait for the the embryo to rupture the fallopian tube before removing the baby is murdering the mother through negligence.

The Orthodox church just chooses to admit in these situations you are ending the pregnancy, but the baby was never going to develop and survive to the point being born to begin with. The baby would have ended killing the mother. So it is a situation of choosing the lesser of two evils. This does not mean in all situations it is okay. It is as rus stated, something that does happen rarely but people try to use it to argue for abortion in all situations.

But it's not as simple as just choosing the lesser of two evils. It's choosing to bring about the less evil set of consequences by intentionally committing an act that is, by itself, essentially evil, as denying Christ and murdering babies (whether born or unborn) are essentially (morally) evil acts, simply by themselves. This is the common thread that ties all three scenarios together, and I had been under the impression that the Orthodox Church concurs with it.

What you propose, however, seems to be incompatible with saying that acts by themselves can be essentially evil. Indeed, what you propose seems to be a patently consequentialist--and specifically utilitarian--line of reasoning, and this is what I find curious. A consistently-applied utilitarianism would say that the moral course would be the course that produces the best overall consequences--the best overall results--for everyone involved. However, not only would this have the ectopic baby aborted, but it seems that its consistent application would also have the would-be martyr deny Christ in order to spare his own life (and perhaps the lives of others), and it would have the young mother kill her crying infant so that the soldiers don't kill them both, along with everyone else in hiding. I don't see a moral standard at play in the abortion scenario that, if consistently-applied, would yield what I take to be your desired outcomes in the other two scenarios.
 
Upvote 0

ChirpChirp

Newbie
Aug 10, 2012
210
12
✟15,400.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
In Relationship
But it's not as simple as just choosing the lesser of two evils. It's choosing to bring about the less evil set of consequences by intentionally committing an act that is, by itself, essentially evil, as denying Christ and murdering babies (whether born or unborn) are essentially (morally) evil acts, simply by themselves. This is the common thread that ties all three scenarios together, and I had been under the impression that the Orthodox Church concurs with it.

And have you heard of sin by omission? Because it's essentially what you're doing when you're sitting down and watching the mother die from a ruptured ectopic pregnancy instead of treating her....
 
Upvote 0

rusmeister

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian
Dec 9, 2005
10,394
5,011
Eastern Europe
Visit site
✟432,591.00
Country
Montenegro
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
IVF is absurd and unnatural. I think the Catholic Church's position on IVF is the right one. I find it fascinating how one of my co-workers, who has divorced three times and gravitates to creepy thug men, wanted to be a mother, but figured she couldn't meet the right guy, so she got loaded up with a baby boy. She has a real "I don't give a ____ what people think about my choice. Screw 'em!" and yet she is the first one to blast homosexuality and the "immoral world we live in" all over Facebook and in the staff room. I often wonder what the difference is between this coworker getting impregnated without a man, and a lesbian who does the same thing? sigh....

I realize that IVF is also for married couples. Despite the fact that it seems like a boon to a couple who can't get pregnant, perhaps sterility and being barren is a call from God to adopt? I think the proponents fail to look at the bioethics on this issue, which are plentifully bad, and they fail to see the scary byproducts---frozen embryos in a type of limbo, unethical doctors inserting THEIR OWN sperm into the embryos (yes, we all know that has happened), the idea that couples have the RIGHT to have children rather than a healthy desire to remain open to the gift of them by God's graces, 'fertility' in the womb isn't the call of us all---'fertility' in our openness to adoption is another aspect of family-building. Ultimately, the marital act is to be the epicenter of new life in the couple's cooperation with God, not a laboratory that sounds more like something out of a Bradbury novel than God's will for us....

QFT.
 
Upvote 0

Crandaddy

Classical Theist
Aug 8, 2012
1,315
81
✟21,142.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
And have you heard of sin by omission?

I have heard of it, and I believe it exists. But is knowledgeable failure to pursue a course of action that will result in people living who would otherwise die by itself sufficient to constitute sin by omission?

Because it's essentially what you're doing when you're sitting down and watching the mother die from a ruptured ectopic pregnancy instead of treating her....
Who said anything about sitting down and watching her die? Is there absolutely nothing else that can be done to save her besides intentionally and deliberately killing the unborn child?

Have you ever heard of the principle of double effect? Is there not any way that it might be applied to save the mother?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ariadne_GR

Creative Writer
Dec 10, 2010
1,430
90
Freedom
✟16,988.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Private
Politics
AU-Labor
I thought I was in the Eastern Orthodoxy subforum. *looks up* The Ancient Way, yep I am in the Orthodox subforum, so that makes you the guest in house not me. That means you should probably take your initial post and this one to the debate forum or to your home forum. You didn't really think I was going to treat your question as a sincere inquiry after you already implied we would be okay with denying Christ to avoid martyrdom did you?

If for some reason you actually thought I would treat your questions as sincere inquiry instead of hostility then okay. Your comparing a living baby, outside of the womb to an ectopic pregnancy tells me more about your sanity than it shows how unChristian our Church is for allowing abortion in cases of ectopic pregnancies. And yes your implying we would be okay with murdering a baby crying or denying Christ does smack of saying the EOC isn't following Christ.

Well said, though it will fall on deaf ears I'm afraid! :thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

Crandaddy

Classical Theist
Aug 8, 2012
1,315
81
✟21,142.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
Well said, though it will fall on deaf ears I'm afraid! :thumbsup:

You know, Ariadne, I think this pretty much just smacks of flaming, but even so, I think it behooves me to ask: what, exactly, is well said, and what, exactly, will fall on deaf ears?

You have insulted me, and now you can explain to me what you mean by it.
 
Upvote 0

rusmeister

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian
Dec 9, 2005
10,394
5,011
Eastern Europe
Visit site
✟432,591.00
Country
Montenegro
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I think we're all supposed to try to practice not taking or giving personal offense. Certainly, ideas may offend - some people are offended by Christ, and there are both good and bad ideas. But we ought to try not to get too personal, especially when friendly contexts have not been established.
 
Upvote 0

MKJ

Contributor
Jul 6, 2009
12,260
776
East
✟23,894.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
I have heard of it, and I believe it exists. But is knowledgeable failure to pursue a course of action that will result in people living who would otherwise die by itself sufficient to constitute sin by omission?

Who said anything about sitting down and watching her die? Is there absolutely nothing else that can be done to save her besides intentionally and deliberately killing the unborn child?

Have you ever heard of the principle of double effect? Is there not any way that it might be applied to save the mother?

Double effect would not make any difference in the scenario you guys are talking about, ectopic pregnancy. Assuming one accepts that it is the important principle in such cases at all, it would apply in instances where one is treating the mother but taking no action towards the child. Not when you are directly removing the child from the mother in some way.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Oct 15, 2008
19,375
7,272
Central California
✟274,069.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Funny you should say that!?! My wife and I always cracked up at that episode! In fact, whenever we hear of an IVF case, we say "ew! ew! just ew!" quoting the Golden girls! LOL!

Have you ever seen that episode of Golden Girls were Blanche's daughter reveals she is going to use a sperm donor to get pregnant? Rose and Dorothy's reaction is pretty much mine. EWWW! just EWWW!



This right here is what actually has had me searching for Orthodox views on medical bioethics. I was surprised when I came across the few priests in favor of it under the circumstances of wife's egg, husband's sperm and wife carrying the baby. My thoughts pretty much agree with what you posted so when I saw those opinions I started searching and you would believe I can find very few Orthodox books dealing with medical ethics but quite a few dealing with environmental issues. That surprised me because as I am sure you know as a former Catholic too, there are a whole shelves dealing with with medical ethics from a Catholic perspective.
 
Upvote 0

Gnarwhal

☩ Broman Catholic ☩
Oct 31, 2008
20,373
12,069
36
N/A
✟423,673.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Despite the fact that it seems like a boon to a couple who can't get pregnant, perhaps sterility and being barren is a call from God to adopt?

I think that's how I'd interpret it. I mean, if I found out I was sterile I don't think IVF would be my "Plan B". Not that I'm personally opposed to IVF on moral grounds. You are definitely right that there's some unethical practices involving IVF, but I think ultimately it's foundations were probably noble.

I'm much more inclined towards adoption anyway, I feel compelled to give an orphan from Uganda or China or Nicaragua an opportunity to have parents and be loved before I bring another kid into the world.
 
Upvote 0

ChirpChirp

Newbie
Aug 10, 2012
210
12
✟15,400.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
In Relationship
Thank you very much to Lukaris for posting this link Untitled Document in the organ transplant page.

Direct quote from the link: The Church should eagerly suggest adoption as an alternative to those couples that are unable to accept, for various reasons, their sterility problem. If this is not possible, then She could accept, within the spirit of Her dispensation, fertilisation techniques that do not involve surplus embryos, or include any form of donation or embryo destruction. For example, the Church could accept homologous intrauterine insemination, thus considering the couple as suffering from a common illness, provided both spouses are in agreement and the entire procedure is carried out with the aforementioned ethos. She could also accept assisting the reproduction procedure by using only the parents' gametes and fertilising as many embryos as will be implanted.

The highlighted and underlines part is exactly what I was trying to argue for! And it seems it is allowed!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Crandaddy

Classical Theist
Aug 8, 2012
1,315
81
✟21,142.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
NO! There is nothing, nothing at all that can be done to save the baby in these circumstances! I already said that. So yes you would have to do nothing but watch the mother die based on what you want.

From your link: " The principle of double effect is frequently cited in cases of pregnancy and abortion. A doctor who believes abortion is always morally wrong may still remove the uterus or fallopian tubes of a pregnant woman, knowing the procedure will cause the death of the embryo or fetus, in cases in which the woman is certain to die without the procedure (examples cited include aggressive uterine cancer and ectopic pregnancy). In these cases, the intended effect is to save the woman's life, not to terminate the pregnancy, and the effect of not performing the procedure would result in the greater evil of both the death of the mother and the fetus.[4][5]"

I leave the rest to someone else to deal with. You started off with agreeing with truthseeker, who is saying the same thing all of us who are Orthodox are saying and yet you keep arguing against the baby being removed in such a situation. I can only conclude this means you are either are trying to argue and debate or you don't truly understand the medical science being presented.

I never stopped agreeing with truthseeker. Double effect allows that innocent deaths may occur as a consequence of some course of action; it only forbids that they be an intended consequence of it, even if the end results that are sought are better than any alternative. What I took you to be saying is that it's okay to intentionally kill the unborn, ectopic child, if so doing will save the mother. I see a moral difference between intentional and unintentional deaths of innocents. As long as only the former are categorically forbidden, then I think we're on the same page.

And I'm not arguing against the baby being removed (or anything else, for that matter). As you correctly note, I'm not allowed to do that here. I'm merely trying to understand what I see as inconsistencies in your moral reasoning. But if you allow only that the ectopic baby may killed as an unintended side effect of saving the mother, then I think that will suffice to clear up the confusion.
 
Upvote 0