Abortion hypothetical

[Davidnic]

Thats a problem with the limitations of human understanding as I see it, when what is needed is trust in God. Not vainly seeking loopholes. Bioethics or moral theology does not have to be this complex and falls of weakness under the extreme weight of circumstance do not need to be justified with such rational. They require repentance for healing.

Exactly right about the limits of human understanding. But as far as moral theology, this is pretty much what it is and how it works. Many have a problem with it because they think it looks for loopholes. Really it just explores how to apply the truth to things that actually happen.

If I am reading you right, there are some who would agree with you that you can never remove the tube even if unintended foreseen there is one life over another. This will come down to a discussion of proportionalism and why and when it can be involved.

In this case a rupture in the tube kills the fetus and in a removal at that point the Church does not see it as a live abortion to remove that part of the tube.

 

[JoabAnias]

Exactly right about the limits of human understanding. But as far as moral theology, this is pretty much what it is and how it works. Many have a problem with it because they think it looks for loopholes. Really it just explores how to apply the truth to things that actually happen.

I do the same thing. The difference that I have learned is that I don't need to, I can simply choose to trust God.

If I am reading you right, there are some who would agree with you that you can never remove the tube even if unintended foreseen there is one life over another. This will come down to a discussion of proportionalism and why and when it can be involved.

No I didn't make such a conclusion. I can see a possibility that the baby isn't know to be there. I can also see this particular circumstance something akin to a spontaneous evacuation or natural sterilization.

There is nevertheless a perception of indifference to the baby in the analogy and to any potential alternatives.

Right now I fail to see how such indifference fits the definition of moral.

I don't know so must ask; Is there no way to identify a baby in a tube or save a baby as a result of a ruptured tube? Perhaps that is not possible.

We are not Doctors so I do not know if such a rupture is entirely catastrophic for a baby. Nor am I even knowledgeable of the workings of the tube for that matter.

One thing I do know though, is that advances in prenatal medicine are quite advanced these days which causes me to raise questions.

I suppose those would be questions in need of medical expertise to answer.

In this case a rupture in the tube kills the fetus and in a removal at that point the Church does not see it as a live abortion to remove that part of the tube.

I don't see how you can infer such a position to the Church. The Church teaches that abortion is an intrinsic evil.

Is not a zygote being aborted here to save a mother? Perhaps I am mistaken on this.

The Church teaches that even indirect procurement of an abortion is forbidden.

She has no official teaching on every particular bio-ethical circumstance that I am aware of.

This circumstance seems that it may be either direct or indirect with lessor intention such as with willful disregard of a zygote.

The only way I can see this circumstance being less than culpable on some level is through ignorance of a baby being present, not through indifference to its presence, if it is indeed known to be there.

If one indiscriminately fires a bullet into the sky, they are not held less than culpable for who it may strike IF they know it may strike someone. They are held responsible to make sure it strikes no one. Otherwise, factors that only God is capable of judging are at question.

Is it possible to detect a baby before removing a tube? And if so, is it possible to save the baby or repair the tube? These are things I would ask, not because I was looking for loopholes on how to get around culpability for killing a baby, but in ways to save all at risk.

Or, as it just occurs to me, as not being a biologist or a Dr. and without intricate knowledge of female plumbing, what is a baby doing in the tube in the first place?

Doesn't an egg come from the tube, is then fertilized in conception and then implanted in the uterine wall?

Perhaps I have been mistaken by looking at this as being a zygote in the tube all along. Conception does not take place until fertilization - correct? Or is this what the ectopic thing is? The zygote getting in the tube somehow?

 

[Davidnic]

An ectopic is the classic example taught in Church approved moral theology classes and ethics ones too. It is where the fertilized egg embeds in the tube. There is no way to move it and if the tube ruptures and it is left without removal then both die. And in the rupture the fetus is killed then if it continues then the mother.

 

[JoabAnias]

An ectopic is the classic example taught in Church approved moral theology classes and ethics ones too. It is where the fertilized egg embeds in the tube. There is no way to move it and if the tube ruptures and it is left without removal then both die. And in the rupture the fetus is killed then if it continues then the mother.

Oooh, , it might have helped me to have read the rest of the thread instead of popping in at the end eh?

Anyway, I am a firm believer in "no fault of ones own."

Even though I have seen the question many times I guess I haven't ever taken it up.

The analogy makes more sense when any alternatives being possible are removed. Tough spot to be in.

This background wasn't evident just from the analogy alone. Knowing this makes it understandable for me now. Thanks.



I'd be interested to learn more detail why there is no treatment.

Does medical science know how this circumstance happens exactly?

Is there something that is thought to cause it? (I'm thinking hormones maybe).

Are you positive its a hopeless case given modern advances?

 

[Davidnic]

Hey man, 300 plus post thread. I've been in it since the start and I am not sure I've read it all

The hopeful solution is the day when medical science can transfer the fetus into a surrogate or move and replant. But we can not do that right now. And that is the problem right now. In the tube there is not enough room to grow and we can not move the child without killing him/her.

 

[JoabAnias]

Hey man, 300 plus post thread. I've been in it since the start and I am not sure I've read it all

I don't even try.

The hopeful solution is the day when medical science can transfer the fetus into a surrogate or move and replant. But we can not do that right now. And that is the problem right now. In the tube there is not enough room to grow and we can not move the child without killing him/her.

Do they know what causes this?

How early can they detect it I wonder?

 

[Davidnic]

They can find it pretty early, withing 5-9 weeks of a missed cycle. So right at the start of when you would even know about the pregnancy.

As far as what causes it no one knows. There is an increase if someone has had an IUD for birth control...the theory is the scarring can add to the risk. Smoking increased the risk by five times. The theory on that is nicotine has been tied to muscle contraction in the tubes that can cause a blockage and premature implantation. And in some cases it just happens.

 

[JoabAnias]

They can find it pretty early, withing 5-9 weeks of a missed cycle. So right at the start of when you would even know about the pregnancy.

As far as what causes it no one knows. There is an increase if someone has had an IUD for birth control...the theory is the scarring can add to the risk. Smoking increased the risk by five times. The theory on that is nicotine has been tied to muscle contraction in the tubes that can cause a blockage and premature implantation. And in some cases it just happens.

Interesting. Tough situation either way.

 

[2WhomShallWeGo]

You know, I think you'll probably meet VERY few Catholics who have NO questions, concerns, struggles or disagreements when it comes to their faith. We all wrestle with ideas and concepts, and it's better to be honest about that, and discuss it, and admit it... rather than just bury and silence it.

Suggesting that someone cease to identify as Catholic isn't helpful.... and most Catholics DO what the Church commands, even if we struggle with it. I can't think of any Church law that says "you must agree with every single thing and dogma before you identify as Catholic". If that was the case, I think we'd have a very, VERY small Church.

We're required to obey and acquiesce to the Church with the understanding that we might not fully agree with the Church because we may not fully understand the Church..... but we're not required to 'just agree', as far as I know.

I'm sorry you don't understand the requirements of the catholic faith.

I am honest when I call myself a catholic. I know that how ever I feel
about an issue or think about an issue, such thoughts and feelings do not trumph the Holy spirits protection.

If one does not believe the faith one should not claim to believe the faith. This is simply a matter of integrity in speech.

(note I'm not talking about undestanding I'm talking about belief and a lack of understanding how the church reaches a conclusion doesn't absolve us from being bound by the conclusion)
Jim has more than once stated he doesn't assent to the conclusion. At this point he's already in trouble no matter what he actually does or doesn't do in practice.

 

[Davidnic]

Not to bring this back from the depths...but the method used has been confirmed as a D&C. Not licit in any circumstance. There is an analysis by a Moral Theologian who was given access by the hospital to the medical records and disagrees with the Bishop. But the Bishop has disagreed with her assessment. Which I also find very off and twisty. What bothers me is she says it was moral even th...ough, to quote:

"These facts are important to establish because the claim has been made that the hospital sought primarily to end the life of the fetus as the means to saving the mother’s life. This, however, is physiologically inaccurate. It is likely that in this case as in many cases of natural fetal demise, the death of the fetus in se would have had no physiologic effect on the mother. In many cases of fetal demise, the pregnancy itself continues; fetal death is often not detected for weeks or months, although the pregnancy itself continues to proceed and develop because the hormones required for sustaining and advancing the pregnancy come not from the fetus but from the placenta."
​

So the mother would not have died. So she is trying to argue that they did not do evil to achieve good because the good theoretically attempted (saving the mother) was not needed since fetal death would not have had a physiological effect on the mother. So if the fetus was in the process of dying why was there a need for a D&C when they could have attempted to maintain both lives even if the one almost sure to die was the child?

She later says:

"Effecting the death of the child would not achieve any medical or ancillary end. Therefore the death of the child was not the means to any end in this case."
​

She argues again that the death of the child was not done to save the mother, that it achieved no medical or ancillary end. But concludes the procedure was licit. That is where the Bishop, and honestly, almost every other moralist...disagrees.

So the pregnancy imperiled both and the fetus was in the process of dying. But fetal death would not have imperiled the life of the mother more than the pregnancy already did. There was a further complication of cardiogenic shock.

But the fetus was not dead, so the question comes back to...can you kill a dying innocent to save a life. And the Church says no. You can attempt to save the other innocent involved but you can not directly kill one to save the other.

And the doctors did a D&C...which directly killed a dying person as the object of the act, not as a secondary object of an act to save the other innocent (such as the removal of the tube or uterus in other cases).

This is the difference.

I think that where the Bishop disagrees is that number two of Grisez’s four criteria:

"it was not safe to wait or waiting surely would have resulted in the death of both"
​

was not met. Where she argues it was.

 

[benedictaoo]

that woman is off and twisted.

 

[Davidnic]

that woman is off and twisted.

A bit strange...I have read her other stuff and it does not do this and she is really a little overly legalistic here. It is almost like she is really trying to make the hospital right. But her argument, to me, conflicts with itself. Although she can likely argue that the fetus was in the process of dying and if the placenta stopped providing oxygen the moral equivalent is the same as a burst tube and the removal of the placenta would not be a direct abortion because of the diseased system interaction...that is one thing. But nothing I have ever read allows a D&C.

To use process of dying to allow that is basically to use a logic that also allows euthanasia.

D&C is always directly killing.

 

[Davidnic]

She also uses self defense but ignores that although St. Thomas does not specify that the innocence of the attacker is a matter that Magisterial teaching on legitimate defense does and St. Thomas does not trump that.

And the Diocese has confirmed:

What if the treatment provided to the mother results in the death of her unborn child?

Certainly a physician should try to protect both lives equally. If the child can grow past viability and
then can be delivered, that is always preferable. If, however, a necessary treatment brings about the death
of the child indirectly it may be allowable. A Dilation and Curettage (D&C) or Dilation and Extraction
​

(D&E), however, would never be such a treatment since it is the direct killing of the unborn child and is,
morally speaking, an abortion.​

 

[benedictaoo]

I like this, "physiologically inaccurate" what does that even mean? How is a person physiologically inaccurate? That makes no sense.

 

[Davidnic]

I like this, "physiologically inaccurate" what does that even mean? How is a person physiologically inaccurate? That makes no sense.

She means the process of killing the child was not necessary to save the mothers life but it was aimed at "terminating the maternal environment"

Honestly...he other stuff is good. I think in this case she is trying so hard to justify it.

So she says it was not killing the child to save the mother since the death in utero would not have posed a threat. But it was terminating the maternal environment by a D&C (always illicit) to save the mother. So it is not against double effect since the death of the child is the unintended consequence of termination of maternal environment and not killing the child for the effect.

It is the most twisted wordplay I have ever read. And like I said, I like her other stuff. But this us just off.

 

[benedictaoo]

"terminating the maternal environment" ...makes no sense.

It's just double talk. and it's baloney.

To terminate the maternal environment is to kill the child. There is no separating one from the other.

Are people in life, really that naive to buy that nonsense?

 

[Davidnic]

Thing is there is no way around the fact that it is just wrong to say the Church ever allows a D&C. The only object of a D&C is to kill. She makes some interesting arguments on object not being strictly the act, and that is true but she goes into a realm where intention can justify any act. And that is also wrong according to the Church.

 

[Davidnic]

"terminating the maternal environment" ...makes no sense.

It's just double talk. and it's baloney.

To terminate the maternal environment is to kill the child. There is no separating one from the other.

Are people in life, really that naive to buy that nonsense?

Terminating the maternal environment is abortion...what else is it.

 

[Miss Shelby]

No man or woman may kill an innocent human being for any purpose. even the state can only execute a guilty man.

sounds like this would be like a tubal pregnancy and the Church doesn't condemn that.

 

[Miss Shelby]

Terminating the maternal environment is abortion...what else is it.

i don't know about that. if that's the case then having a tubal ligation or hysterectomy, the latter which is usually necessary, is also terminating the maternal environment.

i do believe that essure treatments would be considered wrong, in the event the sole intent behind it is birth control.

i think the church says being on the pill is okay for hormone theray, just not birth control.