Abortion hypothetical

Davidnic · Jan 21, 2011

Miss Shelby said:
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.

The difference is in the method in many cases, here if some act to try to save was made (like removing the tube in ectopic)...but a D&C is direct killing. I think that is one of the important factors.

benedictaoo · Jan 21, 2011

Miss Shelby said:
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.

.

You can "terminate the material environment" as long as a baby is not living in the environment at the time... and if you have an actual pathology, like cancer of the material environment. Not, maybe one day I might have cancer of the material environment.

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

as long as you are nonsexual it is okay.

PilgrimToChrist · Jan 21, 2011

benedictaoo said:
as long as you are nonsexual it is okay.

You can be on the pill and have sex (within marriage, of course) just so long as the purpose of taking the pill is a legitimate medical reason and not for the purpose of contraception. You can also take other medication or have surgery that has a contraceptive or sterilizing effect just so as long as you have a real reason to do it.

benedictaoo · Jan 22, 2011

PilgrimToChrist said:
You can be on the pill and have sex (within marriage, of course) just so long as the purpose of taking the pill is a legitimate medical reason and not for the purpose of contraception. You can also take other medication or have surgery that has a contraceptive or sterilizing effect just so as long as you have a real reason to do it.

No mam you can not. That is blatantly false. I been through this personally so I know what I am talking about.

I had to take ABC pills a month after my 3rd son was born becuase I had hemorrhaged after the delivery and then again a month after he was born... I went on it after trying all kid of natural remedies including the hormone progesterone (is that the one?) and it did not stop the bleeding. I had to take the pill to regulate the hormones and I was told explicitly to abstain for the couple of months I was on it. I was learning NFP at the Church at the time when this all happened so I had access to the teaching and it was explained to me clearly.

It got off it after 2 months and things went back to normal.

and sterilization is never justified and it is only and just for the sole purpose of not getting pregnant. It is intrinsically immoral. Look at the papers they have you sign... they read- this is not to treat or cure but solely for the purpose of preventing pregnancy permanently.

Again, I went through it- I should have had my tubes tied 3 kids ago (16 years ago) according to the doctors... been to a few priests for guidance each pregnancy becuase the pressure form the doctors was overwhelming and it is not justified and one priest even said to never allow any priest or anyone to ever tell me any different and thanked me for being faithful to the teaching.

I know some liberal moral theologians will try to tell you you can, but they are wrong. I had one tell me its okay to take ABC for less reasons than that- and he is wrong and I told him so.

There is the issue of the "good of the marriage" where one refuses to not take ABC and the spouse is not culpable for the other's sin and is allowed to have relations with the other spouse but for medical reasons, no, double effect does not apply here.

If there is a serious medical thing going on- you can treat that even if sterilization is a indirect result but you can not just sterilize yourself as a means to not get pregnant becuase it is dangerous if you do.

Meepy · Jan 22, 2011

Gwendolyn said:
Now, I'm fairly competent with moral theology, but when it comes to abortion, I don't want to take any chances. Someone asked me what the Church would consider a moral option in the following situation:

A woman is pregnant. She is healthy, fit, and is essentially in good shape to handle a pregnancy. However, 11 weeks into the pregnancy, she develops a heart problem (directly caused by pregnancy) and there is a 100% chance that she will indeed die within the next 1-2 weeks if the source of her ailment - the pregnancy - is not terminated. There is no other way to remedy her heart condition, and the doctors are certain that if the pregnancy is terminated, she will regain her health with time and the right medical care. If the pregnancy is not terminated, she will die.

Does the Church mandate that this woman must die because she is pregnant?

(Yes, there is such a condition, but I cannot remember the name right now.)

I told the girl who asked me this question that I would find a workable answer for her, so "Pray that God fixes her heart and allows her to continue the pregnancy" is not what I am looking for.

anyone have any insights?

premature birth with C-section and incubator. A doctor can remove a baby without tearing it apart.

I have never heard of a condition where a baby causes a heart problem though. And that "100% chance" excuse also tells me something not kosher is going on, especially with the medical technology of today. Also the baby is in a separate chamber apart from the woman's circulatory system. Sounds like there might be some excuses or flubbing going on. Like those women who claim "fatal implications" and it turns out to be depression. Lotsa women try the "suicide" card in order to get and justify getting an abortion. It was one of the main reasons Dr. Tiller was able to bypass state laws.

JimR-OCDS · Jan 22, 2011

Meepy

premature birth with C-section and incubator. A doctor can remove a baby without tearing it apart.

That's if they can wait until viability. However, a women with pulmanary hypertension probably couldn't go through surgery.

I have never heard of a condition where a baby causes a heart problem though.

The fetus didn't cause it, the pregnancy exaserbated her condition of pulmanary hypertension.

And that "100% chance" excuse also tells me something not kosher is going on, especially with the medical technology of today.

You're a doctor who has the expertise to know that they could've done something different?

Also the baby is in a separate chamber apart from the woman's circulatory system.

The baby is attached to an umbilical cord which is attached to the placenta. The nutrinments come to the baby via the placenta and umbilical cord. The pregnancy was causing the condition she had, to cause a failure in her health where she would've died had the doctors not intervined. This isn't according to me, but the doctors who were on the case.

Sounds like there might be some excuses or flubbing going on. Like those women who claim "fatal implications" and it turns out to be depression. Lotsa women try the "suicide" card in order to get and justify getting an abortion. It was one of the main reasons Dr. Tiller was able to bypass state laws.

Your compassion towards women who have complications in their pregnancy is noted.

Jim

Meepy · Jan 22, 2011

JimR-OCDS said:
Meepy

That's if they can wait until viability. However, a women with pulmanary hypertension probably couldn't go through surgery.

The fetus didn't cause it, the pregnancy exaserbated her condition of pulmanary hypertension.

You're a doctor who has the expertise to know that they could've done something different?

The baby is attached to an umbilical cord which is attached to the placenta. The nutrinments come to the baby via the placenta and umbilical cord. The pregnancy was causing the condition she had, to cause a failure in her health where she would've died had the doctors not intervined. This isn't according to me, but the doctors who were on the case.

Your compassion towards women who have complications in their pregnancy is noted.

Jim

Ok, now I know there is excuses going on. A woman CAN have birth with pulmonary hypertension pregnancy as long as she is given the correct medication(epoprostenol infusion), vasodialators, and is watched during her 3rd trimester with good health care.

Early recognition and treatment with vasodilator and anticoagulation therapy may reduce the likelihood of complications. Elective cesarean section may be performed with intraoperative vasodilator administration. The IV epoprostenol dose not give rise to physical deformities or fetal growth retardation. A multidisciplinary approach to the management of patients with PPH during pregnancy is of great importance for a successful maternal-fetal outcome

Pregnancy and Primary Pulmonary Hypertension* â€” CHEST

http://jrsm.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/full/94/10/523

May I ask why someone with PPH would get pregnant though?

JimR-OCDS · Jan 22, 2011

Meepy

Ok, now I know there is excuses going on. A woman CAN have birth with pulmonary hypertension pregnancy as long as she is given the correct medication(epoprostenol infusion), vasodialators, and is watched during her 3rd trimester with good health care.

Early recognition and treatment with vasodilator and anticoagulation therapy may reduce the likelihood of complications. Elective cesarean section may be performed with intraoperative vasodilator administration. The IV epoprostenol dose not give rise to physical deformities or fetal growth retardation. A multidisciplinary approach to the management of patients with PPH during pregnancy is of great importance for a successful maternal-fetal outcome

There are different degrees of Pulmonary Hypertension and using a web page to indict the doctors who were on the case treating the woman, is ridiculous.

May I ask why someone with PPH would get pregnant though?

Maybe because she's a Catholic who doesn't use birth control according to Catholic teaching. She already had four other children, this would've been her fifth

Jim

Meepy · Jan 22, 2011

JimR-OCDS said:
Meepy

Maybe because she's a Catholic who doesn't use birth control according to Catholic teaching. She already had four other children, this would've been her fifth

Jim

mmmhmmm

Antigone · Jan 23, 2011

I see people still haven't understood the meaning of the word "hypothetical". Look it up, guys!

JimR-OCDS · Jan 23, 2011

Antigone said:
I see people still haven't understood the meaning of the word "hypothetical". Look it up, guys!

The hyperthetical case the OP presented, was in fact a real case just recently reported and debated in this very forum.
She didn't know there was a case that was in fact real.

Jim

benedictaoo · Jan 23, 2011

JimR-OCDS said:
Maybe because she's a Catholic who doesn't use birth control according to Catholic teaching. She already had four other children, this would've been her fifth

? so she's wins a right to one abortion for that? Like frequent flyer miles?

Sometimes, Jim, your logic fascinates me. I find you fascinating Jim.

Meepy · Jan 23, 2011

JimR-OCDS said:
The hyperthetical case the OP presented, was in fact a real case just recently reported and debated in this very forum.
She didn't know there was a case that was in fact real.

Jim

yet when you do research on PPH you find that the "100%" deal is just a lie. With proper medical supervision and medication women can give birth with it. Secondly how was she able to give birth to four other children so nicely if she has PPH? and then all of a sudden on the 5th child is "100% death". The story just doesn't add up..

JimR-OCDS · Jan 23, 2011

benedictaoo

? so she's wins a right to one abortion for that? Like frequent flyer miles?

Uhm, who said this?

I merely answered the question to as why this woman who had pulmonary hypertension chose to get pregnant.

Sometimes, Jim, your logic fascinates me. I find you fascinating Jim.

Well, perhaps if you followed the conversation, you wouldn't see it as so fascinating and perhaps follow the logic.

Jim

benedictaoo · Jan 23, 2011

Maybe because she's a Catholic who doesn't use birth control according to Catholic teaching. She already had four other children, this would've been her fifth...

so, following the logic all the way through... she is entitled to an abortion for having kids, no B/C and being so obedient?

JimR-OCDS · Jan 23, 2011

Meepy

yet when you do research on PPH you find that the "100%" deal is just a lie.

Looking for medical conditions on the web isn't valid research. Plus, you weren't the medical physician on the case so your accusation that they lied, is seriously flawed in addition to being unchristian.

With proper medical supervision and medication women can give birth with it. secondly how was she able to give birth to four other children so nicely if she has PPH? and then all of a sudden on the 5th child is "100% death". The story just doesn't add up..

Well, there are cases where a woman with PH can give birth, but not all cases are the same. The doctors in this case, presented the issue to the ethics board before proceeding with the abortion. Now, if they were attempting to lie, as you accuse them of, why would they even bother with the ethics board?

Also, we don't know the woman's medical history and how she could've given birth to the other four children.

However, in this case, it was the pregnancy that was causing the emergency condition.

We don't know the facts the doctors had, so anything we say is purely speculation.

So meanwhile, lets keep a tone of charity in our words.

Jim

JimR-OCDS · Jan 23, 2011

benedictaoo said:
Maybe because she's a Catholic who doesn't use birth control according to Catholic teaching. She already had four other children, this would've been her fifth...

so, following the logic all the way through... she is entitled to an abortion for having kids, no B/C and being so obedient?

Who said because she didn't use birth control, she's entitled to an abortion?

Please stop reading and interjecting your own ideas into what I've posted.

Jim

JoabAnias · Jan 23, 2011

benedictaoo said:
Maybe because she's a Catholic who doesn't use birth control according to Catholic teaching. She already had four other children, this would've been her fifth...

so, following the logic all the way through... she is entitled to an abortion for having kids, no B/C and being so obedient?

I smell rationalism.

"Is Christ divided?
Was Paul crucified for you?
Or were you baptized in the name of Paul??" 1 Cor 1

Davidnic · Jan 23, 2011

Letter from the Bishop to Catholic Healthcare West on the Issue. Made public by Lloyd H. Dean. Also let's note the USCCB has stood behind the Bishop in all of this and in his interpretation that a direct abortion took place since a D&C can only be a direct aboriton:

November22, 2010
Lloyd H. Dean, President
Catholic Healthcare Wcst
185 Berry Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94107

Dear Mr. Dean,

I received your letter dated 27 October 2010 accompanied by the moral analysis from M. Therese Lysaught, Ph.D. Undoubtedly, the assessment from Dr. Lysaught is extensive and I appreciate the diligence with which it was drafted. At the same time, however, I disagree with her conclusion. In point of fact, throughout our dialogue and cooperative efforts during these last few months, it is more than apparent that the position of CHW is that discerning minds can disagree. Specifically, you stated in a letter to me dated 6 July 2010, “As you know, many knowledgeable moral theologians have reviewed this case, and reached a range of conclusions. If we may assume that these individuals are motivated by their faith and desire and for justice, one must at least acknowledge that this is a very complex matter, on which the best minds disagree.” Thus, it would appear that your intention is to resolve our disagreement by asserting that there is no single “correct” answer to the question of whether the procedure that led to an abortion at St. Joseph’s hospital was morally permissible under the Ethical and Religious Directives of the USCCB.

In effect, you would have me believe that we will merely have to agree to disagree. But this resolution is unacceptable because it disregards my authority and responsibility to interpret the moral law and to teach the Catholic faith as a Successor of the Apostles. The decisions regarding life and death, morality and immorality as they relate to medical ethics are at the forefront of the Church’s mission today.

As a result, the Church and her bishops have a heightened moral responsibility to remain actively engaged in these discussions and debates. I have attempted to do my part in calling CHW and your hospitals to uphold the dignity of human life, and to embrace the fullness of what the Catholic Church teaches on the immorality of those actions that are an affront to the gift or human life and its inherent goodness from God. The irony of our present state of affairs is that an organization that identifies itself as “Catholic” (CHW) is operating a hospital in my Diocese that does not abide by the ERD’s, and in the case of St. Joseph’s Hospital, has actively engaged in an abortive procedure that is immoral.

Thus far, you (CHW) have insisted that you are not doing anything wrong, but that your interpretation of the ERD’s simply differs with my own. According to Catholic teaching though, there cannot be a “tie” so to speak in this debate. Rather, it is my duty as the chief shepherd in the diocese to interpret whether the actions at St. Joseph’s and other hospitals meet the criteria or fulfilling the parameters or the moral law as seen in the ERD’s.
Until this point in time, you have not acknowledged my authority to settle this question but have only provided opinions of ethicists that agree with your own opinion and disagree with mine.

As the diocesan bishop, it is my duty and obligation to authoritatively teach and interpret the moral law for Catholics in the Diocese of Phoenix. Because of this, the moral analyses of theologians are important elements that should assist and inform a bishop in the exercise of his teaching authority. However, it is ultimately the authority of the bishop as teacher and pastor that is determinative, something you yourself have rightly recognized.

While the issues discussed in the moral analysis you provided are certainly technical and deeply philosophical, they are also foundationally “theological.” And the theology of the Catholic Faith, as concretized in the Code of Canon Law, dispels any doubt whose opinion on matters of faith and morals is decisive for institutions in the Diocese of Phoenix.

It is now my position that our deliberations regarding the tragic abortion at St. Joseph’s Hospital have gone on for far too long, and I believe that there is little hope that you intend to conclude that this case constitutes a violation of the ERD’s. Similarly, as you are aware, since my arrival in the Diocese of Phoenix, I have sought to engage you and the officials at CHW on the topic of my absolute objection to CHW operating hospitals without following the ERD’s; namely my objections to your administration of Chandler Regional Hospital, where as an organization calling itself “Catholic,” CHW authorizes sterilizations and I know not what other immoral acts.

I continue to find this particular arrangement deeply troubling. I see no basis to conclude other than that there is no intention on the part of CHW to modify or change its operations at Chandler Regional.

However, in keeping with my moral authority as Bishop of Phoenix and my interpretation of the ERD’s based on that authority, I have determined after review of the facts and circumstances that an abortion did occur at St. Joseph’s. Additionally, my efforts to convince you of the impossibility of a “Catholic” organization to operate in such a way as to not adhere to the ERD’s, has fallen on deaf ears with no apparent progress in more than six years.

If actions speak louder than words, your actions communicate to me that you do not respect my authority to authentically teach and interpret the moral law in this diocese. Moreover, your actions imply that you have no intention to acknowledge that what happened at St. Joseph’s hospital was morally wrong according to the ERD’s. Subsequently, this would entail that you will not change your mode of operation in assessing future cases in which similar circumstances are present.

In sum, my interpretation of where we stand at this point is that you would have me accept that: A) while tragic, what happened at St. Joseph’s Hospital was unfortunate, but an acceptable occurrence in line with the ERD’s. Further, if the same scenario would present itself again, your administration would likely carry out the same measures with the same result. B) Chandler Regional Hospital does not have to explicitly abide by the ERD’s since it is not a “Catholic” hospital, even though operated by “Catholic” Healthcare West.

The conclusion I take away from this analysis is that you do not intend to change anything. While my objections and our correspondence have garnered your undivided attention, you have discounted my legitimate authority. Because of this I must now act.

I do so not only to assure that no further such violations of the ERD’s occur, but also to repair the grave scandal to the Christian faithful that has resulted from the procedure that look place at St. Joseph’s and the subsequent public response of CHW.

Accordingly, I now ask that CHW agree to the following requirements by Friday, December 17, 2010. Only if all of these items are agreed to, will I postpone any action against CHW and St. Joseph’s Hospital. Specifically, I require the following in order for me to postpone any further canonical action directed against St. Joseph’s Hospital:

1. CHW must acknowledge in writing that the medical procedure that resulted in the abortion at St. Josephs’ hospital was a violation of ERD 47, and so will never occur again at St. Joseph’s Hospital.

2. CHW must agree to a review and certification process conducted by the Medical Ethics Board of the Diocese of Phoenix to ensure full compliance with the Ethical and Religious Directives of the USCCB. The Bishop and his representative from the Medical Ethics Board must have appropriate access to their facilities and protocols for review.

3. CHW must agree to provide for the medical staff at St. Joseph’s Hospital ongoing formation on the ERD’s, as overseen by either the National Catholic Bioethics Center or the Medical Ethics Board of the Diocese of Phoenix.
Failure to fulfill these three requirements will lead me to decree the suspension of my endorsement of St. Joseph’s Hospital, forcing me to notify the Catholic faithful that St. Joseph’s Hospital no longer qualifies as a “Catholic” hospital because of its failure to acknowledge the Bishop’s right and duty to judge whether the ERD’s are interpreted and implemented correctly.

This is a decision that will be immensely difficult for me, but one that I can and must make. I intend to publicly revoke my endorsement of St. Joseph’s Hospital as a “Catholic” hospital unless I hear from you by Friday, December 17, 2010. Only when you agree to all three terms as described above, will I agree to refrain from my public announcement regarding the status of your Catholic identity. A revocation of my endorsement of St. Joseph’s Hospital would necessitate the following actions:

• Removal of the Blessed Sacrament from all Chapels and Tabernacles at St. Joseph’s Medical Center.

• Prohibition of all Masses celebrated in Chapels within St. Joseph’s Medical Center.

• Public advisory from the Bishop’s Office issued through the Catholic Sun Newspaper and website that St.Joseph’s no longer qualifies as a “Catholic” hospital.

• Priestly ministry and other ministry to the sick will most certainly continue within St. Joseph’s Hospital, as it does in any hospital when the sacraments or pastoral care are requested by patients.

As for Chandler Regional, I simply invite you to put into motion a process for chancing your modus operandi with respect to the implementation of the ERD’s at Chandler Regional. While my decision regarding Catholic identity does not affect Chandler Regional in the same way, the issues about which we disagree are also related to the authentic identity or CHW as a whole. I recognize that my objections to how Chandler Regional operates are more involved, but I would foresee us needing to address those directly in the near future.

As the chief shepherd of the Diocese of Phoenix, I sincerely hope that you will respect my authority to be vigilant over all entities wishing to represent themselves as Catholic organizations. For the sake of the salvation of souls and in the interest of justice for the scandal that this present arrangement has created amongst the Catholic community, I ask you to reconsider your position and adhere to my requests.

Sincerely yours in Christ,
Thomas J. Olmsted
Bishop of Phoenix

JimR-OCDS · Jan 23, 2011

JoabAnias said:
I smell rationalism.

"Is Christ divided?
Was Paul crucified for you?
Or were you baptized in the name of Paul??" 1 Cor 1

I smell a person who hasn't been following the conversation.

Jim

Abortion hypothetical

Well-Known Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Legend

Senior Member

God Cannot Be Grasped, Except Through Love

Senior Member

God Cannot Be Grasped, Except Through Love

Senior Member

The Wrath of Whatever

God Cannot Be Grasped, Except Through Love

Legend

Senior Member

God Cannot Be Grasped, Except Through Love

Legend

God Cannot Be Grasped, Except Through Love

God Cannot Be Grasped, Except Through Love

Steward of proportionality- I Cor 13:1, 1 Tim 3:15

Well-Known Member

God Cannot Be Grasped, Except Through Love

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency