another bc question

[geocajun]

Kayanne, I do not think (this is where we get into my opinion) that any and all methods of ending an ecoptic pregnancy are licit. I know that removing the section of tube is licit, which results indirectly in the baby dying since the baby cannot be saved at that point. I know of another treatment for ecoptic pregnancy where a chemical abortificient is used. This in my understanding is a direct abortion, and would therefore not be licit.

Direct abortion or sterilization means that the action of killing the baby or sterilizing the person was the goal at the onset of the operation - this is immoral.

Indirect in this context means that the goal was to save the life of the mother, or some other operation of this sort, however an 'accident' or 'side effect' of this operation is that sterlization or abortion will or may occur.

Do you see the difference? As Skripper was pointing out, one is intentional direct) and one is not (indirect).

 

[thereselittleflower]

I'm not sure as to what the Church would say about this woman having her tubes tied in this case. I do konw that even in such a case, birth control in pill or injection form are still forbidden, as they are abortifacient.

In the second case, the Church will never, under any circumstances, say that an abortion is justified. As for the cancer treatment, if it will kill the baby and the mother has a chance to survive until the baby is delivered, then I think she should not seek the treatment. If without treatment, she will die before the baby has a chance to be born, then it is better to save one life than for them both to die. Both are extremely difficult situations though. I know that if someone had a gun to my head and asked me to choose between my own life and the life of an innocent child, and I chose to let the little one die to save myself, the guilt would never leave me.

Hi InerPhyre . . . Can you show me where the Church teaches that one must lay down their life for another? I know the Churcha advocates that a mother should do so . . .but I am not aware that the Church mandates that she does so . .

From all I have read on the subject, the issue is deeply personal one, with the favored decision being to lay down one's life, for no greater love does one have then this, but to lay down one's life for a friend . . . However, it is a choice . . . And the Church does not mandate that one die . . .

My understanding that if it is a choice between one life or the other, it is a matter of conscience between one and God . . .


Peace in Him!

 

[thereselittleflower]

Kayanne, I do not think (this is where we get into my opinion) that any and all methods of ending an ecoptic pregnancy are licit. I know that removing the section of tube is licit, which results indirectly in the baby dying since the baby cannot be saved at that point. I know of another treatment for ecoptic pregnancy where a chemical abortificient is used. This in my understanding is a direct abortion, and would therefore not be licit.

Direct abortion or sterilization means that the action of killing the baby or sterilizing the person was the goal at the onset of the operation - this is immoral.

Indirect in this context means that the goal was to save the life of the mother, or some other operation of this sort, however an 'accident' or 'side effect' of this operation is that sterlization or abortion will or may occur.

Do you see the difference? As Skripper was pointing out, one is intentional direct) and one is not (indirect).

OK geo . . help me with this . .. and it may help to understand my background is OB . . .

The reason an ectopic pregnancy is ended is because the pregnancy itself, the way the pregnancy is developing, threatens the life of the mother . . . the fallopian tube is not diseased, it is not threatening the life of the mother . . it is the deveopling baby in the fallopian tube that is threatening the life of the mother . .

And an ectopic pregnancy is not just limited to implantation inside the fallopian tube (which would lead to rupture) . . it is any implantation outside of the womb . . it can happen before the egg enters the fallopian tube, and be implanted outside the reproductive organs altogether . . however, it is most frequently implantation within the fallopian tubes . .


In the situation given by the OP, where a pregnancy can really be expected to kill the mother (not just some risk as all pregnancies have, and not just some elevated risk, but true, genuine, almost certainty of death of the mother), it really seems to me that the issue becomes the choice of which lives, and which dies . . .

I am completely against abortion . . . . However, what I am having difficulty with is when it comes down to a certainty that one is going to have to die, and there is the distinct possibility that both will die (for if the mother does not make it to the age of viability outside the womb, both will die, so there is the potential loss of two lives, not just one . .and yes we are speaking of extreme cases, but they do exist), that it is not morally right to try to save the life of one or the other . . . that it is not morally right to have the ability to choose which life should be saved . . .


I could easily see the same argument being made to take out the uterus (with an implanted embryo/fetus) in the case presented in the OP that is made for removing a section of fallopian tube (with an implanted embryo) . . .

The Church does allow for self defense when one's life is threatened by another . . . I have seen this argued in defense of being able to choose to save the mother's life in situations where it is fairly certain the pregnancy will kill the mother . . .


However, according to the Catholic Encylopedia at New Advent, it is NEVER permissable to end the baby's life under any circumstances . . .not even for an ectopic pregnancy:

some moralists thought they saw reasons to doubt whether an exception might not be allowed in the case of ectopic gestations. Therefore the question was submitted: "Is it ever allowed to extract from the body of the mother ectopic embryos still immature, before the sixth month after conception is completed?" The answer given, 20 March, 1902, was: "No; according to the decree of 4 May, 1898; according to which, as far as possible, earnest and opportune provision is to be made to safeguard the life of the child and of the mother.
​

So I am trying to reconcile these things. . .



Peace in Him!

 

[geocajun]

Therese, I wouldn't go to newadvent for technical moral or doctrinal clarity, its a dated encyclopedia, and only reports what it could at its time. For example, its section on blessings has an error (which was correct at its printing) we can discuss in another thread in regard to the administration of blessings.

This link gives a great treatment of the subject - http://www.cuf.org/nonmemb/ectopic.pdf

 

[thereselittleflower]

Therese, I wouldn't go to newadvent for technical moral or doctrinal clarity, its a dated encyclopedia, and only reports what it could at its time. For example, its section on blessings has an error (which was correct at its printing) we can discuss in another thread in regard to the administration of blessings.

This link gives a great treatment of the subject - http://www.cuf.org/nonmemb/ectopic.pdf

Yes, I know New Advent is not necessarily the best source . .

So basically, though the majority of moralists view the ending of an ectopic pregnancy as morally licit, moralists are not in complete agreement on the subject . . .

What of the decision the article at New Advent speaks of?


Peace in Him!

 

[kayanne]

Just popping back in to briefly thank all who have participated. I know this is a very serious subject, and it is heartbreaking how lightly it is taken by many people. Thank you also for seeing the sincerity in my questions and for not interpreting my attempts to clarify as argument or disrespect. (I often worry that my questions will be misconstrued).
respectfully, kayanne

 

[Rising_Suns]

Would NFP be the only acceptable choice? If NFP is being used to avoid ever becoming pregnant again for the rest of her life (as opposed to spacing), I wondered how it would be any different if she simply had her tubes tied or had a hysterectomy (since a hysterectomy would presumably be ok for other life-saving purposes).

Kayanne,
There is a fundamental difference between NFP and contraception/ABC. If the couple hasn't been practicing NFP, then it's clear that there is no other choice that need be explored at this point. I would also re-iterate the recommendation to go see a priest.

May the Lord give you His peace!

-Davide

 

[Rising_Suns]

(I often worry that my questions will be misconstrued).
respectfully, kayanne

Not at all Kayanne. You are one of the few non-Catholic members here who asks us questions with sincerety and respect. You are always welcomed here in OBOB.

 

[cthiax]

However, according to the Catholic Encylopedia at New Advent, it is NEVER permissable to end the baby's life under any circumstances . . .not even for an ectopic pregnancy

I'm very confused by this. In an ectopic pregnancy, there is ZERO chance that the baby will survive. It cannot be saved under any circumstances, and if it continues to grow, there is once again very little chance the /mother/ will survive either. In effect God has already said that this baby is never going to see the world outside of its mother. The Church actually mandates that both must die? Does anyone have more information on this?

 

[Skripper]

Dave, in general, when I hear anyone say "it all depends on intent" in any moral theology discussion, it raises my neck hair.
There are also cases where one is guilty because they "Should have known better" and that is regardless of intention.

Yeah, I know what you mean. It can be a slippery slope.

I don't want to blur the issue at hand,

Me neither.

however I don't want to leave someone with the idea that morality of any action is based solely on the intention of the one doing it.

I don't mean to leave anyone with that idea either. I'm not talking in generalities here. Only this specific example which, as I've said before, is lacking important specifics.

There are alot of qualifying factors which leave this specific scenerio hinging on intention

, and I am not sure that was clear.

100% in agreement, Jason. And we are not aware of the nature of the qualifying factors. This is what I've been saying all along.

 

[Skripper]

Dave, in general, when I hear anyone say "it all depends on intent" in any moral theology discussion, it raises my neck hair.
There are also cases where one is guilty because they "Should have known better" and that is regardless of intention.

Yeah, I know what you mean. It can be a slippery slope.

I don't want to blur the issue at hand,

Me neither.

however I don't want to leave someone with the idea that morality of any action is based solely on the intention of the one doing it.

I don't mean to leave anyone with that idea either. I'm not talking in generalities here. Only this specific example which, as I've said before, is lacking important specifics.

There are alot of qualifying factors which leave this specific scenerio hinging on intention

, and I am not sure that was clear.

100% in agreement, Jason. And we are not aware of the nature of the qualifying factors. This is what I've been saying all along, in my own way.

 

[thereselittleflower]

I'm very confused by this. In an ectopic pregnancy, there is ZERO chance that the baby will survive. It cannot be saved under any circumstances,

Actually, that is not true . . there have been documented cases of ectopic, fallopian, pregnancies going to 6 months without rupturing, and the baby reaching the age of viability . . .

and if it continues to grow, there is once again very little chance the /mother/ will survive either.

It may be little, but there is still the chance . .

There have also been documented success at implanting the developing embryo/fetus in the womb . . . but it has not been done often, and has low postive outcomes for survival, either in the womb, or long term . .. but it can be done, and the baby can be brought into the world

In effect God has already said that this baby is never going to see the world outside of its mother.

No, He hasn't . . .

The Church actually mandates that both must die? Does anyone have more information on this?

I would like more information as well . . . .


Peace in Him!

 

[Filia Mariae]

I would like more information as well . . . .


Peace in Him!

As far as I know, the principle of double effect is in place here. In other words, if a therapeutic treatment is available and the intent of said treatment is not to kill the baby, it is permissable.

As someone said, sometimes the fallopian tube has to be removed. The intent is not to kill the baby, although it is a sad result since the baby cannot be saved at that point. But again, this is a double effect, and it is not the intent or purpose of the surgery.

 

[Filia Mariae]

Just wanted to add-

Thanks to Kayanne for asking. I always appreciate how you can sincerely ask a question, and really listen to and consider the answer.

Thanks to everyone who answered in respect and charity.

 

[kayanne]

Just wanted to add-

Thanks to Kayanne for asking. I always appreciate how you can sincerely ask a question, and really listen to and consider the answer.

Thanks to everyone who answered in respect and charity.

 

[RhetorTheo]

I hope I can ask this sincerely, without causing a heated debate! I would like to know if the catholic church ever allows an exception to its prohibition of artificial birth control.

Yes. The Vatican has allowed nuns to use the birth control pill -- an abortifacient form of ABC -- for the purpose of contraception:

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1141/16_37/71250738/p1/article.jhtml

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/23/health/main608255.shtml

The exception is allowed by calling the Pill "a defense against rape," though in fact it does not prevent rape and only prevents pregnancy. By contrast, in the example you mentioned, the act that would result in contraception would actually help protect human life.

 

[Filia Mariae]

Yes. The Vatican has allowed nuns to use the birth control pill -- an abortifacient form of ABC -- for the purpose of contraception:

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1141/16_37/71250738/p1/article.jhtml

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/23/health/main608255.shtml

The exception is allowed by calling the Pill "a defense against rape," though in fact it does not prevent rape and only prevents pregnancy. By contrast, in the example you mentioned, the act that would result in contraception would actually help protect human life.

Disgraceful Rhetor.

All you have are some verbal assertions quoted by secualr and notoriously liberal, dissenting "Catholic" publications.

I frequently wonder why you continue to call yourself a Catholic when you clearly are more interested in antagonizing those who believe in the Catholic faith than you are in defending it. But to purposefully mislead a non-Catholic who is asking a sincere question it indefensible.

Dissenting "Catholic" theologians who fancy themselves mini-Magisteriums do not speak for the Church. Fr. Curran is not allowed to teach at a Catholic university for a reason- and that reason is that he is teaching flagrant heresy.

You can disregard Catholic teaching if you like, but don't try to pretend Catholic teaching is something it is not.

 

[RhetorTheo]

Carly, I'm surprised. Given what you posted above, I would have thought you would have taken the opportunity to acknowledge your error and apologize.

As for your attacks against my sources, including one of the three major networks on the grounds that the source is "secular"(!), here CWNews saying the same thing:

"Several years ago, nuns in Congo were administered contraceptive pills as a defense against pregnancy in case of rape." (The article quotes Bishop Elio Sgreccia, the vice-president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, discussing the exception made for the nuns.)

http://www.catholicworldnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=10066

Mgr. Sgreccia said it was important to distinguish between ``the act of violence suffered and the reality of new human beings who have begun their life.'' He rejected any comparison with the distribution of contraceptive pills to nuns in the Congo in the 1960s, which he called ``a legitimate defense'' against the possibility of rape. (This is a "secular" Associated Press story.)

http://www.cathtelecom.com/news/904/90429.html

 

[geocajun]

The nuns who took the pills were not having sex of their own free will.
Pardon my cander, but one can put on a condom and not having committed a sin, but one cannot morally consent to have sex while wearing it.
This discussion is going on in another thread too... I suggest we take the discussion over there. http://www.christianforums.com/t1172957-nuns-allowed-to-go-on-pill-to-prevent-rape.html

 

[cthiax]

Actually, that is not true . . there have been documented cases of ectopic, fallopian, pregnancies going to 6 months without rupturing, and the baby reaching the age of viability . . .

I was totally unaware of this (obviously) - thank you for the information. Certainly if there is a chance the baby might live, that changes things.