Nun Automatically Excommunicated For Approving Abortion

[Davidnic]

But they aborted the baby as the treatment to save the mom. the baby dieing wasn't the side effect or the risk of the treatment- it was the treatment.

They intended to kill the baby- that is how the treated the mom, by killing the baby. Murder as the treatment.

Sounds like a regular old abortion to me...

It's not like, "we are going to try this procedure and it's a risky that the baby will not make it..." no, they said, lets kill the baby so the mother is no longer at risk.

Fro what I gathered, it was a case where, we have to kill the baby so we can treat mom. So we can try and save mom.

Right, so it does not fit double effect due to intent. Because the intention was to kill the baby as the treatment. That does not fit. But if the baby died because of a treatment with the intent to save both it would be double effect.

 

[dinonum]

Depends on the condition involved. In many cases either something can be done to attempt to save both or to mitigate the risks.

After some looking in this case she had Pulmonary Hypertension a potentially fatal condition somewhere between 30-50%. In this case some things can be tried. One is a epoprostenol infusion. This is a fairly new procedure that has shown great promise and success.

Early recognition of PPH drops the mortality rate from 50% to 30%. The epoprostenol therapy before, during and after a C-section drops it further.

For a good overview of the condition plus multiple article sources on it see: Here

The issue is that often doctors will recommend termination before other options are attempted. So in addition we have the previously mentioned fact that the child was treated as the disease and the intent was not to help both but to kill one. Also the Sister attempted to justify the abortion as fitting with the Principle of Double effect and Catholic Dogma. That was not true since evil can never be done as the intent in order to do good.

We would view this the same as someone saying...you have a 30% change of dying but you can live if you kill the person next to you. There is no difference in dignity or rights between the fetus or the grown adult.

Zygote, Fetus, infant, toddler, child, teenager, young adult, adult, middle aged or senior citizen...they are all equal as people. From the moment of conception there is a human nature present. A human does not start as something else and become human that is not the way science or theology works. Once conceived all that changes are physical characteristics such as biological development not the nature of the being as human and all the rights given by God.

That is why to a Catholic and as proclaimed in unchangeable teaching by the Church (earliest recorded in 100 AD and confirmed as definitive Magisterial teaching by JPII) it would be the same to perform an abortion to save a life as it would be to shoot the person next to you to save a life.

Thank you for for response. Unfortunately, the examples aren't quite the same. It would be as though the person beside you would die with you, unless the other person dies first. Clearly a moral dilemma, but I question that many Catholic would not choose the life of the other person over both of their lives. Especially when the other person doesn't comprehend death, which in this case, the dying had no idea that it was experiencing death, let alone life.

I understand that this was an automatic thing that happened, but the judgment that this woman is somehow pro-abortion just because she felt that this was the only option to save the pregnancy woman's life is extremely upsetting to me.

 

[benedictaoo]

Thank you for for response. Unfortunately, the examples aren't quite the same. It would be as though the person beside you would die with you, unless the other person dies first. Clearly a moral dilemma, but I question that many Catholic would not choose the life of the other person over both of their lives. Especially when the other person doesn't comprehend death, which in this case, the dying had no idea that it was experiencing death, let alone life.

I understand that this was an automatic thing that happened, but the judgment that this woman is somehow pro-abortion just because she felt that this was the only option to save the pregnancy woman's life is extremely upsetting to me.

The problem boils down to, instead of trying to save them both- they just opted to kill the baby as *the* way to save the mom.

 

[Insubres]

How does anyone know there was another possibility, one of saving both? I could look through this thread to see if it's here but I wont because in any case no one, including the Bishop, is supposed to know about such details of someone's medical history due to confidentiality. So this is either all a lot of talk about something we don't know the details about and never will or a major breach of doctor patient confidentiality that could have serious repercussions for the doctor, the hospital and the Bishop - everyone involved in making it public knowledge, if it is. The secretary of a doctor is not allowed to so much as say they've seen so-and-so enter the doctor's or a hospital's building.

 

[benedictaoo]

Right, so it does not fit double effect due to intent. Because the intention was to kill the baby as the treatment. That does not fit. But if the baby died because of a treatment with the intent to save both it would be double effect.

exactly.

I knew a person this happened to. Years and years ago... the couple found out they were having baby # 2 and she also found out she had cancer... so she aborted the baby to treat the cancer.

She died as well... Her cancer was advanced, it was a situation where she didn't have a great chance of surviving.

If it were me, I would have at least tried to go as far as I could, have the baby and treat the cancer after that, The baby may have been able to live at least.

but I suspect the family believed it may have been better to not have to care for a baby with no mother, seeing how they already had a 2 year old.

 

[benedictaoo]

How does anyone know there was another possibility, one of saving both? I could look through this thread to see if it's here but I wont because in any case no one, including the Bishop, is supposed to know about such details of someone's medical history due to confidentiality. So this is either all a lot of talk about something we don't know the details about and never will or a major breach of doctor patient confidentiality that could have serious repercussions for the doctor, the hospital and the Bishop - everyone involved in making it public knowledge, if it is. The secretary of a doctor is not allowed to so much as say they've seen so-and-so enter the doctor's or a hospital's building.

Because they way I understand it, what this nun approved of was a common abortion. Abort the baby so we can go on to treat the mom for what ever it was.

 

[benedictaoo]

let me put it this way... it wasn't a matter of, lets use this treatment or that treatment and it carries a risk to the baby if we treat this way or that way.

The baby can die, maybe it will die even, but we hope it doesn't, we are not aiming for the baby to die.

what this nun did was use abortion as the treatment. Killing the baby WAS the treatment.

and we can't just use murder to treat an illness as if a human person is a disease we can cut out of you.

 

[TheOtherHockeyMom]

oh, but i was not joking

Were you celebrating her fate? It seemed like a pretty glib remark regarding someone's eternal soul.

A comment like 'She's toast" kind of reminds me of the signs held up showing Matthew Shepard burning in hell.

 

[benedictaoo]

Were you celebrating her fate? It seemed like a pretty glib remark regarding someone's eternal soul.

A comment like 'She's toast" kind of reminds me of the signs held up showing Matthew Shepard burning in hell.

uh huh.

 

[2WhomShallWeGo]

Well, in my moral theology class we learned about the principle of double effect. If the intended effect is to save the mother, performing a procedure that may result in the death of the child (if the death of the child is not directly willed) falls under the 'double effect' principle.

Mother and child will die if pregnancy continues. We can save mother's life, and then only one person may die instead of two people certainly dying. We perform a procedure that is intended to save the mother, not directly wanting or hoping the child to die, but the child does die anyway. My theology text says that is an acceptable application of the principle.

except they are terminating the child to save the mother. If they don't terminate the child the mother will die according to the particular plan of action. It is an intended cause not a double effect.

 

[2WhomShallWeGo]

Sometimes all you can do is remove the child knowing that the child will almost certainly die and try in the face of the worst odds to save that child. You certainly can never kill one innocent person in order that another innocent might live a little longer. This is true no matter what the projected time durations might be for either life. Any other action would essentially fit the definition of murder.

you can talk all you want about the good results of that murder. Every murderer has his or her reasons.

 

[servant of Merciful Love]

Lord, have mercy

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Mother and child will die if pregnancy continues. We can save mother's life, and then only one person may die instead of two people certainly dying. We perform a procedure that is intended to save the mother, not directly wanting or hoping the child to die, but the child does die anyway. My theology text says that is an acceptable application of the principle.

And the problem is that Catholic Theology hasn't caught up with modern medicine. In most cases in modern medicne, doctors can say with certainty that a particular pregnancy if left to continue, will end up in an emergency situation where in order to save the mother's life the pregnancy will have to be terminated. The difference here is, whether to prevent the imminent situation from becoming a reality while the fetus is 11 weeks, or wait until the fetus is say, 20 weeks. Either way, the fetus dies. However, waiting until it becomes an emergency situation where the mother goes in to premature labor and then places her life on the edge of death, seems illogical and perhaps immoral. Also, there are cases like this where the fetus is also so deformed at 18 weeks, it makes no sense to wait until the emergency situation arrives where the doctor is now up against the wall trying to save the life of the mother for a fetus which had no chance of survival in the first place.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

CreedIsChrist;

Of course its a possibility. Doctors can do premature extractions, induce early birth, and C-sections. Premature children are then put into an incubator to help fed them nutrients. Either way, there is no active killing or dismemberment of the child, that's the important thing...

But you're making the presumption that in the case of the OP article, this was doable and the doctors and hospital merely chose to ignore the possibility of saving both lives.

We're not the medical experts who were on the case at the time. We have no clue what they were dealing with.


Jim

 

[benedictaoo]

Hmm, so IOW, you believe in abortion, which means to terminate a pregnancy, if it is to save the mothers life...

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The problem boils down to, instead of trying to save them both- they just opted to kill the baby as *the* way to save the mom.

We actually don't know that.

Jim

 

[benedictaoo]

We actually don't know that.

Jim

actually we do... this is why the nun was on the hot seat and was excommunicated.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Hmm, so IOW, you believe in abortion, which means to terminate a pregnancy, if it is to save the mothers life...

If there is no chance of saving the pre-viable fetus, yes.

Catholic Doctrine, as it has been shown, allows this.

Jim

 

[benedictaoo]

If there is no chance of saving the pre-viable fetus, yes.

Catholic Doctrine, as it has been shown, allows this.

Jim

But hers' the deal.. it's how you go about it. An abortion to suck out limb from limb a child at 11 weeks is an abortion and not an option morally speaking.

But choosing to respect the baby's life, acknowledge his or her life by treating it as if it matters, by delivering the baby who may have a 1% chance of survival but allowing it to die with dignity, and the mother may have an increase chance of death but that is moral and sad but beautiful because it's a child, your child, you have to treat it with dignity and not suck it out with hose and act like it doesn't matter.... it's laying ones life down for the Truth and that is never wrong.

and that is where placing trust in God's will comes into play. You have to trust and put it in His care.

You can't be like, lets just kill the baby and get on with it because that's easier and has a better chance for me.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

benedictaoo;

But hers' the deal.. it's how you go about it. An abortion to suck out limb from limb a child at 11 weeks is an abortion and not an option morally speaking.

We don't know that's how the abortion was performed.

But choosing to respect the baby's life, acknowledge his or her life by treating it as if it matters, by delivering the baby who may have a 1% chance of survival but allowing it to die with dignity, and the mother may have an increase chance of death but that is moral and sad but beautiful because it's a child, your child, you have to treat it with dignity and not suck it out with hose and act like it doesn't matter.... it's laying ones life down for the Truth and that is never wrong.

Again, we were not the medical experts on the case, so we have no idea what they were dealing with, other than a report in news paper.

and that is where placing trust in God's will comes into play. You have to trust and put it in His care.

God often works through the doctors who are treating the case. To ignore their advice could mean ignoring God's will.

You can't be like, lets just kill the baby and get on with it because that's easier and has a better chance for me.

And you're making the presumption that such a laxidasical decision was made.

Jim