Nun Automatically Excommunicated For Approving Abortion

JimR-OCDS said:

benedictaoo;



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



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.



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



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

Jim

Click to expand...

huh, what?? Yeah- we can make this determination. an abortion was preformed as the treatment. abortion was the treatment that was chosen.

Morally, we can not choose to treat a condition with an abortion.

You have to give consideration to the child and none was given. It all went to the mom.

I have a couple of thoughts that are really more questions.

One is, a few people have mentioned that one can induce labour, deliver a pre-term baby, and treat it in a humane way until is dies. (One would ideally wait as long as possible to get the infant to the point of viablity outside the womb). But in the case of early medical abortion, that is sometimes exactally what is done. The abortion is done by inducing the uterus to contract and expel the embryo and the rest of it's contents.

Now, would we call this an early delivery, or an abortion? The people involved would know that there was no chance of the baby surviving, so common parlance would choose to call it an abortion.

Now I have no idea what means was used in this case, but it seems in such instances the difference between induction and abortion could depend on a hair's thickness of intent.

I also notice people keep saying there are few times when there are no choices to try for a better outcome. I think that is true. The one that is always used in such discussions is ectopic pregnancy. Of course people then say - well, we remove the tube that is harming the woman, and the primary purpose is not to kill the baby, thus the double effect thing comes into play. Which is why the CC does not allow the treatment of ectopic pregnancy with drugs that directly expel the embryo. Ok, I'll buy that, even though the result is the same for the baby, and possible more dangerous for the mother with the surgery.

But what about when the ectopic pregnancy implants outside the tube, which is rare but sometimes happens. The only way would be to directly remove the baby where it had been implanted, there is no tube to remove because it has implanted in the empty spaces in the abdominal cavity.

We know that there is no chance of the baby surviving, no matter what. Not even a small one. And we know that leaving the situation will very likely kill the mother - to leave it until there is a rupture would be very risky. I cannot imagine that any Catholic official would say that is the best plan in such a case - I really can't.

But if so, how can that be justified according to the logic used? If it can't, is it a problem with the logic?

JimR-OCDS said:

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

Click to expand...

But it was an abortion...the killing of the fetus as treatment and not the death of the fetus in the attempt to save both. We do know that is what happened. And that is why it was wrong and not allowed in Church teaching.

JimR-OCDS said:

We actually don't know that.

Jim

Click to expand...

Yeah we do, that is why there was an excommunication. Jim, the situation was that instead of any other option what was done was a direct abortion. That is what was done. It is the fact of the situation. That is what the nun approved: A direct abortion. The hospital said it was termination as treatment not as a result of another procedure. And they said it was a direct abortion not fetal death as a result of any other factor. So yes..we know what was approved was an abortion.

Rather than following the directive:

All this being said at the end of the day it comes down to...do you give the benefit of the doubt to the hospital ethics committee that there was no other option and the existing treatments would not work. I do not give them that benefit of doubt. I have looked at too many cases where ethics committees do not take dignity of life into account. The Texas Advance directives act is one such horrid thing. And watching that and other things like it has let me to doubt hospital ethics committees.

Davidnic

Yeah we do, that is why there was an excommunication. Jim, the situation was that instead of any other option what was done was a direct abortion. That is what was done. It is the fact of the situation. That is what the nun approved: A direct abortion. The hospital said it was termination as treatment not as a result of another procedure. And they said it was a direct abortion not fetal death as a result of any other factor. So yes..we know what was approved was an abortion.

Click to expand...

We know it was an abortion, just as a miscarriage is an abortion.

However, what we don't know is if the medical staff ignored other possible solutions to performing the abortion. The article doesn't say this, and the Church teaching wouldn't allow the abortion even had they ruled out other solutions.

The Church teaches that you can not deliberately terminate the life of the fetus, except in cases where the mother's life is at stake. The problem is, the Church's teaching mandates that they wait until the life of the mother is threatened before they can do anything. It ignores modern science ability to determine that the pregnancy will in fact reach that state, and could end up killing the mother, if she happens to begin to miscarry where no medical help is available to her.

The Church's position is that you can not deliberately kill the fetus, regardless. Its outdated with regards to current medical knowledge.

That being said, I understand the slippery slope the Church is trying to avoid.

Click to expand...

why do you assume the Chuch is simply making slippery slope argument

her bishop came out on the record stating her excommunication was automatic

it is nice to know that all of a sudden medical science outweighs the moral teachings of the Church

athansor said:

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.

Click to expand...

she killed a kid

From another source;

The patient concerned had a rare and often fatal condition in which the pregnancy can cause the death of the mother.
In a statement, Suzanne Pfister, a hospital vice president, said while the hospital is a Catholic institution, the directives do not cover all the emergencies that arise.
"In this tragic case, treatment required the termination of an 11-week pregnancy," Pfister said.
The patient's condition, pulmonary hypertension, interferes with the ability of the heart and lungs to function and is often made fatal by pregnancy.”
McBride was part of the ethics committee discussion about the surgery, which was described as very urgent and agreed with the abortion to save the life of the mother.
Irish nun excommunicated after abortion to save mother decision | Irish News | IrishCentral

Click to expand...

FYI, when your heart or lungs stop functioning, you die.

Its a no brainer to me, that they had to terminate this pregnancy, for the sake of the mother's life.

Jim

BAFRIEND said:

why do you assume the Chuch is simply making slippery slope argument

her bishop came out on the record stating her excommunication was automatic

it is nice to know that all of a sudden medical science outweighs the moral teachings of the Church

Click to expand...

When it comes to saving a life, in this case the mother, yeah, medical science trumps Church teaching which is out of touch with current medical technology.

Jim

BAFRIEND said:

she killed a kid

Click to expand...

The fetus would've died along with the mother, had they not done anything.


Jim

MKJ said:

I have a couple of thoughts that are really more questions.

One is, a few people have mentioned that one can induce labour, deliver a pre-term baby, and treat it in a humane way until is dies. (One would ideally wait as long as possible to get the infant to the point of viablity outside the womb). But in the case of early medical abortion, that is sometimes exactally what is done. The abortion is done by inducing the uterus to contract and expel the embryo and the rest of it's contents.

Click to expand...

That is not an aboriton then...unless the method used, such as prostaglandin , causes the fetus to be destroyed in the expulsion. As long as the removal is done in an manner than attempts to keep the fetus alive and intact it is an attempted delivery. I believe in the case we are discussing it was a vacuum.

MKJ said:

Now, would we call this an early delivery, or an abortion? The people involved would know that there was no chance of the baby surviving, so common parlance would choose to call it an abortion.

Click to expand...

Depends on several factors...how long did they wait ro attain viability. What other factors were tried and how it was done with the best chances to insure the life of both.

MKJ said:

But what about when the ectopic pregnancy implants outside the tube, which is rare but sometimes happens. The only way would be to directly remove the baby where it had been implanted, there is no tube to remove because it has implanted in the empty spaces in the abdominal cavity.

We know that there is no chance of the baby surviving, no matter what. Not even a small one. And we know that leaving the situation will very likely kill the mother - to leave it until there is a rupture would be very risky. I cannot imagine that any Catholic official would say that is the best plan in such a case - I really can't.

But if so, how can that be justified according to the logic used? If it can't, is it a problem with the logic?

Click to expand...

In this case the removal would need to be done surgically and not with drugs that expel. Although in this case there is almost no chance...less than 1% that the embryo can be saved that chance needs to be taken in a manner that considers proportional safety for the mother. There is actually work being done on fetus removal after human in vitro that allows for slim hope here.

So let me ask you all, who agree with the Bishop's excommunication of this nun.

Should the hospital have waited for the mother's heart or lungs to stop functioning before they did anything?

Do you know how long you can go without a heart beat or breathing before you die?

Jim

JimR-OCDS said:

From another source;



FYI, when your heart or lungs stop functioning, you die.

Its a no brainer to me, that they had to terminate this pregnancy, for the sake of the mother's life.

Jim

Click to expand...

There is a therapy for this that can be used as mentioned in a earlier post.

Davidnic said:

There is a therapy for this that can be used as mentioned in a earlier post.

Click to expand...

The poster was not there at the hospital to evaluate the patient's condition to be able to make such a statement.


Jim

We know it was an abortion, just as a miscarriage is an abortion.

Click to expand...

No. no, no Jim. An abortion as we know it, and we aren't going to do this semantics game, is when we intentionality kill a baby in the womb.

It's not a miscarriage, it's intentionality killing a child.

However, what we don't know is if the medical staff ignored other possible solutions to performing the abortion. The article doesn't say this, and the Church teaching wouldn't allow the abortion even had they ruled out other solutions.

Click to expand...

right... and the Church teaching is Christ's teaching.

So it doesn't matter if there were other possibilities. I suspect only a person who agrees we can abort children if the mother life is at risk, thinks it matters.

We can not kill ppl to save our own life. Bottom line.

And please don't hand me the self defense line.

Your child is not deliberately attacking you, trying to kill you where you have to kill it to save your own life.

Frankly, since we are talking about our own children, if my adult child tried to murder me, I don't think I could kill him to prevent that. I would probably just let him kill me because I don't think I could ever bring myself to kill my child. But what ever.

But an unborn baby didn't ask to be conceived. The mother and/or father, for what ever the circumstance, is who brought this child into existence, so we have to take responsibility for bringing this child into existence and taking into account their life and actually consider the child's life now, because it has just as much value as anyones and not act as if it does get to be considered simply because it's in the womb and not outside the womb.

The Church teaches that you can not deliberately terminate the life of the fetus, except in cases where the mother's life is at stake. The problem is, the Church's teaching mandates that they wait until the life of the mother is threatened before they can do anything. It ignores modern science ability to determine that the pregnancy will in fact reach that state, and could end up killing the mother, if she happens to begin to miscarry where no medical help is available to her.

Click to expand...

No... Jim, I'm making an appeal to you-- this is your own flawed interpretation and you are adding to the Church's teaching. You ave gone steps beyond what you should in order to justify basic abortions.

an 11 week baby was sucked into a sink... it was aborted like it was trash, waste... it was discarded, put into the trash. No idenity- no birth certificate given- no name, nothing.. as if it wasn't human or that even existed.

It was treated like a disease. It wasn't. It was a human life.

There are moral ways to handle it... the Church would NEVER say that we will ever get to the point to abort babies in this manner!

But those treatments done while pregnant, could in fact be dangerous to the mother, which is probably why they took the path they did.

Click to expand...

The path they did was an abortion- the line we can not cross even if our lives are in danger.

JimR-OCDS said:

From another source;



FYI, when your heart or lungs stop functioning, you die.

Its a no brainer to me, that they had to terminate this pregnancy, for the sake of the mother's life.

Jim

Click to expand...

even if that's accurate, we are not allowed by the Church to directly intentionally kill a baby in the womb to save our own life.

JimR-OCDS said:

So let me ask you all, who agree with the Bishop's excommunication of this nun.

Should the hospital have waited for the mother's heart or lungs to stop functioning before they did anything?

Do you know how long you can go without a heart beat or breathing before you die?

Jim

Click to expand...

Jim- we can not kill a baby so we may live.


We can treat ourselves so we can try to live and if that means the treatment we choose indirectly kills the baby, that's one thing.

But to kill the baby as the solution, as treatment is not allowed.

We can't kill ppl JIm...

JimR-OCDS said:

So let me ask you all, who agree with the Bishop's excommunication of this nun.

Should the hospital have waited for the mother's heart or lungs to stop functioning before they did anything?

Do you know how long you can go without a heart beat or breathing before you die?

Jim

Click to expand...

the bishop did not excommunicate her- she excommunicated herself by deciding to abort a baby in a Catholic hospital fully knowing the ramifications

dont try and place this back in the bishop's lap

JimR-OCDS said:

When it comes to saving a life, in this case the mother, yeah, medical science trumps Church teaching which is out of touch with current medical technology.

Jim

Click to expand...

you are in serious error Jim...