Nun excommunicated for allowing abortion to save the life of a mother

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Pope

This.

LOL.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Yep. Although I argue that (from a religious perspective) they're giving God pretty low expectations seeing how it is possible to get pregnant on birth control, just not likely. But if it's God then he could make it happen if it was indeed, his will.

I agree. Just ask AGDee about that.

Originally Posted by FSUZeta

hows does the church resolve the fact that many Catholic couples use some form of birth control other than the "natural" method? is it a "don't ask, don't tell" situation?

I'm assuming so. And it is probably only considered a venal sin as well.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

I guess I still don't see the difference. In an ectopic pregnancy, the intent is still to terminate the pregnancy. The end result is it saves the mother's life. In the case we are discussing currently, the intent was to terminate the pregnancy. The end result is to save the mother's life. How are these different in any way? In both cases, the fetus is not viable to term. In both cases, terminating the pregnancy will save the life of the mother. In both cases, the pregnancy is terminated surgically. I think the church has just found a way to keep people happy since ectopics happen fairly commonly. Wouldn't want to stand by and let thousands of women die every year because we can't kill a nonviable fetus to save the life of a mother.

I don't disagree with where you end up. But from the Catholic Church's perspective, as I understand it (and I'm not Catholic), there is a difference.

In the ectopic pregnancy, the understanding is that the intent is not to terminate the pregnancy; termination of the pregnancy is an unavoidable side effect, but it's not the reason for the procedure. The intent is to save the mother's life.

Like I say, I think this line of reasoning can lead to tragic results. But the principle of double effect itself can be a useful tool and has been a useful tool for centuries. The rub comes in specific applications.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by FSUZeta

hows does the church resolve the fact that many Catholic couples use some form of birth control other than the "natural" method? is it a "don't ask, don't tell" situation?

American Catholics in particular pay less attention to the rule against birth control and the Church hasn't really resolved it. It's a sin, and they're supposed to confess and stop committing it, but they don't think it's a sin, or view it as an unavoidable one so they continue.

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

I wonder if the family would have had a basis for a wrongful death suit against the hospital if she had died without the procedure considering that she was too ill to be moved to another facility. She was only 11 weeks pregnant so she falls within the legal time frame for an abortion so withholding an abortion from a patient who has no option to leave a facility and needs the procedure to live may leave the facility open to liability.

Unsure, I think Catholic hospitals have religious exemptions to providing care that they find immoral which generally consists of abortions and fertility treatments, I can't really think of anything else. (Not 'pulling the plug' too I suppose.) Knowing that, the responsibility is probably on the patients. Maybe the ambulance but that could be hard to sell.

Also, I think in these situations abortion is legal through, well birth. There are very few late-term abortions ever done but this would qualify as necessary if she had been so much further along. (Not disagreeing with you, just thinking she could have been anywhere in such a dangerous pregnancy and gotten one.. just not at a Catholic hospital.)

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I don't disagree with where you end up. But from the Catholic Church's perspective, as I understand it (and I'm not Catholic), there is a difference.

In the ectopic pregnancy, the understanding is that the intent is not to terminate the pregnancy; termination of the pregnancy is an unavoidable side effect, but it's not the reason for the procedure. The intent is to save the mother's life.

Like I say, I think this line of reasoning can lead to tragic results. But the principle of double effect itself can be a useful tool and has been a useful tool for centuries. The rub comes in specific applications.

What he said.

[rhoyaltempest]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

I think it's what happens when you're so concerned about the afterlife that the life isn't as big of a concern. Not that the Church wants people to die, but they would rather you die innocent than sin so gravely.

And it's the whole life begins at conception thing too. Because they can't figure out, or god forbid make up, the moment when the soul exists they save time and go back to sperm+egg. Technically preventing implantation is equivalent to abortion as the Church sees it.

The whole thing is a clusterfuck. So focused on black and white yes/nos that you can't promote condoms to prevent disease.

And this is what I will never understand or agree with. How can you be so concerned with the afterlife and unborn fetuses that you are not concerned with the lives that are already here and will be greatly impacted. What about this woman's other children? Do they not deserve a mother because of one child that is not even in the world yet and will likely die anyway? Religion or not, this is ridiculous! Sometimes as human beings, we just have to use our common sense. No disrespect to the Catholics, but I am sooo not a fan of the Catholic Church. At the end of the day, we all know that much of their rules serve man, not God. Yeah, I said it!!!!

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by rhoyaltempest

And this is what I will never understand or agree with. How can you be so concerned with the afterlife and unborn fetuses that you are not concerned with the lives that are already here and will be greatly impacted. What about this woman's other children? Do they not deserve a mother because of one child that is not even in the world yet and will likely die anyway? Religion or not, this is ridiculous! Sometimes as human beings, we just have to use our common sense. No disrespect to the Catholics, but I am sooo not a fan of the Catholic Church. At the end of the day, we all know that much of their rules serve man, not God. Yeah, I said it!!!!

The thinking would probably be along the lines of God will provide.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I don't disagree with where you end up. But from the Catholic Church's perspective, as I understand it (and I'm not Catholic), there is a difference.

In the ectopic pregnancy, the understanding is that the intent is not to terminate the pregnancy; termination of the pregnancy is an unavoidable side effect, but it's not the reason for the procedure. The intent is to save the mother's life.

Like I say, I think this line of reasoning can lead to tragic results. But the principle of double effect itself can be a useful tool and has been a useful tool for centuries. The rub comes in specific applications.

Surgery for ectopic pregnancy is done to save the life of the mother ONLY when done for Ruptured ectopic pregnancy. This is a huge distinction because patients with ectopic pregnancy frequently come in with complaints such as bleeding and abdominal pain prior to having life threatening complications from the ectopic pregnancy. Would you have to wait until you had a life threatening complication before the surgery is okay? When the ectopic is identified, surgery or methotrexate therapy is done immediately to terminate the pregnancy because the pregnancy is not viable and has a high likelihood of killing the mother if not addressed. This is actually the most common presentation of ectopic pregnancy, which is quite similar to the situation in the OP.

[rhoyaltempest]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

The thinking would probably be along the lines of God will provide.

And I don't buy it, not for a minute. I don't believe that most people really believe in their religion because if they did, they wouldn't do the things they do and continue to do them over and over again. People have gotten good at following rules, not following God. How many people do you know that are actually trying to walk the walk? Exactly.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Surgery for ectopic pregnancy is done to save the life of the mother ONLY when done for Ruptured ectopic pregnancy. This is a huge distinction because patients with ectopic pregnancy frequently come in with complaints such as bleeding and abdominal pain prior to having life threatening complications from the ectopic pregnancy. Would you have to wait until you had a life threatening complication before the surgery is okay? When the ectopic is identified, surgery or methotrexate therapy is done immediately to terminate the pregnancy because the pregnancy is not viable and has a high likelihood of killing the mother if not addressed. This is actually the most common presentation of ectopic pregnancy, which is quite similar to the situation in the OP.

You're like... 12 steps past where my understanding of ectopic pregnancy ends But I found this Catholics United for the Faith

There is no treatment available that can guarantee the life of both. The Church has moral principles that can be applied in ruling out some options, but she has not officially instructed the faithful as to which treatments are morally licit and which are illicit. Most reputable moral theologians, as discussed below, accept full or partial salpingectomy (removal of the fallopian tube), as a morally acceptable medical intervention in the case of a tubal pregnancy.

--------
· In the case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct abortion.[2]

· Operations, treatments and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.[3]

This distinction is derived from a moral principle called “double effect.” When a choice will likely bring about both an intended desirable effect and also an unintended, undesirable effect, the principle of double effect can be applied to evaluate the morality of the choice. The chosen act is morally licit when (a) the action itself is good, (b) the intended effect is good, and (c) the unintended, evil effect is not greater in proportion to the good effect. For example, “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not” (Catechism, no. 2263, citing St. Thomas Aquinas).

You can read the whole thing for a full explanation. But in short:

The majority of Catholic moralists, while rejecting MTX or a salpingostomy, regard a salpingectomy as different in kind and thus licit according to the principle of double effect.

[Munchkin03]

It's shit like this that makes me know I probably won't miss Christianity.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by rhoyaltempest

And I don't buy it, not for a minute. I don't believe that most people really believe in their religion because if they did, they wouldn't do the things they do and continue to do them over and over again. People have gotten good at following rules, not following God. How many people do you know that are actually trying to walk the walk? Exactly.

But the people who DO believe are running the Church. Even their idiocy around the child sex abuse scandal can be explained through the religious beliefs (although certainly not excused.) So they make the rules.

I'm sure there are more Catholic women who have had abortions and don't say a word about them to their local priest and who continue to attend Mass. They're wrong according to the rules, but not wrong according to their beliefs.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

It's shit like this that makes me know I probably won't miss Christianity.

I don't think this has anything to do with Christianity.

[rhoyaltempest]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

But the people who DO believe are running the Church. Even their idiocy around the child sex abuse scandal can be explained through the religious beliefs (although certainly not excused.) So they make the rules.

I'm sure there are more Catholic women who have had abortions and don't say a word about them to their local priest and who continue to attend Mass. They're wrong according to the rules, but not wrong according to their beliefs.

Many of them don't TRULY believe either. How can you believe and molest children? and not once or twice but repeatedly?

My point is that they may think they believe, but they don't really. What's funny is that if you truly believe that God knows you regardless of what you show others, then why don't you think God sees right through you in everything that you do? Your heart, your true intentions whether you ask for forgiveness or not? I'll tell you why... because many don't really believe what they preach; they just need to control the flock. That's how organized religion got started...a need to control the flock.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

You're like... 12 steps past where my understanding of ectopic pregnancy ends

This.

Originally Posted by rhoyaltempest

And this is what I will never understand or agree with. How can you be so concerned with the afterlife and unborn fetuses that you are not concerned with the lives that are already here and will be greatly impacted.

Again, while I don't disagree with where you come down, the Catholic position (as I understand it) would be that salvation, as in eternal life in heaven, is impossible without baptism (or baptism by desire/by "fire"). An aborted fetus is, in that view, deprived of any possibility of salvation unless it survives post abortion long enough to be baptized. That, in the traditional Catholic view, is a major thing with eternal consequences.

Not saying I agree with it, but that is the perspective the Catholic Church is operating out of.

No disrespect to the Catholics, but I am sooo not a fan of the Catholic Church. At the end of the day, we all know that much of their rules serve man, not God. Yeah, I said it!!!!

No disrespect, but here -- let me state my disrespect.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

I don't think this has anything to do with Christianity.

It has to do with the perspective on this issue in one strain of Christianity. But otherwise, co-sign.

Originally Posted by rhoyaltempest

My point is that they may think they believe, but they don't really. What's funny is that if you truly believe that God knows you regardless of what you show others, then why don't you think God sees right through you in everything that you do? Your heart, your true intentions whether you ask for forgiveness or not? I'll tell you why... because many don't really believe what they preach; they just need to control the flock.

Hardly a phenomenon limited to Catholics or Christians.

[DrPhil]

People are inconsistent, hypocritical, and extremist.

As with every other religion, there are Christians who are irrational and use religion as an excuse to do a lot of crazy things.