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

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Bold- There is a difference. It's a different diagnosis. The way they are the same is that both will kill the mother, and both require a termination of the pregnancy to save the life of the mother. By calling it a "salpingectomy", catholics have given themselves a little out, like, oh, I'm not really terminating the pregnancy, I'm just cutting out the fallopian tube. No, you are cutting out the misplaced (ectopic) pregnancy that is growing into the wrong structures and threatening to KILL the mother. Ectopic pregnancies are not always in the fallopian tubes either. They can occur on the ovary, in the peritoneal cavity, in the junction between the fallopian tube and uterus. You don't always have to remove another structure to remove the ectopic, either. It is an abortion.

Underline- I don't understand your question.

re the question, my guess is:

Many doctors won't sterilize younger women or women who haven't had kids even though they have decided that they do not ever want children or only want the number of children they have currently. They justify this based on the fact that the women might 'change their minds' although you rarely see a doctor question a woman who chooses to get pregnant similarly even though both choices are long term commitments.

My answer to that is that those doctors are, in short, doing it wrong.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

By calling it a "salpingectomy", catholics have given themselves a little out, like, oh, I'm not really terminating the pregnancy, I'm just cutting out the fallopian tube. No, you are cutting out the misplaced (ectopic) pregnancy that is growing into the wrong structures and threatening to KILL the mother.

The bolded is, as I understand it, a mischaracterization of the Catholic perspective. There's no "we're not really terminating the pregnancy" going on; everyone knows full well that will happen. But they are not engaging in the procedure for the purpose of terminating the pregnancy; they're doing for the purpose of saving a life, even though termination of the pregnancy will be an unavoidable consequence.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

As I have said, not me. It's been a while, but I've noted before that I'm a life-long Presbyterian, and I inherited that historical (and now faded) Presbyterian penchant for valuing solid theological and ecclesiological study among the laity.

This = me, and I have no problem at all with someone telling me I'm getting it wrong.

Beryana, please contribute to the conversation. But please don't assume that others who may not be Catholic are just relying on the newspapers or the Wiki. No need to be amused.

I have to admit that this claim always bothers me. The "NT God" that Jesus talks about can be found all through the OT, the psalms and the prophets in particular. Meanwhile, the "OT God" sure seems to make an appearance in Revelation and elsewhere in the NT.

This is true, and it is just laziness that lets me break them apart like that. (Also probably the fact that I think Revelation has little to do with the 'end of the world' and more about Nero and the persecution of the Christians by the Romans).

But there is a big difference between "go kill your neighbors and you can rape their women and take their stuff" and "Love thy neighbor." Again, simplified for the sake of my own personal laziness and the love of my Chipotle Burrito that I'm prioritizing.

[Beryana]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Medical ethics are based on an understanding of the medical issues. The problem with slapping a basic religious tenet onto a complex medical issue is that it becomes arbitrary as I have easily pointed out.

And you are attempting to slap an oversimplified understanding of a social teaching on a complex social teaching. If you would like to read up on the social teaching please feel free to read Humane Vitae, Theology of the Body, or even just the Catechism of the Catholic Church (paragraphs 2270-2275).

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

re the question, my guess is:

Many doctors won't sterilize younger women or women who haven't had kids even though they have decided that they do not ever want children or only want the number of children they have currently. They justify this based on the fact that the women might 'change their minds' although you rarely see a doctor question a woman who chooses to get pregnant similarly even though both choices are long term commitments.

My answer to that is that those doctors are, in short, doing it wrong.

The medical ethics of this is that there are equally effective forms of birth control that are not permanent. The age limitation is actually not based on doctors but on state laws.

Originally Posted by MysticCat

The bolded is, as I understand it, a mischaracterization of the Catholic perspective. There's no "we're not really terminating the pregnancy" going on; everyone knows full well that will happen. But they are not engaging in the procedure for the purpose of terminating the pregnancy; they're doing for the purpose of saving a life, even though termination of the pregnancy will be an unavoidable consequence.

But the saving her life part IS the abortion.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Beryana

And you are attempting to slap an oversimplified understanding of a social teaching on a complex social teaching. If you would like to read up on the social teaching please feel free to read Humane Vitae, Theology of the Body, or even just the Catechism of the Catholic Church (paragraphs 2270-2275).

Oh, I wouldn't dare, but there is no way to justify allowing a mother of four to die because the nonviable fetus in her uterus that is killing her can't be removed because it's a mortal sin.

I really don't care what the church's teachings on the matter are in reality, I just care that they should not be able to withhold a life saving procedure from a woman who is in their care when she has no choice whether or not she can be in their care. It is all well and good for them to deny care to women when there is another option for them across town, but when that woman is held hostage in their facility by her medical condition, the church is dealing her a death sentence by refusing to allow her medical team and family to treat her how they see fit.

[Beryana]

Originally Posted by dekeguy

By the way, are you lay or religious? I am lay, sed oro pro Societas.

I am a Lay Dominican - so a lay member of the Order of Preachers

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Beryana

And you are attempting to slap an oversimplified understanding of a social teaching on a complex social teaching. If you would like to read up on the social teaching please feel free to read Humane Vitae, Theology of the Body, or even just the Catechism of the Catholic Church (paragraphs 2270-2275).

She DISAGREES with the social teaching and is arguing, fairly in my opinion, that pretending that X procedure is just a "whoops fetus died" and not an abortive procedure is little more than a mind game.

Provide some discussion rather than looking down on other people.

Don't assume that some of us are not familiar with the material or the discussions since then.

[dekeguy]

Quote: Drolefille
I tend to agree with you although quite frankly I'm up in the air about my personal beliefs at this point. I think, baptised or not, most people are pretty good people. Short minded and selfish at times, but few are cruel and few deserve afterlives of eternal torment/absence from the presence of God. However, looking biblically there's such a contrast between OT God and NT God that while Jesus talked about Abba, the Hebrews... well not so much.
================

Drolefille,
As to the differences between the OT and NT God, I always figured that God reveals Himself to us as we are capable of understanding Him. He doesn't change, we just get a little better at understanding Him.

As to eternal torment, our late Pope John Paul II had a very interesting take on eternal damnation. He said, "Because our holy mother the church tells us so we must believe that there is a hell. We are not, however, required to believe that there is anyone in it."
A very profound observation to my thinking.
When I was in Theology class as an undergraduate my old Jesuit professor said that there was rather a lot he was looking forward to learning when he faced his judgment. However, he thought that since hell is defined as the complete absense of God and since God is omnipresent it logically follows that when you die it is either heaven or oblivion. If you make the cut you are in, if not you simply cease to be.
He went on to say that he was sure that God would not condemn a soul unless that soul was ESSENTIALLY negative. He then asked us if we could envision someone who could have absolutely no positive aspects whatsoever. He felt that such a person would have to be completely insane and therefore not culpable. In other words, its pretty hard to tick off God sufficiently to merit oblivion.


=======================
Quote:
Jesus is obviously male. I instinctively refer to God as male because, well I grew up that way, but as the Holy spirit is never drawn as a female figure, most of the feminine divine ends up placed on Mary, although never enough to have her raised to the level of deity herself of course.
-------------
Actually, there was a movement back in the 19th Century where Cardinal Mercier of Brussels led a movement to have Mary proclaimed as co-redemptor along with Christ. This was pretty close to out and out heresy so you can guess what happened when the Pope called him for consultations. Can you spell "Whoops, sorry, let me back off of that real fast"?
==========
The Church's teachings on Mary are another sticky point I have, but that's a story for another thread.
------------
Please post your thoughts or PM me if you wish. I'd like to hear and discuss this with you.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

But the saving her life part IS the abortion.

But what you said is "we're not really terminating a pregnancy." That's the part that I think is a mischaracterization. There's a difference between "we're doing this to save the mother's life/our goal is not to terminate a pregnancy" and "we're not really terminating a pregnancy."

Originally Posted by Drolefille

This is true, and it is just laziness that lets me break them apart like that. (Also probably the fact that I think Revelation has little to do with the 'end of the world' and more about Nero and the persecution of the Christians by the Romans).

Although interesting how the real end of the world stuff in Revelation -- the last few chapters -- draws heavily from Isaiah.

But there is a big difference between "go kill your neighbors and you can rape their women and take their stuff" and "Love thy neighbor." Again, simplified for the sake of my own personal laziness and the love of my Chipotle Burrito that I'm prioritizing.

I want a burrito.

Meanwhile, I'm reminded of the midrash (rabbinic teaching) telling of God's adminition to those celebrating when pharoah and his army were washed away by the Red Sea: "My children are drowning in the sea and you want to sing before me?"

And dekeguy, you posts -- which I always find interesting -- really would be a lot easier to follow if you were using the quote function.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

People generally know the bolded when they fly in to post references instead of actually engaging others.

Could you feel my sarcasm?

[DrPhil]

This thread might be the first time I read one of dekeguy's posts. Get those quotes together.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

The medical ethics of this is that there are equally effective forms of birth control that are not permanent. The age limitation is actually not based on doctors but on state laws.


But the saving her life part IS the abortion.

If it was all based on state laws, how come doctor shopping works within the same city even? There are doctors out there who impose their values on patients, particularly in a "but you'll want kids later" situation. It's possible that this is at least partially motivated by fear of a lawsuit later, I don't know.

And all other forms of birth control come with their own side effects. Shouldn't an informed adult be allowed to choose? One time cost vs. ongoing costs are important as well. (Argument not really directed at you, just tossing it out there)

I'm not really disagreeing with you on the abortion bit, they just argue that the tube itself could be considered a threat to the mother's health in addition to the pregnancy so they fix problem A which "just so happens" to fix problem B too. It's all working the system.

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Oh, I wouldn't dare, but there is no way to justify allowing a mother of four to die because the nonviable fetus in her uterus that is killing her can't be removed because it's a mortal sin.

I really don't care what the church's teachings on the matter are in reality, I just care that they should not be able to withhold a life saving procedure from a woman who is in their care when she has no choice whether or not she can be in their care. It is all well and good for them to deny care to women when there is another option for them across town, but when that woman is held hostage in their facility by her medical condition, the church is dealing her a death sentence by refusing to allow her medical team and family to treat her how they see fit.

I agree and I think as healthcare stays in the public eye that this will become a bigger issue as time moves on. These specific sort of situations are rare, and this one probably only made the news due to the excommunication. But, it does show that the hospital administrators did the 'right' thing, it was the backlash to that 'right thing' that was the issue.

[Beryana]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Oh, I wouldn't dare, but there is no way to justify allowing a mother of four to die because the nonviable fetus in her uterus that is killing her can't be removed because it's a mortal sin.

I really don't care what the church's teachings on the matter are in reality, I just care that they should not be able to withhold a life saving procedure from a woman who is in their care when she has no choice whether or not she can be in their care. It is all well and good for them to deny care to women when there is another option for them across town, but when that woman is held hostage in their facility by her medical condition, the church is dealing her a death sentence by refusing to allow her medical team and family to treat her how they see fit.

And you are saying there was absolutely no way the mother and baby could have both lived? The proper way to handle these issues is to attempt to save BOTH lives. Why is it that the mothers that give up their lives to save those of their unborn babies are looked down upon for their sacrifces? Mothers that have forgone cancer treatments as those treatments would have killed their babies.

The basic premise of the Catholic teaching on abortion is the sanctity of ALL human life and that someone has to fight for those that have no means to fight for themselves. You can view Catholic social teachings however you want - they aren't going to be changing anytime soon. Just because something is legal does not make it morally or ethically right.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Could you feel my sarcasm?

You're no fun.

This thread reminds me of the "Catholicism is a cult" and "it's not real Christianity" discussions people used to have. That's not what anyone's saying in here but it really boils down to where people get their info and how they interpret it.