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

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Well the modern Catholic Church has been known for a while being rather hide bound. And there is a difference I think between a standard tubal pregnancy and this case. But you never answered our question. You said that medical ethics are all about medical decisions? Then explain why my friends can't get their tubes tied for instance.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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 MysticCat

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."

I almost forgot about you, Mr. Cat. No, that's not what I said. Yes, we're really terminating a pregnancy in all the cases described. No, we're not always saving the mother's life acutely in all the cases, though, in the case of a ruptured ectopic pregnancy and the woman in the OP, the termination does save the life of the mother.

To Beryana, do you advocate women dying with their ectopic pregnancies as well? These are normal fetuses, too. They just happen to be in abnormal places.