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

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Beryana

I'm simply providing non-media sources to read up on what the Catholic Church actually teaches as well as the basis for those social teachings on the sanctity of human life.

Do you really want to play the if-you-only-really-understood-it-you'd-agree-with-it card? Because it is possible to really understand something and reject it.

And why do you keep assuming that people are relying on the MSM? (Although count me with those Catholics who are saying that the Catholic Church owes the media a big thank you for reporting on the child abuse scandal.)

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

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.

Hope I wasn't misquoting or miscontruing you. I was referring to this:

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

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.

Like I said, I think we come down in the same spot on this one; it's just the lawyer in me want's precision in arguments and accurate understanding of other's positions.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Also you cannot have my burrito it has been nomnomnom'd away.

And you couldn't spring for another one for me?

[Beryana]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Do you really want to play the if-you-only-really-understood-it-you'd-agree-with-it card? Because it is possible to really understand something and reject it.

And why do you keep assuming that people are relying on the MSM? (Although count me with those Catholics who are saying that the Catholic Church owes the media a big thank you for reporting on the child abuse scandal.)

I completely agree that you can understand something and reject it. But I would personally prefer to understand something before rejecting it rather than rejecting something that I understood only on hearsay - then again, that's me and I was told I needed to stop making assumptions in this thread (which is what I have had a tendency to do in this thread and as such am excusing myself - and I did delete more than simply that post because I wanted to, for no other reason than that. . . )

And as far as mainstream media (which is what I am guessing MSM is standing for. . .), my experience has lead me to the conclusion MANY people rely on them for all information rather than doing their own research and making up their own minds. Sadly, the mainstream media tends to like sensationalism and not reporting all sides of the story. Did they bring the child abuse scandal to the attention of many? yup. Was that a good thing? yup Did they neglect to mention all the abuse going on in (and went on) in other denominations, schools, etc? yup Why? because the Catholic Church has seemingly deep pockets.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Beryana

I completely agree that you can understand something and reject it. But I would personally prefer to understand something before rejecting it rather than rejecting something that I understood only on hearsay - then again, that's me and I was told I needed to stop making assumptions in this thread (which is what I have had a tendency to do in this thread and as such am excusing myself - and I did delete more than simply that post because I wanted to, for no other reason than that. . . )

And as far as mainstream media (which is what I am guessing MSM is standing for. . .), my experience has lead me to the conclusion MANY people rely on them for all information rather than doing their own research and making up their own minds. Sadly, the mainstream media tends to like sensationalism and not reporting all sides of the story. Did they bring the child abuse scandal to the attention of many? yup. Was that a good thing? yup Did they neglect to mention all the abuse going on in (and went on) in other denominations, schools, etc? yup Why? because the Catholic Church has seemingly deep pockets.

QFP in case she wants to delete again.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Beryana

And as far as mainstream media (which is what I am guessing MSM is standing for. . .), my experience has lead me to the conclusion MANY people rely on them for all information rather than doing their own research and making up their own minds.

True. But "many people" doesn't necessarily include the people posting in this thread.

Sadly, the mainstream media tends to like sensationalism and not reporting all sides of the story. Did they bring the child abuse scandal to the attention of many? yup. Was that a good thing? yup Did they neglect to mention all the abuse going on in (and went on) in other denominations, schools, etc? yup Why? because the Catholic Church has seemingly deep pockets.

I've seen a number of stories about other denominations, schools, Boy Scouts . . . . I'm afraid what I haven't seen is that the leadership/hierarchy in most other denominations failed to deal with the problem when it was brought to their attention.

I agree that the MSM loves sensationalism. I also think there is a tendancy to blame the media for reporting on things that never should have happened, and the tendancy starts to look a lot like denial. "We didn't do anything wrong; the media is just out to get us because . . . ." No good comes of tacking that tack.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

True. But "many people" doesn't necessarily include the people posting in this thread.

I've seen a number of stories about other denominations, schools, Boy Scouts . . . . I'm afraid what I haven't seen is that the leadership/hierarchy in most other denominations failed to deal with the problem when it was brought to their attention.

I agree that the MSM loves sensationalism. I also think there is a tendancy to blame the media for reporting on things that never should have happened, and the tendancy starts to look a lot like denial. "We didn't do anything wrong; the media is just out to get us because . . . ." No good comes of tacking that tack.

This. The problem the Church has is not the deep pockets, the media's not getting any of that money, it's that there IS a hierarchy and that the hierarchy participated in covering it up. "Deep pockets" mean the victims might get some recompense.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Beryana

And as far as mainstream media (which is what I am guessing MSM is standing for. . .), my experience has lead me to the conclusion MANY people rely on them for all information rather than doing their own research and making up their own minds. Sadly, the mainstream media tends to like sensationalism and not reporting all sides of the story. Did they bring the child abuse scandal to the attention of many? yup. Was that a good thing? yup Did they neglect to mention all the abuse going on in (and went on) in other denominations, schools, etc? yup Why? because the Catholic Church has seemingly deep pockets.

If I tried to do research for every opinion I had or hoped to have beyond what's reported in the media I would only have 2 or 3 opinions.

People research based on what's important to them. One can not expect people to all find Catholic teachings or even just their stance on abortion important enough to do the research. One also can not expect only those who have done the research to have an opinion. If you could, you could also expect people who believe the Catholic teaching to also have done research into the pro-abortion argument. Most have not.

In an only semi-related note, I went to a Catholic University (and certainly not INO) and there were flyers posted in the ladies rooms about post-rape, post-abortion, post-STD diagnosis counseling. They certainly weren't advertisements for Planned Parenthood. When I was running Freshman Orientation we had a parent flip her shit over those flyers - it took us forever to explain to her that post-abortion counseling was not against Catholic teachings (I've never known the Catholic Church to turn ANYONE away from counseling).

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Okay....now I understand what you're trying to say! I was completely on a different page than you!
How is "we're going to save the mother's life/our goal is not to terminate a pregnancy" when performing an abortion for an ectopic pregnancy and different than "we're going to save the mother's life/our goal is not to terminate a pregnancy" when performing an abortion for a patient dying from right heart failure? That's where I get lost in all this.

I don't know that it is different -- it's not to me. I think we were just on two different pages.

That said, if I understand the principle of double effect correctly, the problem comparing the ectopic pregnancy and removing the fallopian rubes (I understand there are different/better medical procedures) with an abortion for the patent dying from heart failure is that, applying that principle, the method used cannot itself be immoral (which the Catholic Church would consider the abortion to be). Removal of the fallopian tubes would, standing alone, be considered morally neutral. Under that principle, the means has to be, at worst, morally neutral, the intent has to be morally good, and that moral good must outweight the unintended, even if inevitable, morally bad consequence.

When you, with all your medical mojo , put forward the possibility of dealing with ectopic pregnancy by inducing an abortion rather than by removing the fallopian tubes, you -- if I understand the principle of double effect accurately -- put forward the possibility of replacing an acceptable way of dealing with the pregnancy with an unacceptable way. So while the inducing of an abortion might be preferable from a medical standpoint, it would not be preferable (or permissible) from an ethical/moral standpoint framed using the principle of double effect.

To be honest, I think probably it is a principle that was first articulated to help in what would otherwise be hard cases like this. I'm just not sure the philosophy underlying the principle of double effect has kept up (or adjusted) to take into account medical advances.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Hope I wasn't misquoting or miscontruing you. I was referring to this:Like I said, I think we come down in the same spot on this one; it's just the lawyer in me want's precision in arguments and accurate understanding of other's positions.

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."

Okay....now I understand what you're trying to say! I was completely on a different page than you!
How is "we're going to save the mother's life/our goal is not to terminate a pregnancy" when performing an abortion for an ectopic pregnancy and different than "we're going to save the mother's life/our goal is not to terminate a pregnancy" when performing an abortion for a patient dying from right heart failure? That's where I get lost in all this.