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

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Yeah, but that logic is BS, too. The fallopian tube is not what is hurting the mother in an ectopic pregnancy, it is the fetus. Treatment for an ectopic pregnancy is just a well accepted termination of pregnancy for protection of the life of the mother. Many times now days, we don't even have to do surgery to treat ectopics but give methotrexate to terminate the pregnancy. It's all semantics.

Unless you're at a Catholic hospital I suppose. It is all playing the word games, but you're enacting a treatment - surgical - that happens to terminate the pregnancy vs terminating the pregnancy directly.

Semantics? yes. But it fits their world view.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Unless you're at a Catholic hospital I suppose. It is all playing the word games, but you're enacting a treatment - surgical - that happens to terminate the pregnancy vs terminating the pregnancy directly.

Semantics? yes. But it fits their world view.

Right. It goes to the intent. In this case, it's semantics that reflect a philosophy that goes back at least to Thomas Aquinas.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

I am however pondering the concept of Just War which the church supports and how it relates.

Dekeguy may know more, but I think it's the principle of double effect on a large scale, though I know there are specific considerations for whether a war is "just" or not.

Sometimes war is necessary to protect the innocent, defend freedom or fight evil. WWII makes a great example. One does not wage a just war with the intent of killing others, although that clearly will be an inevitable result. The intent is defending freedom/the innocent/"good."

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Unless you're at a Catholic hospital I suppose. It is all playing the word games, but you're enacting a treatment - surgical - that happens to terminate the pregnancy vs terminating the pregnancy directly.

Semantics? yes. But it fits their world view.

So the fact that the fetus is in the wrong place and that organ is removed means that mother gets to live. Yay for her! I wonder if they'd performed a hysterectomy on the women in the OP if this would be okay too?

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.

[violetpretty]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

For the sake of playing devil's advocate, the church's position is that it's never ok to kill someone to save another's life. So abortion is always wrong even if it saves the life of the mother.

I can wrap my brain around the concept even though I vastly disagree with the premise.

I still can't understand. If the choices are two lives lost or one life lost, the choice should be simple. What you DON'T do makes you responsible for two deaths.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Right. It goes to the intent. In this case, it's semantics that reflect a philosophy that goes back at least to Thomas Aquinas.

Dekeguy may know more, but I think it's the principle of double effect on a large scale, though I know there are specific considerations for whether a war is "just" or not.

Sometimes war is necessary to protect the innocent, defend freedom or fight evil. WWII makes a great example. One does not wage a just war with the intent of killing others, although that clearly will be an inevitable result. The intent is defending freedom/the innocent/"good."

So is the intent of this abortion. I think it's a contradiction still.

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

So the fact that the fetus is in the wrong place and that organ is removed means that mother gets to live. Yay for her! I wonder if they'd performed a hysterectomy on the women in the OP if this would be okay too?

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.

It goes back to those philosophical questions: Would you push 1 person in front of a train if you knew you would save 5 others? Would you save the 1 person if it would kill 5 others? Would you pull the switch and move the train down the track that would kill 1 person to save 5 others or let the 5 die? If they see the fetus as a human person, despite the fact that it MAY not live naturally, they cannot justify killing it, even to save the life of the mother. It's the difference between pushing someone in front of the tracks and letting the train hit someone.

Or similarly, would you pull someone onto a rowboat that you know will sink it and kill you? Would you push someone off the rowboat if you knew it would sink and kill you if you didn't? What if it weren't just you in the boat?

Originally Posted by violetpretty

I still can't understand. If the choices are two lives lost or one life lost, the choice should be simple. What you DON'T do makes you responsible for two deaths.

It absolves them of responsibility because the deaths were, natural, god's will, whatever. They were going to happen. If you intervene, you're responsible for the intervention's effects. Allow an abortion = condoning murder. Disallowing abortion = she may die, if so that's better than murdering someone, and she dies without the stain of murder on her soul.

As I said, it's their perspective and I don't agree with it.

[ASUADPi]

This just clarifies to me why I sometimes don't understand the Catholic church.

And seriously, I plan to avoid St. Joe's if I ever move back to AZ. Which is sad that I say that because as an AZ native, I know that St. Joe's is one of the better hospitals in the Phx metro area (see Bret Michaels who is at the Barrow nuerological institute).

I just don't understand why the Catholic church would think it is okay for this young woman, with 4 young children, should die because they don't want her to have a life saving abortion and now are punishing the people at the hospital who performed it. I guess I just don't understand when a fetus (a fetus, not even a baby) became more important than those 4 living, breathing, human beings! I just don't get it. Someone please explain it to me.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by ASUADPi

This just clarifies to me why I sometimes don't understand the Catholic church.

And seriously, I plan to avoid St. Joe's if I ever move back to AZ. Which is sad that I say that because as an AZ native, I know that St. Joe's is one of the better hospitals in the Phx metro area (see Bret Michaels who is at the Barrow nuerological institute).

I just don't understand why the Catholic church would think it is okay for this young woman, with 4 young children, should die because they don't want her to have a life saving abortion and now are punishing the people at the hospital who performed it. I guess I just don't understand when a fetus (a fetus, not even a baby) became more important than those 4 living, breathing, human beings! I just don't get it. Someone please explain it to me.

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.

[Pope]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

The whole thing is a clusterfuck.

This.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Technically preventing implantation is equivalent to abortion as the Church sees it.

I was pretty sure it was the Sacred Sperm thing. Sex is to be used only for purposes of procreation, ((though the Church does now allow married couples to use natural family planning)) and anything that can not result in pregency is a sin.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

I was pretty sure it was the Sacred Sperm thing. Sex is to be used only for purposes of procreation, ((though the Church does now allow married couples to use natural family planning)) and anything that can not result in pregency is a sin.

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.

[starang21]

some of these "priests" remind me of the pharisees.

[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?

[SydneyK]

I've really enjoyed reading this thread.

This is what gets me:

But the hospital felt it could proceed because of an exception — called Directive 47 in the U.S. Catholic Church's ethical guidelines for health care providers — that allows, in some circumstance, procedures that could kill the fetus to save the mother. Sister Margaret McBride, who was an administrator at the hospital as well as its liaison to the diocese, gave her approval.

I'm assuming that Directive 47 was authored by and for Catholics in order to provide a basis for Church-approved, medically-related decision-making. If Directive 47 allows for exceptions (specifically in cases involving abortion), and the excommunicated nun made her decision based on Directive 47, I'm failing to see how the Church could argue that Sister McBride was in the wrong. She was following guidelines set out by the Catholic Church.

[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.

[Prettyface08]

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.

Wow. I say this ALL the time!