Ectopic V Regular Pregnancy Complications, Letting Fetus Die, Morality

[dairygirl4u2c]

no, let me repeat. as asked, how is it different to just take the baby or fetus out of the mother, instead of removing the baby inside a uterus, or the fallopian tube?

as asked, why they couldnt just remove the baby altogether and skip out on the tube and the uterus? i can see being against a direct killing, but how is taking the baby out and letting it die instead of all the damage to the mother really any different than taking the tubes and uterus out w the baby inside? 

[Nihil Obstat]

Because removing a uterus is not inherently evil. Killing a child is. Moral object.

[dairygirl4u2c]

to be clear im assuming you are saying removing the baby and letting it die is "killing" it as that seems to be how youve responded to my point. 

 

even from a "moral object" vantage, how is there really any difference between removing a uterus with the baby in it, and removing the baby itself? 

 

you cant just say "moral object" as if it's answering the question. you have to explain why. 

directly killing a child could be seen as inherently evil, but just pulling the baby out is very arguably completely different. it's so much more like pulling it out in a uterus, than it is directly killing it, that it's essentially the same thing.

?

[thessalonian]

While this is technically true, we have to be very careful not to reduce the question simply to intent. We have to look at intent, moral object, and circumstances. The moral object is also especially critical in ectopic pregnancy questions. If the moral object is intrinsically evil, then intent is irrelevant.

 

I agree that we have to be very careful in these matters.  And I would think that many times in a difficult pregnancy it may be very difficult to separate and determine the motives of the individual. 

[dairygirl4u2c]

nihil said and was acting as if this was all "simple", but other than vague references to "moral object", even he has been unable to articulate a difference between the two situations, as mentioned in the recent post by me. perhaps it isn't so simple after all, or there's more to it than he and others would like to admit.

[dairygirl4u2c]

catholics and others set on these hardline rules say the hardline rules help avoid "slippery slopes" etc. but even these "principle of double effect" arguments open up a can of worms, a slippery slope

[thessalonian]

catholics and others set on these hardline rules say the hardline rules help avoid "slippery slopes" etc. but even these "principle of double effect" arguments open up a can of worms, a slippery slope

 

The fact of the matter is that God is the judge in the end.  Paul even says he knows nothing against himself but he does not judge himself.    We like to be the judges but it's a bigger job than we are able to take on.  Still these are very serious matters and so the hard and fast rules have a place in directing society toward right conduct and keep us from being too soft  on ourselves.

[Nihil Obstat]

:yawn: I am not going to continue repeating myself and responding to your vapid questions, Dairy. You have already chosen not to understand; why should I waste my time?

[dairygirl4u2c]

you said removing a uterus is not inherently evil, but killing a child is.

 

I asked for clarification on killing and received none.

I also said

 

"

to be clear im assuming you are saying removing the baby and letting it die is "killing" it as that seems to be how youve responded to my point. 

 

even from a "moral object" vantage, how is there really any difference between removing a uterus with the baby in it, and removing the baby itself? [not killing it directly as w an abortion]

 

you cant just say "moral object" as if it's answering the question. you have to explain why. 

directly killing a child could be seen as inherently evil, but just pulling the baby out is very arguably completely different. it's so much more like pulling it out in a uterus, than it is directly killing it, that it's essentially the same thing.

?"

 

how is taking the baby out and letting it die instead of all the damage to the mother really any different than taking the tubes and uterus out w the baby inside? 

I assumed you just misread my points and thought I was talking about abortion by saying "killing". if you were referring to just taking the baby out of the mother, you haven't explained the differences other than a vague reference to 'moral object'. 
one could say one is inherently wrong and the other isn't, a thing that's inherently wrong end of discussion, but philosophically more could be said about the differences. 

 

[dairygirl4u2c]

im pretty sure thessolonian understands all these points i'm making. that's why he's saying basically only God knows, not trying to act as if it's all so black and white and simple.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

I didn't know aborting a baby in an Ectopic pregnancy was wrong, is this what the vatican says or what some random says. 

[Nihil Obstat]

I didn't know aborting a baby in an Ectopic pregnancy was wrong, is this what the vatican says or what some random says.

Aborting a baby is always wrong, no matter the circumstances.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Aborting a baby is always wrong, no matter the circumstances.

 

 

Says you or the vatican ? I see no problem when the women is at high risk of death in the sense of ectopic pregnancy, threats of suicide not inclusive. She can have more babies if this one is removed which is actually saying yes to life. It is not like she is making the choice to abort as a lifestyle choice, ectopic pregnancy is a whole different ball park. Thats just my opinion, i don't know the vaticans stance on ectopic pregnancies, and i get the sense you don't know either nihil.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

and also nihil if your as seasoned as you seem to act you would know at times there can be exceptions to certain rules. Let me give you an example. We are not allowed to smoke marijuana in general but if a person has a terminal degenerative bone disorder and is alergic to opiot  based pain killers a bishop can give the bretheren permission to use marijuana. Or perhaps a pschizophrenic that can't goto sunday mass because there are so many people there and this triggers he or she to trip out, he or she can be exempt from the ordinary of doctrine to goto sunday mass, and goto a weekday mass where there is less people instead.

 

Sacred heart of Jesus have mercy on us.

Immaculate heart of mary pray for us.

 

Onward christian souls.

JESUS iz LORD.

Edited April 27, 2013 by Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

let me give you a biblical example of what i believe. Jesus says "did you not here what david did when his followers where hungry, he wen't into the temple and ate the bread set asside for the sacrifice and gave some to his followers ." He didn't say those exact words but i don't remember the verse by heart but it is words to that effect. There are exceptions to doctrinal rules at times.

Edited April 27, 2013 by Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye