1337 k4th0l1x0r Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 (edited) [quote name='Thankful' date='Jun 21 2004, 10:40 AM'] In response to lankyswimmer about the ectopic pregnancy (when the child implants in the fallopian tube). In this situation, it is only permissible to remove the entire tube, which as a consequence would also remove the child. It is not permissible to simply kill the baby. The intention here is that if the tube has become "diseased" because of improper implantation, then the tube could be removed to save the mother, and the death of the child is an unintended consequence. (I think it is called the principle of double-effect). This is an important distinction. I have actually heard of cases where an ectopic pregnancy proceeded until the baby was able to be delivered early and survived. However most physicians are quick to recommend abortion upon discovering the tubal pregnancy. [/quote] I don't think the entire tube has to be removed. It can be the part of the tube that is in danger of eruption and the tube can be sewn back together (though not always advisable because a second ectopic pregnancy can occur. What is unacceptable is to remove the child from the tube, causing an abortion. The tube must be treated as something that is infected; the child can not be directly removed, but could only be removed as part of the infected tube. Does that make sense? Edited June 21, 2004 by 1337 k4th0l1x0r Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeenaBobba Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 Direct abortion is never, ever allowed, as it's the direct and intentional killing of another human being. That being said, in a case where a mother's life is in danger, the ethical (and moral) thing to do is to try to save both lives. In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, everything should be done to get the baby to implant in the uterus. Sometimes, this is successful, and both the mother and child are fine thereafter. But, if this cannot be done, and the baby and the mother are at serious risk, the doctor will sometimes have to remove the fallopian tube. This, of course, would result in the death of the baby. This isn't an abortion because the child wasn't directly and intentionally killed. Rather, the death of the child was an inevitable and unintentional (and tragic) consequence of treatment to save the mother's life. Thankful was quite right to say that this is the principle of double effect. As Judie Brown from American Life League has said, there is a difference between a child falling out of a window and a child being pushed out of a window. If, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, a doctor gave a woman an abortifacient with the aims of killing the child, that would be morally wrong. You can [url="http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=401480&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=3000&Author=&Keyword=double+effect&pgnu=1&groupnum=0"]read this[/url] for more information. I hope this helps. God bless, Jennifer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phatcatholic Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 (edited) [url="http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:TbAJi5CalJ8J:www.cuf.org/nonmemb/ectopic.pdf+&hl=en&start=1"][b]this article[/b][/url] on ectopic pregancies is extremely helpful (i tried to just paste the article here, but the format (its in columns w/ pics and all that stuff) would not translate over well) the same article, in pdf format, is [url="http://www.cuf.org/nonmemb/ectopic.pdf"][b]here[/b][/url] Edited June 21, 2004 by phatcatholic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusader_4 Posted June 22, 2004 Author Share Posted June 22, 2004 I appreciate the help on ectopic pregnacnys but the sit in mind is somewhat different it would b as if a mother has already had four kids and if she has another her chances of survival are very slim and she gets pregnant and it is healthy pregnancy but she will not survive if the child goes to the full term and is delivered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted June 22, 2004 Share Posted June 22, 2004 The child does not have to go full term, babies can be delivered early. There is never a reason to kill a child. Never. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusader_4 Posted June 22, 2004 Author Share Posted June 22, 2004 I agree thanx for you help cmotherofpirl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmjtina Posted June 22, 2004 Share Posted June 22, 2004 St. Gianna might help with her example: [url="http://www.saintgianna.org/"]http://www.saintgianna.org/[/url] [url="http://www.catholic.org/cathcom/international_story.php?id=7803"]and HERE[/url] Pray for Us St. Gianna! [img]http://www.catholic.org/images/ins_news/2004054305.jpg[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
master_alterserver Posted June 22, 2004 Share Posted June 22, 2004 wow...this was a good question...that helped ME Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomProddy Posted June 22, 2004 Share Posted June 22, 2004 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Jun 21 2004, 03:37 PM'] Please give me an actual case where the mother can have an ok pregnancy but she is quarenteed to die? [/quote] Multiple malginant tumours + AIDS + heamophilia + alzheimers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now