Calling All "non Catholics"

[Tora-Musume]

[quote name='curtins' date='Jun 30 2004, 09:18 AM'] ok so sum of you are "non Catholics" an I was just wondering- what religion are you

and why do you seem to know so much and defend the Catholic fatih?

jw [/quote]
I am a non-practicing Catholic. When I was 4, I remember getting up at 4am in the morning just to go to a 6am mass. We go to church more than once a day on a Sunday. We also go to a Saturday night mass. It's more like a weekend of mass. Now..I am a non-practicing Catholic. Just my thing. What everyone chooses to believe is their thing. I have nothing against that.

Edited August 1, 2004 by Tora-Musume

[MichaelFilo]

Non-practicing Catholic is weird in the sense that, as a Catholic, your obligations to attend mass, if left unfulfilled would be a mortal sin, and therefore forfiet your soul until you repent. Non-practacing Catholics are an oxymoron, in the sense that they believe as Catholics do, but forfiet their souls.

I pray you return to the Church.

As for afro, Mathew 16:18.

God Bless.

[MorphRC]

Does seem to be an oxymoron

[Tora-Musume]

What Catholic beliefs are is what they believe in. I am not here to downgrade or say anything wrong about your faith. I am here to learn how your faith is brought upon. I have read many discussions and have come to find out that there are some issues that need to be looked over. Example: Abortion. No matter what, abortion should be illegal. That's what Catholics believe because in the eyes of GOD, it's considered murder. But what about the entity that is bearing that unborn child in her womb? What happens if she by chance has to have the unborn child remove due to a health problem and she cannot carry that unborn entity to term? If she tries to carry the unborn child to term, she will die. So who is the murderer? The mother to be, the unborn child, or the doctor? I know this discussion should be in another post, but I just wanted to clarify these questions. Like I have mentioned before, I am not here to judge on anyones beliefs. I am here to ask questions and hope to get some answers.

[peach_cube]

[quote]But what about the entity that is bearing that unborn child in her womb? What happens if she by chance has to have the unborn child remove due to a health problem and she cannot carry that unborn entity to term? If she tries to carry the unborn child to term, she will die. So who is the murderer? The mother to be, the unborn child, or the doctor? [/quote]

This might help. It deals with different situations where the mother's life would be in danger.

[quote] FAITH FACTS The Answers You Need

Ectopic for Discussion: A Catholic Approach to Tubal PregnanciesIssue:

What is an ectopic, or “tubal,” pregnancy? What moral principles must be taken into account in treating a tubal pregnancy? What alternatives are available that respect both the mother’s life as well as the life of her unborn child?

Response: A woman’s egg or ovum descends from an ovary through the fallopian tube to the uterus. While on this path, the egg is fertilized and naturally continues this descent and implants in the uterus. Sometimes, however, the egg is impeded in its progress and instead implants somewhere along the way. This is called an ectopic pregnancy.

“Ectopic” means “out of place.” Ectopic pregnancies are often called
“tubal” pregnancies because over 95 percent occur in the fallopian
tubes. (fertilized eggs can also implant in the abdomen, ovaries, or
within the cervix).

A mother facing a tubal pregnancy risks imminent rupture of the fallopian tube. While the doctor would opt for the least risk and expense to the mother, all the options presented to her involve terminating the pregnancy. The mother, however, must respect both her life and that of her child.

There is no treatment available that can guarantee the life of both. The Church has moral principles that can be applied in ruling out some options, but she has not officially instructed the faithful as to which treatments are morally licit and
which are illicit. Most reputable moral theologians, as discussed below, accept
full or partial salpingectomy (removal of the fallopian tube), as a morally acceptable medical intervention in the case of a tubal pregnancy.

As is the case with all difficult moral decisions, the couple must become informed, actively seek divine guidance, and follow their wellformed conscience.
Discussion: According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC),1 ectopic pregnancies have increased in frequency and now number roughly 100,000 a year.
Though detection and treatment have greatly improved, ectopic pregnancies still pose a serious health risk to the mother. Ectopic pregnancies are the leading cause of maternal deaths in the first trimester. While they often end in early miscarriage, waiting indefinitely for miscarriage to occur poses a grave threat to the mother. By ten weeks (in the case of a tubal pregnancy), the fallopian tube will likely rupture, causing severe hemorrhaging that can result in death. Such cases most often occur when the ectopic pregnancy is not diagnosed. Hence, most deaths caused by ectopic pregnancies each year are among minority groups and the poor whose access to prenatal care is limited.

Who are at risk for an ectopic pregnancy?
All women are susceptible. However, there are factors that can increase the risk, namely: smoking, sexually transmitted diseases, tubal sterilizations, fertility drugs, and previous occurrences.

Moral Principles
In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the lives of both the mother and child are placed at risk. The moral teachings of the Church call for medical treatment that respects the lives of both. Most recently, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops reiterated these principles: In the case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct abortion. 2 Operations, treatments and
medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately
serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child. 3 On one hand, there can be no direct attack on the child (direct abortion) to save the life of the mother. On the other hand, the life of the mother is equally valuable and she must receive appropriate treatment.
It might be that the only available remedy saves the life of the mother but, while not a direct abortion, brings about the unintended effect of the death of the child. Morally speaking, in saving the life of the mother, the Church accepts that the child
might be lost.

This principle applies in other pregnancy complications as well. With severe hemorrhaging, for example, if nothing is done, both will die. In respecting the life of the mother, the physician must act directly on the uterus. At that time the
uterus loses its ability to support the life of the embryo. The mother’s life
is preserved and there has been no intentional attack on the child. The
mother and the uterus have been directly treated; a secondary effect is
the death of the child.

Another example arises in the treatment of uterine (endometrial)
cancer during a pregnancy. The common treatments of uterine cancer are primarily hysterectomy (surgical removal of the uterus) and sometimes
chemotherapy or radiation therapy. Again, taking the life of the baby is not intended, but a hysterectomy does mean the removal of the womb and the death of the child. Yet, if a hysterectomy must be performed to save the life of the mother, the Church would deem the procedure morally licit.

Thus, a moral distinction must be made between directly and intentionally
treating a pathology (a condition or abnormality that causes a disease) and indirectly and unintentionally causing the death of the baby in the process.
This distinction is derived from a moral principle called “double effect.”
When a choice will likely bring about both an intended desirable
effect and also an unintended, undesirable effect, the principle of
double effect can be applied to evaluate the morality of the choice.
The chosen act is morally licit when (a) the action itself is good, (b) the
intended effect is good, and © the unintended, evil effect is not
greater in proportion to the good effect. For example, “The act of
self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own
life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the
other is not” (Catechism, no. 2263, citing St. Thomas Aquinas).

Proposed Treatments
Catholic Theologians typically discuss the morality of three common
treatments for ectopic pregnancies according to the principle of double effect.4 One approach utilizes the drug Methotrexate (MTX), which attacks the tissue cells that connect the embryo to its mother, causing miscarriage. A surgical procedure (salpingostomy) directly removes the embryo through an incision in the fallopian tube wall.

Another surgical procedure, called a salpingectomy, removes all of the
tube (full salpingectomy) or only the part to which the embryo is attached
(partial salpingectomy), thereby ending the pregnancy.The majority of Catholic moralists reject MTX and salpingostomy on the basis that these two amount
to no less than a direct abortion. In both cases, the embryo is directly
attacked, so the death of the embryo is not the unintended evil effect, but
rather the very means used to bring about the intended good effect. Yet,
for an act to be morally licit, not only must the intended effect be good, but
also the act itself must be good. For this reason, most moralists agree that
MTX and salpingostomy do not withstand the application of the principle
of double effect.

The majority of Catholic moralists, while rejecting MTX or a salpingostomy,
regard a salpingectomy as different in kind and thus licit according
to the principle of double effect. What is the difference? A partial salpingectomy is performed by cutting out the compromised area of the tube (the tissue
to which the embryo is attached).

The tube is then closed in the hope that it will function properly again.
A full salpingectomy is performed when implantation and growth has
damaged the tube too greatly or if the tube has ruptured. These moralists
maintain that, unlike the first two treatments, when a salpingectomy
is performed, the embryo is not directly attacked. Instead, they
see the tissue of the tube where the embryo is attached as compromised
or infected. The infected tube is the object of the treatment and the
death of the child is indirect. Since the child’s death is not intended, but
an unavoidable secondary effect of a necessary procedure, the principle
of double effect applies.

Dr. T. Lincoln Bouscaren, an early 20th-century ethicist and canon
lawyer, argues that though the pathological condition is caused by the
presence of an embryo in the fallopian tube, nonetheless “the tube has become so debilitated and disorganized, or destroyed by internal hemorrhage,
that it now constitutes in itself a distinct source of peril to the mother’s life even before the external rupture of the tube.”6

Bouscaren admits that this is a “fine distinction,” but he essentially argues that the infection in the tube, though related to the pregnancy, is sufficiently distanced from the pregnancy to constitute a pathological condition of its own. He maintains
that the inevitable rupture is the final end of a single pathology, i.e., a diseased and ever-worsening tube.

Dr. Bouscaren arrives at the same conclusion as the majority of Catholic moralists, that both the partial and full salpingectomy is licit. Some critics of this conclusion argue that salpingectomy is morally indistinguishable from
salpingotomy or MTX. Therefore, Dr. Bouscaren’s explanation is
helpful and would benefit from further elaboration by contemporary
moral theologians.

There are two circumstances tat make the use of any of these treatments morally acceptable. The first occurs when an ectopic pregnancy has been diagnosed, but no signs of life exist. The morality of treatment for ectopic pregnancies
concerns the absolute value of human life. Conversely, there is no
such moral consideration if the embryo has succumbed—there is
no taking of human life (assuming a reasonable effort has been made
to detect life).

The second circumstance occurs when the fallopian tube ruptures,
whether or not the embryo is alive. A ruptured tube presents an immediate
threat to both mother and child. If nothing is done, both will die. The doctor is morally obligated to act, even though only one life can be saved. The rupture is the cause of the child’s death, not any procedure the doctor performs. These two circumstances, miscarriage and rupture, present fundamentally different
moral questions from instances in which both mother and child are
alive and the fallopian tube itself does not pose an immediate threat
to the mother’s life.

Wait and See
Catholic moralists generally assume in their discussion of treatments for ectopic pregnancy that treatment will not be postponed. Perhaps most moralists believe
there is no reasonable possibility to save the child. There are options, discussed below, but the availability of these options is virtually non-existent at this time. Other options are generally not even considered, because the standard protocol calls for only one of the three treatments that have been discussed thus far.
Surgical treatments, however, increase the risk of future ectopic pregnancies and/or reduce fertility, and there are situations in which postponing surgical intervention can be medically advantageous. “Expectant therapy” (or “expectant
management”) is basically close observation in the hope that the pregnancy
will resolve itself naturally. A combination of reduced hormone levels (movement toward miscarriage) and location of the embryo in a less constrictive part of the tube can indicate a decreasing chance of rupture.

While there are anecdotal accounts of fetuses living to six months without the tube rupturing, postponing surgery indefinitely is dangerous, given the virtual certainty of rupture long before viability. So, it’s one thing to wait a short period of time for
miscarriage to occur spontaneously. It’s quite another to forego intervention
altogether in anticipation of a lifethreatening tubal rupture. Such a high-risk course of action is rightly discouraged and can even be indicative of a reckless disregard for the life of the mother.

There is a case that took place in 1915 in which a doctor, in the process of removing a tumor from a uterus, discovered an early tubal pregnancy. The operation on the tumor had left an incision in the uterus. The doctor transferred the embryo to the uterus through the incision. The embryo implanted, and the mother eventually gave birth to a healthy baby. The same hospital allowed further attempts at embryo transferal. Only a very small percentage were successfully implanted and born. Of those, the majority did not live very long. Most died between the ages of six and 12 years. With such low odds of the birth of a healthy baby, it is rare nowadays for medical professionals to consider embryo transferal. Recently a doctor at a Catholic fertility institute attempted three embryo transferals with none surviving to birth.

Among future possibilities might be the development of the artificial womb. Some shudder at such an option because of its possible abuse by those who want a child but wish to avoid pregnancy. However, a morally deficient motivation doesn’t nullify the potential of the technology itself. No one would question life support for a child who is born prematurely and cannot live on its own. An artificial womb could
theoretically provide adequate life support for a child at an earlier stage.

Prayerful Discernment
It is the task and duty of those in the relevant professional fields, especially Catholics, to seek for means by which life at whatever stage can be preserved, protected, and nurtured. Unfortunately, the thrust of contemporary medical
technology has been to terminate the tubal pregnancy as directly as possible
without any consideration of ways to save the life of the embryo. This renders the application of the “double effect” theory to tubal pregnancies problematic, as the intended good of preserving the mother’s health seems to be accomplished directly
through the efficient taking of the child’s life. This can be especially disturbing to Catholic couples who face this situation.

While the Church has not spoken officially about the morality of specific treatment options, she does provide several principles rooted in the natural law concerning human life. In applying these principles, the great majority of moral theologians
agree that the salpingectomy does not constitute a direct attack on the life of the baby and is morally licit. A couple may serenely choose this option in good faith without fear that they are violating Church teaching.

Because the salpingectomy is considered by most theologians to be morally acceptable, the issue becomes how long to wait before proceeding with this invasive treatment, given the grave health risk posed by the ectopic pregnancy. This will vary from case to case. Sometimes the immediate risk is low and allowing
the miscarriage to occur naturally preserves the mother’s fallopian tube.

Conversely, there are also cases in which the fallopian tube itself is so compromised that it must be immediately removed to preserve the life of the mother. The course of treatment the woman chooses should be determined
by her informed conscience. This means that she must strive to understand the natural law regarding the value of life—her own and the baby’s—and choose a course of action that will respect both. She must also become informed about
alternative treatment and the facts related to her own condition. She can
then prayerfully discern the course of action she will take.

Formation of Conscience
• Moral conscience is man’s most secret core, and his sanctuary. It is
there that “man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but
which he must obey” ( Gaudium et Spes, no. 16). In his conscience,
man not only discovers the natural law (cf. Rom. 2:15) but encounters
God Himself, the author of the law.
• While the natural law written on our hearts teaches us the general,
objective principles of the moral life, conscience applies the natural
law to particular circumstances, enabling us to choose what is good
and avoid what is evil (cf. Catechism, no. 1777).
• While all of us have the right and duty to follow our consciences, it is
likewise true that our consciences must be correctly formed, and that
is truly a lifelong task.
• In the formation of conscience, the Word of God is the light for our
path (cf. Ps. 119:105); we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and
put it into practice (cf. Catechism, no. 1785). Further, in forming our
consciences, we must be “guided by the authoritative teaching of the
Church” ( ibid., cf. Dignitatis Humanae, no. 14).

RECOMMENDED READINGHoly Bible (Catholic edition)
Catechism of the Catholic Church
(paperback and hardback available)
Vatican II documents
Catholic Bioethics and the Gift of Human Life by William May
Medicine and Christian Morality by Thomas J. O’Donnell, S.J.
To order, call Benedictus Books toll-free:
(888) 316-2640.
CUF members receive 10% discount.
FAITH FACTS—Free Member Service:
(800) MY-FAITH (693-2484)


Catholics United for the Faith
827 N. Fourth St.
Steubenville, OH 43952
(800) 693-2484
www.cuf.org
This copyright by 2003 Catholics United for the Faith
[/quote]

[Madonna]

[quote name='Tora-Musume' date='Aug 2 2004, 11:08 AM'] But what about the entity that is bearing that unborn child in her womb? What happens if she by chance has to have the unborn child remove due to a health problem and she cannot carry that unborn entity to term? If she tries to carry the unborn child to term, she will die. So who is the murderer? The mother to be, the unborn child, or the doctor? I know this discussion should be in another post, but I just wanted to clarify these questions. Like I have mentioned before, I am not here to judge on anyones beliefs. I am here to ask questions and hope to get some answers.

[/quote]
An unborn child cannot murder. Murder is deliberate killing. The mother has brought that life into the world. The mother is responsible for him. I understand some mothers feel they have no other choice but to abort their child. I wish women were better educated.

Knowing what I know now, I'd give up my life for my child, born or unborn, in a heartbeat.

Edited August 2, 2004 by Madonna

[Aloysius]

first off: that's EXTREMELY RARE that the mother's life is in danger if she carries the baby.

second off: procedures can be done to attempt to save the life of both the mother and the baby. abortion is never the answer.

Pax.

[Tora-Musume]

[quote]Madona Writes: The mother has brought that life into the world. The mother is responsible for him.[/quote]

She did bring that life into the world. Problem was, she couldn't bring that life into the world. She had no chose. She had to let them go due to the problem it was causing her. Either her, or the babies. In the doctor's point, neither of them would have survived if she had not done what she needed to do.

[quote] I wish women were better educated[/quote]

Is this a statement that implies that my mother is ignorant? she is a woman. My mother is well educated. She is an RN.

[Aloysius]

there are procedures that can be done to attempt to save the baby and the mother. they might end up killing the baby, but not directly. but sometimes they succeed in saving both. direct killing of the baby is never necessary.

[Aloysius]

anyway, it appears you mom was decieved by the doctor who failed to mention there are procedures other than abortion that could have helped. it's not your mom's fault, but the doctor's fault.

[Madonna]

[quote name='Tora-Musume' date='Aug 2 2004, 01:49 PM']
Is this a statement that implies that my mother is ignorant? she is a woman. My mother is well educated. She is an RN. [/quote]
Oh no! I apologise, I can see how it came out wrong. I meant to say that I wish women were better educated on the options they have or how high risk their pregnancy actually is. I think many doctors are misleading.


My little brother would have been a good "candidate" for abortion. He was thought to have a risk of Down's syndrome and spinabifida. My mother was deathly ill for 6 months out of her pregnancy. My mother survived, and my brother is an extremely gifted, above-average child and an extraordinary athlete. He is beautiful, and one of the biggest joys in my life.

Another example of doctors being misleading: the Birth Control Pill. I know so many women that think that the Pill cures everything (acne, irregular menstrual cycles, etc.) because doctors are so quick to prescribe them. When in fact there are other medications that women could be on. I'm sure pharmeceutical companies give doctors incentives to push the Pill onto women. The company makes big bucks, the doctors make big bucks, and one less child enters the world.

*edited once because I can't spell. Edited twice because I can't see.

Edited August 2, 2004 by Madonna

[Aloysius]

doctors told my mom she was too old to have a baby and should have an abortion. screw doctors, me and my mom lived happily ever after

[MichaelFilo]

Side note:
I never realized the extent of abortions in this country. I was under the impression that it was a semi-choice thing, but it seems doctors push it on people. This really is a big problem, because a doctor is a man of authority, and even an educated person may ponder his advice. In the light of this, if I was against abortion then, I'm vhemetly against abortion now.

Thank you guys,

God Bless

[Tora-Musume]

[quote]Aloysius Writes: first off: that's EXTREMELY RARE that the mother's life is in danger if she carries the baby.[/quote]

What my mother had. She has gone through this numerous times.
Ectopic pregnancy is -- a fertilized egg implanted somewhere other than the inside of the uterus. Most commonly, this will occur somewhere inside the Fallopian tube, but it can occur elsewhere.

[quote]second off: procedures can be done to attempt to save the life of both the mother and the baby.  abortion is never the answer.
[/quote]

There simply is not enough room for the growth of an egg into a fetus anywhere except the uterus. Therefore, an ectopic pregnancy can never result in a normal birth. Even if there was enough space for the fetus to grow, where would it come out? Unfortunately, the cell division that takes place following implantation is a fairly automated process. The now-fertilized egg will continue to develop, even though there is no chance of a full-term pregnancy. This results in a very dangerous situation. Sooner or later, the pregnancy will grow to a size sufficient to burst open wherever it may be, causing internal bleeding, damage, and probable death.

An ectopic pregnancy left untreated is a life-threatening condition. The reason your doctor probably suspects (but is not sure) you have an ectopic pregnancy is that you probably have a positive pregnancy test but no other sign of pregnancy. This is how ectopic pregnancy is most commonly first detected. However, further tests such as a sonogram are usually required. I am sorry to say that if you do indeed have an ectopic pregnancy, there is only one course of action: surgery to remove the egg. There is no way for this to become a viable pregnancy; and you would only be facing a life-threatening condition down the road. Luckily, if treated early, an ectopic pregnancy will not usually impact your ability to become pregnant later.

Dr. Sandor Gardos

[Madonna]

There are three kinds of abortion: direct, indirect, and spantaneous.

Direct is the kind they do in abortion clinics. The intent of the procedure is to remove/kill the unborn baby.

If it is an ectopic pregnancy you speak of, it is ok to remove that section of the fallopian tube. This is an indirect abortion. Also, in the case of advanced uteran cancer (where the uterus must be removed) this is an indirect abortion.

Spantaneous abortion is more commonly known as miscarriage. The medical term "spantaneous abortion" is not used for obvious societal reasons, as it is confusing.

The Church is against direct abortion. Maybe you were misinformed?

However, I believe there is (or is being formed) new techonolgy that would allow doctors to remove the child from the fallopian tubes and implant him in the uterus. I do not have anything to back it up, but I remember hearing so. Has anyone else heard about this?

Edited August 2, 2004 by Madonna