mucho confused

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Oct 9 2004, 12:23 PM'] If the tube is diseased apart from any problem the child itself is directly causing, then it could be removed. Can you clarify what you mean by "blasting" or what would make this necessary apart from an ectopic pregency? [/quote]
There is newer technology which in many cases allows the doctor to use a laser to blast the baby from the tube, saving the tube for the possibility of future pregnancies. (In my aunts case the doctor told her he hadn't had to remove a tube in several years, but her tube was so damaged he wound up having to remove it after all--she lost both tubes to ectopic pregnancies.)

[hopeful1]

so, if i wrote a paper on whether or not abortion was morally wrong, would i be able to to say wrong in all cases, or would there be an exception to save the mom's kife if every precaution to save the life of both fails? You think my prof would buy the difference between direct and indirect abortion?

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='hopeful1' date='Oct 9 2004, 10:54 PM'] so, if i wrote a paper on whether or not abortion was morally wrong, would i be able to to say wrong in all cases, or would there be an exception to save the mom's kife if every precaution to save the life of both fails? You think my prof would buy the difference between direct and indirect abortion? [/quote]
Abortion is wrong in every case. No exception.

As far as your prof., I have no idea as I don't know your prof. I would not use those terms though. The difference is between directly killing the child with an abortion and the child dying as a result or side effect of a morally neutral operation.