Since it technically counts as abortion
2006-12-01 17:00:07 · 10 answers · asked by sinnssykdom 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Eggs that are fertilized in the fallopian tubes cannot survive, so they must be removed or else the mother dies. Since it technically counts as abortion, and the Church is against abortion, what are it's views on this necessary and life saving procedure?
2006-12-01 17:11:16 · update #1
There is no prospect of life for the fertilized egg, so there is technically no abortion here.
Without surgery, the life of the mother would likely end, but the outcome for the child is always death.
No ethical conflict here, either.
More like a miscarriage with complications.
2006-12-01 18:31:34 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It depends on how the termination is done. If, for example, the doctors remove the fallopeian tube (excuse the poor spelling) in question in order to save the mother, that would be okay because the primary action was to remove the tube; killing the fetus was a side effect. If, on the other hand, the doctors were able to medically induce an abortion, that would not be okay because the primary action was to kill the fetus. (This is based on Aquinian theology/philosophy, btw.)
From what I've been told (including my sister's scary experience with an atopic pregnancy), the treatment pretty much always involves removing part of the reproductive system. The RCC would not consider that an abortion.
Just to make things a bit more confusing, there are moral theologians who would say that this is a case-by-case issue that is decided between the individual and God. But to make things easier, any priest who would condemn a woman who had such an experience needs to be taken out of a pastoral role.
2006-12-02 01:14:01 · answer #2 · answered by Church Music Girl 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
"There is a general rule -- thou shalt not kill. There is no doubt that removing the baby is killing it. The only question is whether removing thetube is the same as killing the baby. My argument is that knowing the baby will die as a result of my actions is not the same thing as killing the baby; thus, removing the tube is not the same as killing the baby. But if I am wrong, then the answer is not that killing the baby is fine, but rather that removing the tube is wrong (because it is killing the baby). Furthermore, even if I am wrong with respect to the last sentence, then there may be an exception for the extreme case of ectopic pregnancies, but that would not be proof that either the embryo is not a baby or that abortion is generally acceptable.
BTW, I understand that it is the embryo's growth within the tube that threatens the mother's life, and it is the embryo's growth within the tube that I am trying to stop. But I insist that not all means of achieving that goal are acceptable. Directly killing another (the baby) is not acceptable under any circumstances (IMHO). But removal of a body part is. That removal is neither directly killing nor intending to kill the baby; it is only done with knowledge that the baby will die as a result. Without more, is not enough to impute moral culpability."
______________________________
Perhaps I should add that this isn't me saying that (I thought it was implied by the quotation marks and the source cited). I am not Catholic.
2006-12-02 01:04:52 · answer #3 · answered by N 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
If terminating an atopic pregnancy technically counts as an abortion, then whom would be responsible for the death of the Mother should the Mother die during child birth? The child or the Religious belief? Unfortunately based on such "technicalities" the pregnant Mother would be condemned as an abortionist, killer or murderer should she abort an atopic pregnancy, right? Because that's what it seems like to me.
2006-12-02 01:22:58 · answer #4 · answered by Smahteepanties 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Remove the tube" Okay, you KNOW the end result will be the same, so why lose a part of your body for it? My answer is don't worry about the Catholic Church, they are not going to get you into heaven. Anyone who is religious, and in this situation, needs to pray about it, handle it in the manner you see fit, and then pray some more. What the church believes is irrelevant in this situation, it's between you and God. If this is a hypothetical question, then the answer would be: The Catholic Church would probably think it's better for you AND your fetus to die, than to terminate (but as I said before they are not GOD!)
2006-12-02 01:12:30 · answer #5 · answered by Amanda D 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think this situation is the one exception that the Catholic Chruch would accept.
When a pregnant woman must undergo a medical procedure to save her life and as a regretable but unavoidable circumstance the unborn baby dies.
With love in Christ.
2006-12-03 03:00:55 · answer #6 · answered by imacatholic2 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
As far as I know from the teaching of the RC, any kind of efforts from human being to eliminate other lives is immoral and considered great sin. It is not of question of whether an embrio has become human being or not. The question is whether there has been life in a mother womb. So, an embrio, even at a very young age, is a future human being that has to be respected and protected.
2006-12-02 01:23:07 · answer #7 · answered by Petros 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Ugh...that is ridiculous. You would remove a body part (unheard of unless it RUPTURES) before having the embryo removed....
I'm sorry, but if I had to choose between something that would not only save my LIFE, but save the chance of me having children later down the road, I would absolutely have the drug administered to end the pregnancy.
Anyone who doesn't understand that is nauseating, knows nothing of the subject, and is COMPLETELY IGNORANT OF ALL LOGIC.
2006-12-02 01:08:36 · answer #8 · answered by Heck if I know! 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The Church is definately against it.
2006-12-02 01:01:47 · answer #9 · answered by but_ya_are_blanche 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The catholic church is irrelevant in our world today
2006-12-02 01:03:35 · answer #10 · answered by larry s 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋