|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Ectopic Pregnancy - 10/10/2008 6:48:48 PM
|
|
|
OneOfHisJewels
Posts: 2549
Joined: 8/9/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kielbasa
quote:
As to the second question, yes, I think it was legal, but still frowned upon by the catholic church..and therfore many a woman died...often leaving many children behind them.
Hi, OneofHisJewels (neat name, btw).
I think you are misunderstanding what the Church says. Abortion is *always* morally illicit, as it is the deliberate taking of an innocent human life. But the Church does not expect women to die in the case of an ectopic pregnancy--her life is just as sacred.
If I understand correctly, there are currently three ways to treat an ectopic pregnancy: methotrexate, saplingostomy (removing the baby from the tube), and saplingectomy (removing the tube itself).
The first two treatments are morally illicit, as the direct intent is to kill the baby. The third is morally licit, as its intent is to save the life of the mother by removing a malfunctioning organ (the tube), not to directly kill the baby, even though that is an unintended consequence, a "double effect."
The first two instances constitute directly attacking the baby; the third does not.
I do think that in most cases (just judging from people I have known) it is a moot point, since the ectopic pregnancy is not even known until it ruptures.
Hope this helps.
Thank you for your compliment on my user name.
Treating an ectopic pregnancy is not morally illicit. Not treating it WILL KILL THE MOTHER...I would much rather the mother and baby both live, but if there HAS to be a choice, then the mother should live. My dad, who is a pastor (conservative/pro-life) has studied the issue extensively (and he DOES have a pre-med degree..and has said the same). I will try to find some references. Women DO NOT LIVE through an UNTREATED ectopic pregnancy.
_____________________________
"We basically use what I have seen referred to as "get off your butt" parenting. It employs more interaction, more redirection, more prevention, and usually less spanking."
-Mrs. Wifey
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ectopic Pregnancy - 10/10/2008 6:52:37 PM
|
|
|
clag4christ
Posts: 2909
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: We just moved to the big state of Texas!
Status: offline
|
quote:
Women DO NOT LIVE through an UNTREATED ectopic pregnancy.
It depends on what you mean by untreated. I've already stated the statistics on the matter. Many women, in fact the majority, do live through ectopic pregnancies. Whether they burst or whether they are reabsorbed. Between 40-50 women a year die from first trimester related complications, including ectopic pregnancy. That is a very very low number.
_____________________________
<-----Jael as Tinkerbell - Halloween 2008
If you don't want people to insult your intelligence; don't make it so obvious that you have none.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ectopic Pregnancy - 10/10/2008 10:45:24 PM
|
|
|
kielbasa
Posts: 167
Joined: 6/1/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: OneOfHisJewels
quote:
ORIGINAL: kielbasa
quote:
As to the second question, yes, I think it was legal, but still frowned upon by the catholic church..and therfore many a woman died...often leaving many children behind them.
Hi, OneofHisJewels (neat name, btw).
I think you are misunderstanding what the Church says. Abortion is *always* morally illicit, as it is the deliberate taking of an innocent human life. But the Church does not expect women to die in the case of an ectopic pregnancy--her life is just as sacred.
If I understand correctly, there are currently three ways to treat an ectopic pregnancy: methotrexate, saplingostomy (removing the baby from the tube), and saplingectomy (removing the tube itself).
The first two treatments are morally illicit, as the direct intent is to kill the baby. The third is morally licit, as its intent is to save the life of the mother by removing a malfunctioning organ (the tube), not to directly kill the baby, even though that is an unintended consequence, a "double effect."
The first two instances constitute directly attacking the baby; the third does not.
I do think that in most cases (just judging from people I have known) it is a moot point, since the ectopic pregnancy is not even known until it ruptures.
Hope this helps.
Thank you for your compliment on my user name.
Treating an ectopic pregnancy is not morally illicit. Not treating it WILL KILL THE MOTHER...I would much rather the mother and baby both live, but if there HAS to be a choice, then the mother should live. My dad, who is a pastor (conservative/pro-life) has studied the issue extensively (and he DOES have a pre-med degree..and has said the same). I will try to find some references. Women DO NOT LIVE through an UNTREATED ectopic pregnancy.
Hi!
Please re-read my post. I did not say (nor does the Church) that one must not treat an ectopic pregnancy. I said there were treatments that were acceptable morally, and treatments that were not acceptable morally.
_____________________________
"This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ectopic Pregnancy - 10/11/2008 12:21:16 AM
|
|
|
flyboy2610
Posts: 93
Joined: 5/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: clag4christ
quote:
Women DO NOT LIVE through an UNTREATED ectopic pregnancy.
It depends on what you mean by untreated. I've already stated the statistics on the matter. Many women, in fact the majority, do live through ectopic pregnancies. Whether they burst or whether they are reabsorbed. Between 40-50 women a year die from first trimester related complications, including ectopic pregnancy. That is a very very low number.
Not to their husbands and children it isn't.
_____________________________
If the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy.
Red Green
If you're going to live like there's no hell..... you'd better be right.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ectopic Pregnancy - 10/11/2008 12:26:41 AM
|
|
|
clag4christ
Posts: 2909
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: We just moved to the big state of Texas!
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: flyboy2610
quote:
ORIGINAL: clag4christ
quote:
Women DO NOT LIVE through an UNTREATED ectopic pregnancy.
It depends on what you mean by untreated. I've already stated the statistics on the matter. Many women, in fact the majority, do live through ectopic pregnancies. Whether they burst or whether they are reabsorbed. Between 40-50 women a year die from first trimester related complications, including ectopic pregnancy. That is a very very low number.
Not to their husbands and children it isn't.
Of course not. I wasn't being callous...I was speaking statistically...
_____________________________
<-----Jael as Tinkerbell - Halloween 2008
If you don't want people to insult your intelligence; don't make it so obvious that you have none.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ectopic Pregnancy - 10/11/2008 1:18:49 AM
|
|
|
stellaluna
Posts: 4226
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kielbasa
quote:
ORIGINAL: OneOfHisJewels
quote:
ORIGINAL: kielbasa
quote:
As to the second question, yes, I think it was legal, but still frowned upon by the catholic church..and therfore many a woman died...often leaving many children behind them.
Hi, OneofHisJewels (neat name, btw).
I think you are misunderstanding what the Church says. Abortion is *always* morally illicit, as it is the deliberate taking of an innocent human life. But the Church does not expect women to die in the case of an ectopic pregnancy--her life is just as sacred.
If I understand correctly, there are currently three ways to treat an ectopic pregnancy: methotrexate, saplingostomy (removing the baby from the tube), and saplingectomy (removing the tube itself).
The first two treatments are morally illicit, as the direct intent is to kill the baby. The third is morally licit, as its intent is to save the life of the mother by removing a malfunctioning organ (the tube), not to directly kill the baby, even though that is an unintended consequence, a "double effect."
The first two instances constitute directly attacking the baby; the third does not.
I do think that in most cases (just judging from people I have known) it is a moot point, since the ectopic pregnancy is not even known until it ruptures.
Hope this helps.
Thank you for your compliment on my user name.
Treating an ectopic pregnancy is not morally illicit. Not treating it WILL KILL THE MOTHER...I would much rather the mother and baby both live, but if there HAS to be a choice, then the mother should live. My dad, who is a pastor (conservative/pro-life) has studied the issue extensively (and he DOES have a pre-med degree..and has said the same). I will try to find some references. Women DO NOT LIVE through an UNTREATED ectopic pregnancy.
Hi!
Please re-read my post. I did not say (nor does the Church) that one must not treat an ectopic pregnancy. I said there were treatments that were acceptable morally, and treatments that were not acceptable morally.
I think most everyone understands the Catholic opinion on the matter. I personally disagree with it.
_____________________________
Who should be allowed to attend church?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ectopic Pregnancy - 10/11/2008 2:28:31 AM
|
|
|
OneOfHisJewels
Posts: 2549
Joined: 8/9/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: stellaluna
quote:
ORIGINAL: kielbasa
quote:
ORIGINAL: OneOfHisJewels
quote:
ORIGINAL: kielbasa
quote:
As to the second question, yes, I think it was legal, but still frowned upon by the catholic church..and therfore many a woman died...often leaving many children behind them.
Hi, OneofHisJewels (neat name, btw).
I think you are misunderstanding what the Church says. Abortion is *always* morally illicit, as it is the deliberate taking of an innocent human life. But the Church does not expect women to die in the case of an ectopic pregnancy--her life is just as sacred.
If I understand correctly, there are currently three ways to treat an ectopic pregnancy: methotrexate, saplingostomy (removing the baby from the tube), and saplingectomy (removing the tube itself).
The first two treatments are morally illicit, as the direct intent is to kill the baby. The third is morally licit, as its intent is to save the life of the mother by removing a malfunctioning organ (the tube), not to directly kill the baby, even though that is an unintended consequence, a "double effect."
The first two instances constitute directly attacking the baby; the third does not.
I do think that in most cases (just judging from people I have known) it is a moot point, since the ectopic pregnancy is not even known until it ruptures.
Hope this helps.
Thank you for your compliment on my user name.
Treating an ectopic pregnancy is not morally illicit. Not treating it WILL KILL THE MOTHER...I would much rather the mother and baby both live, but if there HAS to be a choice, then the mother should live. My dad, who is a pastor (conservative/pro-life) has studied the issue extensively (and he DOES have a pre-med degree..and has said the same). I will try to find some references. Women DO NOT LIVE through an UNTREATED ectopic pregnancy.
Hi!
Please re-read my post. I did not say (nor does the Church) that one must not treat an ectopic pregnancy. I said there were treatments that were acceptable morally, and treatments that were not acceptable morally.
I think most everyone understands the Catholic opinion on the matter. I personally disagree with it.
As do I....I'm wondering if Keilbasa is Catholic. Some of those treatments that are "not acceptable morally" according to you, are the only thing that can save a mother's life. A baby out of the womb isn't the same as a baby in the womb. If we could take the baby out from whatever weird not in the womb place it is, and put it in the womb, that would be great..but we don't know how to do that yet (although with all the frozen embryo/embryo adoption stuff going on, maybe they can figure it out soon, and then we won't even have to have this discussion). And in order for the mother to STAY ALIVE, the out-of-the-womb-pregnacy has to, sadly, be terminated.....I would never reccomend that with an in the womb pregnancy..life of the mother abortions are almost never needed in in the womb pregnancies..usually by the time the situation is that dire, the baby thankfully can be a premie baby..but we're not talking about that anyway..we're talking ectopic....
Having to terminate an ectopic pregnancy is VERY VERY SAD..but sometimes it is a necessary evil...just as this surgery was.
And just so that no one gets the wrong idea, even though I have said it before..I AM ANTI ABORTION in all other cases.
< Message edited by OneOfHisJewels -- 10/11/2008 3:57:57 AM >
_____________________________
"We basically use what I have seen referred to as "get off your butt" parenting. It employs more interaction, more redirection, more prevention, and usually less spanking."
-Mrs. Wifey
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ectopic Pregnancy - 10/11/2008 12:44:21 PM
|
|
|
stonek
Posts: 143
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: solo_soprano22
I'm not sure what to consider it. Is it 100% pro-life to allow abortion to save the mother due to high risk factors? I think that's the question. What level of risk has to be there for it to be in the right (morally) to terminate? I'm genuinely asking; I don't share the same views as most everyone else, so I can't see what reasoning is going on. There was a discussion about it in Current Events (for some reason), but it didn't go all that far. I guess the OP is kind of wondering about the same thing.
Never have heard of one ectopic pregnancy ever surviving in any of the patients I know. I did see the link posted and it is indeed a very rare occurrence. I would like to know where that story is actually journaled to read full details surrounding it.
When it comes to ectopics there is only one life to save and that 99.9% of the time would be the mother. To allow a woman to lose her life with a baby that can not be saved would be the opposite of prolife. Prolife supports the living and not allowing both mother and baby to die.
So, one could have experienced the lost of a baby through an ectopic pregnancy and be 100% Prolife.
General Abortion is an elected choice.
Ectopic Pregnancy is a life and death choice.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ectopic Pregnancy - 10/11/2008 1:21:27 PM
|
|
|
kielbasa
Posts: 167
Joined: 6/1/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: OneOfHisJewels
quote:
ORIGINAL: stellaluna
quote:
ORIGINAL: kielbasa
quote:
ORIGINAL: OneOfHisJewels
quote:
ORIGINAL: kielbasa
quote:
As to the second question, yes, I think it was legal, but still frowned upon by the catholic church..and therfore many a woman died...often leaving many children behind them.
Hi, OneofHisJewels (neat name, btw).
I think you are misunderstanding what the Church says. Abortion is *always* morally illicit, as it is the deliberate taking of an innocent human life. But the Church does not expect women to die in the case of an ectopic pregnancy--her life is just as sacred.
If I understand correctly, there are currently three ways to treat an ectopic pregnancy: methotrexate, saplingostomy (removing the baby from the tube), and saplingectomy (removing the tube itself).
The first two treatments are morally illicit, as the direct intent is to kill the baby. The third is morally licit, as its intent is to save the life of the mother by removing a malfunctioning organ (the tube), not to directly kill the baby, even though that is an unintended consequence, a "double effect."
The first two instances constitute directly attacking the baby; the third does not.
I do think that in most cases (just judging from people I have known) it is a moot point, since the ectopic pregnancy is not even known until it ruptures.
Hope this helps.
Thank you for your compliment on my user name.
Treating an ectopic pregnancy is not morally illicit. Not treating it WILL KILL THE MOTHER...I would much rather the mother and baby both live, but if there HAS to be a choice, then the mother should live. My dad, who is a pastor (conservative/pro-life) has studied the issue extensively (and he DOES have a pre-med degree..and has said the same). I will try to find some references. Women DO NOT LIVE through an UNTREATED ectopic pregnancy.
Hi!
Please re-read my post. I did not say (nor does the Church) that one must not treat an ectopic pregnancy. I said there were treatments that were acceptable morally, and treatments that were not acceptable morally.
I think most everyone understands the Catholic opinion on the matter. I personally disagree with it.
As do I....I'm wondering if Keilbasa is Catholic. Some of those treatments that are "not acceptable morally" according to you, are the only thing that can save a mother's life. A baby out of the womb isn't the same as a baby in the womb. If we could take the baby out from whatever weird not in the womb place it is, and put it in the womb, that would be great..but we don't know how to do that yet (although with all the frozen embryo/embryo adoption stuff going on, maybe they can figure it out soon, and then we won't even have to have this discussion). And in order for the mother to STAY ALIVE, the out-of-the-womb-pregnacy has to, sadly, be terminated.....I would never reccomend that with an in the womb pregnancy..life of the mother abortions are almost never needed in in the womb pregnancies..usually by the time the situation is that dire, the baby thankfully can be a premie baby..but we're not talking about that anyway..we're talking ectopic....
Having to terminate an ectopic pregnancy is VERY VERY SAD..but sometimes it is a necessary evil...just as this surgery was.
And just so that no one gets the wrong idea, even though I have said it before..I AM ANTI ABORTION in all other cases.
Yes, Kielbasa is Catholic, and is wondering what that has to do with the fact that you are completely misunderstanding my posts. 
I will say it one more time, then bow out, as my intent is not to distress you, which I am obviously doing:
The Catholic Church (and Kielbasa) accepts saplingectomy (removal of the fallopian tube) as a moral treatment for ectopic pregnancy.
_____________________________
"This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ectopic Pregnancy - 10/11/2008 1:32:48 PM
|
|
|
OneOfHisJewels
Posts: 2549
Joined: 8/9/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
Yes, Kielbasa is Catholic, and is wondering what that has to do with the fact that you are completely misunderstanding my posts.
I will say it one more time, then bow out, as my intent is not to distress you, which I am obviously doing:
The Catholic Church (and Kielbasa) accepts saplingectomy (removal of the fallopian tube) as a moral treatment for ectopic pregnancy.
1. I didn't mean to make you feel bad, I'm sorry for that.
2. As to your last sentence...wouldn't removing a fallopian tube with a baby in it..still be terminating the pregnancy? From a biologiccal/medical perspective, I seem to be clearly misunderstanding your posts.
_____________________________
"We basically use what I have seen referred to as "get off your butt" parenting. It employs more interaction, more redirection, more prevention, and usually less spanking."
-Mrs. Wifey
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ectopic Pregnancy - 10/11/2008 1:37:32 PM
|
|
|
Memaw.
Posts: 2454
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Sunflower State
Status: offline
|
Am I correct in my thinking that once the tube bursts, it must be removed?
My sister in law had an ectopic pregnancy that ruptured (she did not know she was pregnant, lost alot of blood, hospitalized for quite awhile) and the doctor not only had to remove the fallopian tube but her ovary due to the damage caused by the rupture.
_____________________________
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.
Every generation has to learn how to protect and defend it, or it's gone
and gone for a long, long time."
Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ectopic Pregnancy - 10/11/2008 1:39:44 PM
|
|
|
OneOfHisJewels
Posts: 2549
Joined: 8/9/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
Ok, now that I read back over, I realize I did misunderstand...you (and the catholic church) understand an ectopic pregnancy needing to be terminated..but you (they) only believe in doing that by removing the tube). Well, ok, that makes more sense...
but I still don't agree...because if the baby is surgically removed, and the tube kept intact..then the mother still has a chance of having more children...but to remove her tube diminishes her chance of having more children..if you had to lose a baby, wouldn't you want a chance to have more children?
If I had a tubal..yes, I would do the necessary evil in that case, but I would still have a memorial service for the baby. I really consider terminations from tubals like a woman having a still born or a miscarriage, not like having an abortion.
< Message edited by OneOfHisJewels -- 10/11/2008 1:54:51 PM >
_____________________________
"We basically use what I have seen referred to as "get off your butt" parenting. It employs more interaction, more redirection, more prevention, and usually less spanking."
-Mrs. Wifey
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ectopic Pregnancy - 10/11/2008 1:42:58 PM
|
|
|
OneOfHisJewels
Posts: 2549
Joined: 8/9/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
Am I correct in my thinking that once the tube bursts, it must be removed?
I would think so..but sometimes I believe they can remove the baby before the tube bursts.
_____________________________
"We basically use what I have seen referred to as "get off your butt" parenting. It employs more interaction, more redirection, more prevention, and usually less spanking."
-Mrs. Wifey
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ectopic Pregnancy - 10/11/2008 1:43:07 PM
|
|
|
Memaw.
Posts: 2454
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Sunflower State
Status: offline
|
quote:
I really consider terminations from tubals like a woman having a still born or a miscarriage, not like having an abortion.
I agree, I think most people do feel that same way.
_____________________________
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.
Every generation has to learn how to protect and defend it, or it's gone
and gone for a long, long time."
Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ectopic Pregnancy - 10/11/2008 1:44:25 PM
|
|
|
kielbasa
Posts: 167
Joined: 6/1/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: OneOfHisJewels
quote:
Yes, Kielbasa is Catholic, and is wondering what that has to do with the fact that you are completely misunderstanding my posts.
I will say it one more time, then bow out, as my intent is not to distress you, which I am obviously doing:
The Catholic Church (and Kielbasa) accepts saplingectomy (removal of the fallopian tube) as a moral treatment for ectopic pregnancy.
1. I didn't mean to make you feel bad, I'm sorry for that.
2. As to your last sentence...wouldn't removing a fallopian tube with a baby in it..still be terminating the pregnancy? From a biologiccal/medical perspective, I seem to be clearly misunderstanding your posts.
Ah--sometimes I am extra-sensitive 
And the answer to your question is yes, it does have the effect of terminating the pregnancy. That is what I meant in my first post by "double-effect."
The intended purpose of the saplingectomy is to save the life of the mother by removing the malfunctioning fallopian tube. We both agree that this is a good thing and morally licit--true?
I started to go on and try to explain more, but I think if we can agree on one thing at a time it will be a lot less confusing and we can get rid of the misunderstanding, okay? 
_____________________________
"This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ectopic Pregnancy - 10/11/2008 1:59:36 PM
|
|
|
kielbasa
Posts: 167
Joined: 6/1/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: OneOfHisJewels
Ok, now that I read back over, I realize I did misunderstand...you (and the catholic church understand an ectopic pregnancy needing to be terminated..but you (they) only believe in doing that by removing the tube. Well, ok, that makes more sense...
but I still don't agree...because if the baby is surgically removed, and the tube kept intact..then the mother still has a chance of having more children...but to remove her tube diminishes her chance of having more children..if you had to lose a baby, wouldn't you want a chance to have more children?
If I had a tubal..yes, I would do the necessary evil in that case, but I would still have a memorial service for the baby. I really consider terminations from tubals like a woman having a still born or a miscarriage, not like having an abortion.
All right! We understand one another now
As for the chances of having another child with the damaged tube (from a saplingostomy)--it is possible, but one of the major causes of ectopic pregnancies *is* a damaged fallopian tube. So while leaving the tube might increase the chances of a future pregnancy, it also increases the probability that that pregnancy will also be ectopic. (Tubes are also damaged by things like PID and reversed tubal ligation among other things, so I am not saying that the saplingostomies are reaponsibile for all ectopics--just to be clear.)
If it were me, I would much prefer the other fallopian tube be involved to reduce the chances of the next pregnancy's being ectopic.
And, for the record, I have lost babies. In fact, I have no living children, and not for lack of trying . Sometimes we just have to accept what God gives us and know that while we do not understand why, He does always act in our best interests.
_____________________________
"This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ectopic Pregnancy - 10/11/2008 2:19:52 PM
|
|
|
kielbasa
Posts: 167
Joined: 6/1/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: stellaluna
quote:
ORIGINAL: kielbasa
Yes, Kielbasa is Catholic, and is wondering what that has to do with the fact that you are completely misunderstanding my posts.
I will say it one more time, then bow out, as my intent is not to distress you, which I am obviously doing:
The Catholic Church (and Kielbasa) accepts saplingectomy (removal of the fallopian tube) as a moral treatment for ectopic pregnancy.
I'm not personally misunderstanding your posts. The Catholic position has already been stated in this thread
No, it was misstated, and I was making an attempt to correct that.
quote:
and I personally find the distinction between illicit and licit blurry at best.
Well, I am sorry. I do not find it the least bit blurry. It goes to motive, as do almost all moral decisons we make.
quote:
It sounds like the Catholic church seeks to remove any chance of fertility
 We generally get accused of the opposite--a refreshing change!
quote:
(and you have suggested removing both fallopian tubes)
 No I didn't. If you show me where you thought I said that, I will be happy to clear up where you misunderstood me, though. I cannot find anything I posted that remotely suggests that.
quote:
instead of a procedure that might preserve fertility but result in the death of an embryo. Only a woman's doctor can make an educated guess at why a tubal pregnancy has occurred and I don't think a blanket "this is the only moral choice" statement is appropriate.
You are certainly welcome to your own opinions, and I am not trying to tell you or anyone else that you are wrong. I am not debating you. I am not your mother, your pastor or God, and if I came across as if I were one of them, please accept my apology. All I was trying to do was state the Catholic position on the matter, which was being misrepresented.
_____________________________
"This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ectopic Pregnancy - 10/11/2008 2:24:01 PM
|
|
|
solo_soprano22
Posts: 2473
Joined: 4/27/2005
From: I'm a Southern girl
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: stellaluna
quote:
ORIGINAL: kielbasa
Yes, Kielbasa is Catholic, and is wondering what that has to do with the fact that you are completely misunderstanding my posts.
I will say it one more time, then bow out, as my intent is not to distress you, which I am obviously doing:
The Catholic Church (and Kielbasa) accepts saplingectomy (removal of the fallopian tube) as a moral treatment for ectopic pregnancy.
I'm not personally misunderstanding your posts. The Catholic position has already been stated in this thread and I personally find the distinction between illicit and licit blurry at best. It sounds like the Catholic church seeks to remove any chance of fertility (and you have suggested removing both fallopian tubes) instead of a procedure that might preserve fertility but result in the death of an embryo. Only a woman's doctor can make an educated guess at why a tubal pregnancy has occurred and I don't think a blanket "this is the only moral choice" statement is appropriate.
Seems to say I can't take out the baby directly because that's wrong, but I can take out what's around the baby (while taking the baby) and that's okay. I understand double effect well, but double effect isn't usually something we deliberately try to bring about or do in ethical situations. It just sounds like they do believe in terminating tubals to save the mother (which is fine), but since that goes against it always being wrong to them, they needed to find something to try to make it morally right. I'm not against terminating ectopics, but this doctrine sounds sketchy to me. That's my opinion; if it makes all the sense in the world to someone else, more power to ya.
But Stella, I think the woman's fertility isn't their main concern here.
_____________________________
For God, For Learning, Forever.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ectopic Pregnancy - 10/11/2008 4:52:44 PM
|
|
|
kielbasa
Posts: 167
Joined: 6/1/2005
Status: offline
|
Hi Solo-soprano!
Would you mind listing the causes of ectopic pregnancy? You seem to be knowledgeable about such things.
_____________________________
"This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ectopic Pregnancy - 10/11/2008 5:17:19 PM
|
|
|
clag4christ
Posts: 2909
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: We just moved to the big state of Texas!
Status: offline
|
Causes for Ectopic Pregnancy
_____________________________
<-----Jael as Tinkerbell - Halloween 2008
If you don't want people to insult your intelligence; don't make it so obvious that you have none.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ectopic Pregnancy - 10/12/2008 1:08:28 PM
|
| | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
