They’re worried about *intending* to destroy the egg–they don’t want anyone to ever *intend* to do that, even when the mother’s life is at stake. - Chad

What about all the other eggs that will be destroyed if they let the mother die? Oh, wait, they don’t have sperm in them yet, silly me.

How do these people manage to convince so many that it’s about hatred of women? Seriously, how?

I find it medieval. Christian churches talk about being pro-life, but are fascinated with death. Many talk about how great the end of days are going to be. Christian think this woman will automatically go to heaven and be given eternal life. They’re force feeding their doctrine on poor women. There is nothing compassionate about this.

Did it ever cross your mind as well that for all of these religiously-motivated people who are anti-choice they fail to recognize that these aborted “souls” will go to Jesus?

Who are they to deny Christ?

Anyone who uses a religious argument against abortion has no case as to why it should be criminalized…as well as one who must “consult a theologian” when a medical doctor is needed to save a woman’s life – isn’t working with a full deck.

“Doctor – please go no further in saving this woman’s life or ending her pregnancy – a theologian must be consulted to see if the procedure is just” WHA???????

What is acceptable is indirect abortion — i.e., removing the whole fallopian tube because the intent wasn’t to directly kill the egg, even though the action does. The principle is that you can’t do evil so that good will result, and abortion under any circumstances is evil. So even if it’ll save the woman’s life, you can’t do it, unless it’s a side effect of some other procedure. I find that perspective really, really troubling.

I find it medieval. Christian churches talk about being pro-life, but are fascinated with death. Many talk about how great the end of days are going to be. Christian think this woman will automatically go to heaven and be given eternal life. They’re force feeding their doctrine on poor women. There is nothing compassionate about this.

I’m not a moral theologian but I have done a bit of research on this issue, and as far as I can tell, intent is crucial. So if you intend to terminate the pregnancy, it’s not acceptable — even if it’s an ectopic pregnancy, and even if termination causes fewer problems than the surgery. Even if it’s to prevent a woman from dying during or after child birth.

What is acceptable is indirect abortion — i.e., removing the whole fallopian tube because the intent wasn’t to directly kill the egg, even though the action does. The principle is that you can’t do evil so that good will result, and abortion under any circumstances is evil. So even if it’ll save the woman’s life, you can’t do it, unless it’s a side effect of some other procedure. I find that perspective really, really troubling.

Not necessarily. Now that more evidence shows that the surgery causes more problems for the mom in short term and more problems for her future pregnancies in the long term (ie future ectopic pregnancies) one can make a good moral argument for the drugs. Once again, intent is everything in these case specifics. The goal is to save the mother.

In the case where the mother’s kidneys might not withstand the pressure, I really don’t know, but I would have to consult a moral theologian. I am sure the principle of double effect kicks in again. The Church would say first and foremost make sure the mother’s life is protected and the baby’s life is protected, but clearly there are cases where there is a direct conflict between the two.

The reason we don’t “get it” is because we place equal value of the new human being with that of the mother.

Even if both lives are equally valued, I would argue that abortion is still permissible. After all, I don’t have the right to use your organs for my survival. I can’t demand that you give me a kidney or your blood or that you breathe for me. If I somehow physically attached myself to you without your consent, you would be justified in removing me. Our rights would still be equal.

And if you are going to disagree AT LEAST understand that the Church DOES indeed allow women to save their lives if they are in danger.

Sure — as long as they give up their fertility or undergo a more complicated and dangerous procedure. If the problem is the fetus or the embryo, Catholic doctrine does not allow the simple removal of that fetus or embryo. Ectopic pregnancy is the perfect example — the easiest way to end such a pregnancy while still preserving a woman’s fertility and being minimally invasive is to administer a drug that terminates the pregnancy. Catholic doctrine disallows that, and instead requires that the entire tube be removed.

What would Catholic doctrine suggest a woman do if childbirth is going to kill her, either during birth or soon afte? Let’s say she has weak kidneys. Her doctor tells her that giving birth will be more than her kidneys can take, and she’ll die within a few months of kidney failure if she goes through with the pregnancy. Terminating the pregnancy would preserve her life. What does the Church say she should do?