|
Post by homeschooldad on May 18, 2022 4:09:38 GMT
The embryo certainly does have a right to be in the fallopian tube, as it has no other path which to take to get to the uterus. Absent the tube, the woman would be sterile. When a tubal pregnancy becomes diseased as a result of the embryo not clearing the tube and continuing on the path to the uterus for a viable pregnancy, both the embryo is destroyed and 1/2 of the woman's ability to become pregnant again if surgery is done. Should this happen on the other side, in essence she has been sterilized no differently than having her tubes tied. The end results are the same. I would have to question whether the embryo has a right to be in the fallopian tube, in that it is not a natural or a normal place for the embryo to be, it is not conducive to bringing the child to term, and it threatens the life of the mother to leave it there. It goes through there, to be sure, but that is not the normal place where it remains --- an ectopic pregnancy is an anomaly. The normal course of action is to leave the fallopian tube, and then to move on to the uterus. My contention --- and this is all trying to use logic and reason, and to draw analogies that possibly others have not considered (I would gladly offer these observations to the teaching Church in the name of possibly advancing development of doctrine, and presenting an alternative casuistry) --- was that if an embryo or fetus is located in a part of the body where it is not supposed to be, and if this dislocation is an assault upon the life of the mother, the embryo has no right to be there. But rather than attempting to have the "final word" because it makes sense to me, I submit this reasoning to the Church. I do have to wonder if moral theologians have ever advanced such a line of reasoning.So what if the doctor and woman decide instead of surgery, to give drugs which cause the pregnancy to be terminated, with the possibility of saving the fallopian tube. The disease is treated without damaging (possibly) the mothers ability to have future children. However this would be considered abortion would it not? I could only object that the drugs assault the life of the embryo directly, whereas if it is excised, it will die in the process, but its body is not being attacked or destroyed.
In your scenario, instead of using a knife to cut the madman free, it is simply done with drugs, and the results are the same, madman dies, and sane man lives. Yet according to the Church, this is not an option. Only if you cut out the diseased tissue (human embryo), destroying the tube. See above. There is a difference between cutting the rope and plunging the knife into the heart of the madman. The sane man cuts the rope, which is not in and of itself an assault upon the person of the madman, but the madman, now free, thrashes and drowns, which was going to happen anyway if they'd remained lashed together, but this way, the sane man is no longer encumbered by the thrashing madman, and can swim to safety (or dog-paddle until help arrives).This scenario certainly gives one pause. One course of action saves the mothers ability to be whole and increases her chances of future pregnancy, and the other scenario reduces those chances by 50 percent. It seems odd that the one that damages the woman the most is the only one that is licit according to the Church. The morality of the act is not determined by what will be the least invasive or troublesome outcome for the mother who survives. I do have to admit that I am troubled by the idea of cutting away the "diseased" portion of the tube, that just happens to have the embryo in it --- I'm just going to say it, it sounds like they are trying to find a way to end the pregnancy, but to be able to say "this isn't an abortion". Yet if you do nothing, the child certainly dies, and the mother probably will die too. Again, I do have to wonder whether excision of the embryo could be defended on the grounds of its being somewhere that it has no right to be, and in being there, assaulting the life of the mother. And as I noted above, what if --- for the sake of argument --- the embryo were in her heart? Obviously, that can't happen, but what if it could? If you could remove it from the heart, with it dying in the process due to inviability, then why could you not then remove it from the fallopian tube?BTW, women extreme athletes run the risk of miscarriage or stopping their monthly cycle due to the strain on their bodies. Men can also be affected. trakfertility.com/how-are-athletes-fertility-compromised/ I have to think that such extreme athletes should not get pregnant, and if they do, they should pause their athletic careers for the duration of the pregnancy. Disruption of fertility is one thing, threat to pregnancy is another entirely.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2022 12:34:20 GMT
The thing to keep in mind is, the drug manufacturers of the birth control pills are reviewed by the FDA and peer review as well. Because one doctor who obviously is following an agenda of his own, doesn't mean he's right. My wife and myself didn't use ABC after Christ came into our lives. We did before because it was for medical reasons in order that she could get pregnant that she was on the pill in the first place. She did, but it was not an easy ride for her and my son who resulted and has had to live with cerebral palsy and other medical issues. I am very sorry to know about your dear son's problems. I hope and pray he, and all of you, are well. I would just have to wonder if the FDA and peer review are all that concerned about whether implantation is prevented or not, just so long as the result is suppression of pregnancy (or, rather, preventing it from taking place, or ending in a non-traumatic fashion, non-traumatic for the mother, that is). Even though there is much talk in evangelical and other circles, as well as obviously Catholic ones, about "life beginning at conception", I have to think that BCP developers are more concerned with preventing obvious pregnancy, rather than being concerned about the possibility of denial of implantation if, in fact, conception does take place. It would be good, if the evangelicals and others to whom I referred above, would have someone sit them down (figuratively speaking) and say "okay, life begins at conception, you do realize what that means, don't you, and are you willing to take that concept to its logical conclusion, that anything --- be it a BCP or be it some other ABC method --- which prevents implantation also causes an abortion, something you surely oppose as well?". It might take another Protestant telling them, but as long as they understand the reality of the matter, and acknowledge that they must change their thinking and behavior accordingly, I don't really care how they come to the realization. Some people can be reached by one person, where another person can't reach them. They don't have an ideological agenda, just report what the drug does or doesn't do. Any other reports like that in the article, are following an agenda and therefore unreliable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2022 12:40:11 GMT
Again trying to convince the rest of the country to adopt the Catholic position is a non starter. So are the sperm and egg alive before they join? Yes. Although they only contain half of the chromosomes needed for a human. After joining is a human life made, or is it a human life once it implants and becomes viable? That is where serious debate begins. What if there are extra or less chromosomes than a typical human has? Is that still a human being? When the egg is fertilized and simply exits the body without implantation was a soul lost? If the fertilized egg implants in the tube of the woman, a human life exists, should no action be taken and the woman and baby both be allowed to die? If a woman engages in activities, ie rigorous exercise or work which keeps the egg from implanting in her uterus is she guilty of causing her own abortion? Has she committed a mortal sin? What if the woman engages in activities after the embryo has implanted and during her next cycle, the pregnancy is terminated. Again is she guilty of causing her own abortion? The question is, when does ensoulment happen ? Even the Church doesn't know, but chooses to error in the side of life if need be. If the fertilized egg does not implant, the Church still considers it conception. Many doctors disagree. Unless implantation takes place, there is no chance that the fertilized egg will develop into an embryo and afterwards a fetus. For me, the Church needs to catch up to science here and understand that there can not be a human life until implantation takes place. But, my wife and myself are well past the baby making stage of our lives and it really isn't a priority for us to consider.
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on May 18, 2022 14:43:40 GMT
I could only object that the drugs assault the life of the embryo directly, whereas if it is excised, it will die in the process, but its body is not being attacked or destroyed.
In your scenario, instead of using a knife to cut the madman free, it is simply done with drugs, and the results are the same, madman dies, and sane man lives. Yet according to the Church, this is not an option. Only if you cut out the diseased tissue (human embryo), destroying the tube. So when the human race begins to occupy outer space at a higher rate, if someone is ejected from the space ship, or the biosphere which the group of people are living, because they are putting the group in jeopardy, then the group haven't done any evil. They won't be attacking the person themselves, the person just happens to die in the process of being ejected, and exploding all their cells, or being crushed, depending on whether or not there is atmospheric pressure. They just die in the process and haven't been attacked or destroyed. See how this becomes really hard for people who don't put their faith in the Church's teachings? I would venture to say that the Church would not hold the same line on ejecting a person from a space ship, vs removing an embryo from a tube.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on May 18, 2022 15:07:39 GMT
I am very sorry to know about your dear son's problems. I hope and pray he, and all of you, are well. I would just have to wonder if the FDA and peer review are all that concerned about whether implantation is prevented or not, just so long as the result is suppression of pregnancy (or, rather, preventing it from taking place, or ending in a non-traumatic fashion, non-traumatic for the mother, that is). Even though there is much talk in evangelical and other circles, as well as obviously Catholic ones, about "life beginning at conception", I have to think that BCP developers are more concerned with preventing obvious pregnancy, rather than being concerned about the possibility of denial of implantation if, in fact, conception does take place. It would be good, if the evangelicals and others to whom I referred above, would have someone sit them down (figuratively speaking) and say "okay, life begins at conception, you do realize what that means, don't you, and are you willing to take that concept to its logical conclusion, that anything --- be it a BCP or be it some other ABC method --- which prevents implantation also causes an abortion, something you surely oppose as well?". It might take another Protestant telling them, but as long as they understand the reality of the matter, and acknowledge that they must change their thinking and behavior accordingly, I don't really care how they come to the realization. Some people can be reached by one person, where another person can't reach them. They don't have an ideological agenda, just report what the drug does or doesn't do. Any other reports like that in the article, are following an agenda and therefore unreliable. "Following an agenda" does not make their findings unreliable. If they are presenting and interpreting the evidence fairly, and considering all alternatives --- "does the ABC method prevent implantation, at least in some instances, or is that something that can never happen?" --- then it is just a matter of getting to the truth. And are secular scientists really interested in proving that a given ABC method can never deny implantation of a fertilized zygote? As long as the pregnancy is "nipped in the bud" so early that the woman will never know that fertilization ever happened or not, do those scientists really care? Either way, the ABC method accomplishes its goal.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on May 18, 2022 15:15:53 GMT
Again trying to convince the rest of the country to adopt the Catholic position is a non starter. So are the sperm and egg alive before they join? Yes. Although they only contain half of the chromosomes needed for a human. After joining is a human life made, or is it a human life once it implants and becomes viable? That is where serious debate begins. What if there are extra or less chromosomes than a typical human has? Is that still a human being? When the egg is fertilized and simply exits the body without implantation was a soul lost? If the fertilized egg implants in the tube of the woman, a human life exists, should no action be taken and the woman and baby both be allowed to die? If a woman engages in activities, ie rigorous exercise or work which keeps the egg from implanting in her uterus is she guilty of causing her own abortion? Has she committed a mortal sin? What if the woman engages in activities after the embryo has implanted and during her next cycle, the pregnancy is terminated. Again is she guilty of causing her own abortion? The question is, when does ensoulment happen ? Even the Church doesn't know, but chooses to error in the side of life if need be. If the fertilized egg does not implant, the Church still considers it conception. Many doctors disagree. Unless implantation takes place, there is no chance that the fertilized egg will develop into an embryo and afterwards a fetus. For me, the Church needs to catch up to science here and understand that there can not be a human life until implantation takes place. But, my wife and myself are well past the baby making stage of our lives and it really isn't a priority for us to consider. Ensoulment, and thus human life, does not depend on implantation. If ensoulment takes place at conception, or somewhere in that liminal space between conception and implantation, then deliberate denial of the embryo's implanting on the uterine wall is indeed the taking of human life. Think of it as someone walking out in extreme cold who is seeking out a house in which to take shelter. If they do not make it all the way to the house, and then gain entry to the house, then they freeze to death. Then imagine that someone deliberately locks them out. If they could get into the warm house, they would live. But if they cannot get in, then they die. The owner of the house, who has deliberately locked them out, has murdered that person. Once a mother knows that her ABC method of choice has this capability, then she becomes deliberately hostile to any child she may have conceived (due to denial of ovulation failing) while using that method. It's also worth noting that this argument, in itself, makes no judgment as to the morality or immorality of ABC in general --- some ABC methods have no bearing upon implantation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2022 15:26:31 GMT
They don't have an ideological agenda, just report what the drug does or doesn't do. Any other reports like that in the article, are following an agenda and therefore unreliable. "Following an agenda" does not make their findings unreliable. If they are presenting and interpreting the evidence fairly, and considering all alternatives --- "does the ABC method prevent implantation, at least in some instances, or is that something that can never happen?" --- then it is just a matter of getting to the truth. And are secular scientists really interested in proving that a given ABC method can never deny implantation of a fertilized zygote? As long as the pregnancy is "nipped in the bud" so early that the woman will never know that fertilization ever happened or not, do those scientists really care? Either way, the ABC method accomplishes its goal. It does when the agenda doesn't match the science for developing the item. Otherwise we'd still think the sun revolved around the earth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2022 15:30:32 GMT
The question is, when does ensoulment happen ? Even the Church doesn't know, but chooses to error in the side of life if need be. If the fertilized egg does not implant, the Church still considers it conception. Many doctors disagree. Unless implantation takes place, there is no chance that the fertilized egg will develop into an embryo and afterwards a fetus. For me, the Church needs to catch up to science here and understand that there can not be a human life until implantation takes place. But, my wife and myself are well past the baby making stage of our lives and it really isn't a priority for us to consider. Ensoulment, and thus human life, does not depend on implantation. If ensoulment takes place at conception, or somewhere in that liminal space between conception and implantation, then deliberate denial of the embryo's implanting on the uterine wall is indeed the taking of human life. Think of it as someone walking out in extreme cold who is seeking out a house in which to take shelter. If they do not make it all the way to the house, and then gain entry to the house, then they freeze to death. Then imagine that someone deliberately locks them out. If they could get into the warm house, they would live. But if they cannot get in, then they die. The owner of the house, who has deliberately locked them out, has murdered that person. Once a mother knows that her ABC method of choice has this capability, then she becomes deliberately hostile to any child she may have conceived (due to denial of ovulation failing) while using that method. It's also worth noting that this argument, in itself, makes no judgment as to the morality or immorality of ABC in general --- some ABC methods have no bearing upon implantation. Ensoulment may take place after implantation or before, even the Church doesn't say when. Only that they prefer to error on the side of life. Scientists on the other hand say that before implantation, there is no chance for the BioCyst to develop beyond that stage. Science doesn't care when ensoulment may or may not take place, it's not their place to decide.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on May 18, 2022 15:31:00 GMT
So when the human race begins to occupy outer space at a higher rate, if someone is ejected from the space ship, or the biosphere which the group of people are living, because they are putting the group in jeopardy, then the group haven't done any evil. They won't be attacking the person themselves, the person just happens to die in the process of being ejected, and exploding all their cells, or being crushed, depending on whether or not there is atmospheric pressure. They just die in the process and haven't been attacked or destroyed. See how this becomes really hard for people who don't put their faith in the Church's teachings? I would venture to say that the Church would not hold the same line on ejecting a person from a space ship, vs removing an embryo from a tube. You make another excellent argument which the Church, or defenders of her moral teachings, might well have to answer, though for what it's worth, I don't think we are ever going to have large enough numbers of people in space, for this to become an issue. I'm still scratching my head as to why we have never been able to return to the moon. To adapt the old saw, yes, it might be rocket science, but it wasn't impossible then, and it shouldn't be impossible now. But I digress. If an astronaut goes crazy and begins trying to kill their fellow astronauts, or is threatening to damage the spacecraft and kill everyone --- including himself/herself --- in the process, then, yes, you might be able to make a case for ejecting the crazy one. The analogy to an ectopic pregnancy is a very good one, and if removal of the living (though not for long) fetus remains morally objectionable, in the judgment of the Church, despite this logic and such analogies, then I suppose I shall just have to deny my own logic and reason, just as I have to do with tattoos, another "sticking point" (pun originally unintended but too delicious to pass up!) I have --- in my own mind, I cannot comprehend how permanent marking of one's skin cannot be a desecration of the temple of the Holy Spirit and thus a sin, but if the Church does not condemn it, then neither do I. And our bodies are temporary vessels anyway, left unbothered, they will decompose to the dust from whence they came, and I have to doubt that the tattoos will be restored in our resurrected bodies on the last day. Ultimately, the tattoos won't matter.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on May 18, 2022 15:36:50 GMT
"Following an agenda" does not make their findings unreliable. If they are presenting and interpreting the evidence fairly, and considering all alternatives --- "does the ABC method prevent implantation, at least in some instances, or is that something that can never happen?" --- then it is just a matter of getting to the truth. And are secular scientists really interested in proving that a given ABC method can never deny implantation of a fertilized zygote? As long as the pregnancy is "nipped in the bud" so early that the woman will never know that fertilization ever happened or not, do those scientists really care? Either way, the ABC method accomplishes its goal. It does when the agenda doesn't match the science for developing the item. Otherwise we'd still think the sun revolved around the earth. And that is at the core of it --- following the science. If science can prove that there is at least the possibility of an ABC method having a secondary (or even primary) function of denying implantation, then we have the very problem that Dr Kuhar discusses. BCPs fail all the time. That's when you will hear --- as I have --- the women at work joking about their "oops babies". Of course, if their response to an "oops baby" is to have an abortion, then you'll never hear anything about it, because they'll never tell. (Or at least that's the way it is in my part of the country, but then again I live in a very conservative "Bible Belt" area. In more liberal environments, women may indeed freely speak of their abortions. I wouldn't know.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2022 16:02:55 GMT
It does when the agenda doesn't match the science for developing the item. Otherwise we'd still think the sun revolved around the earth. And that is at the core of it --- following the science. If science can prove that there is at least the possibility of an ABC method having a secondary (or even primary) function of denying implantation, then we have the very problem that Dr Kuhar discusses. BCPs fail all the time. That's when you will hear --- as I have --- the women at work joking about their "oops babies". Of course, if their response to an "oops baby" is to have an abortion, then you'll never hear anything about it, because they'll never tell. (Or at least that's the way it is in my part of the country, but then again I live in a very conservative "Bible Belt" area. In more liberal environments, women may indeed freely speak of their abortions. I wouldn't know.) The problem is, science does prove that the pill prohibits ovulation, so that there is no conception to begin with. The manufacturers themselves said that if it prevented implantation as well, it'd be more successful at preventing pregnancy.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on May 18, 2022 22:10:19 GMT
And that is at the core of it --- following the science. If science can prove that there is at least the possibility of an ABC method having a secondary (or even primary) function of denying implantation, then we have the very problem that Dr Kuhar discusses. BCPs fail all the time. That's when you will hear --- as I have --- the women at work joking about their "oops babies". Of course, if their response to an "oops baby" is to have an abortion, then you'll never hear anything about it, because they'll never tell. (Or at least that's the way it is in my part of the country, but then again I live in a very conservative "Bible Belt" area. In more liberal environments, women may indeed freely speak of their abortions. I wouldn't know.) The problem is, science does prove that the pill prohibits ovulation, so that there is no conception to begin with. The manufacturers themselves said that if it prevented implantation as well, it'd be more successful at preventing pregnancy. But does the pill always prevent ovulation? If it does, then where do the "oops babies" come from? If the pill did always prevent ovulation, 100% of the time, no fails, no exceptions, never, then questions of implantation would become moot. The whole crux of the BCP-as-abortifacient discussion comes down to "okay, the ovum 'slipped one past the goalie', so if that egg gets fertilized, then does the BCP do something to the uterine wall, or other ambient conditions in the uterus, that either kills the newly conceived entity, or prevents it from implanting?". That's the whole question.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2022 0:01:15 GMT
The problem is, science does prove that the pill prohibits ovulation, so that there is no conception to begin with. The manufacturers themselves said that if it prevented implantation as well, it'd be more successful at preventing pregnancy. But does the pill always prevent ovulation? If it does, then where do the "oops babies" come from? If the pill did always prevent ovulation, 100% of the time, no fails, no exceptions, never, then questions of implantation would become moot. The whole crux of the BCP-as-abortifacient discussion comes down to "okay, the ovum 'slipped one past the goalie', so if that egg gets fertilized, then does the BCP do something to the uterine wall, or other ambient conditions in the uterus, that either kills the newly conceived entity, or prevents it from implanting?". That's the whole question. The birth control pill was known to be 99% effective. Which means 1% can get through as the woman has already gone into ovulation.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on May 19, 2022 0:15:31 GMT
So when the human race begins to occupy outer space at a higher rate, if someone is ejected from the space ship, or the biosphere which the group of people are living, because they are putting the group in jeopardy, then the group haven't done any evil. They won't be attacking the person themselves, the person just happens to die in the process of being ejected, and exploding all their cells, or being crushed, depending on whether or not there is atmospheric pressure. They just die in the process and haven't been attacked or destroyed. See how this becomes really hard for people who don't put their faith in the Church's teachings? I would venture to say that the Church would not hold the same line on ejecting a person from a space ship, vs removing an embryo from a tube. You make another excellent argument which the Church, or defenders of her moral teachings, might well have to answer, though for what it's worth, I don't think we are ever going to have large enough numbers of people in space, for this to become an issue. I'm still scratching my head as to why we have never been able to return to the moon. To adapt the old saw, yes, it might be rocket science, but it wasn't impossible then, and it shouldn't be impossible now. But I digress. If an astronaut goes crazy and begins trying to kill their fellow astronauts, or is threatening to damage the spacecraft and kill everyone --- including himself/herself --- in the process, then, yes, you might be able to make a case for ejecting the crazy one. The analogy to an ectopic pregnancy is a very good one, and if removal of the living (though not for long) fetus remains morally objectionable, in the judgment of the Church, despite this logic and such analogies, then I suppose I shall just have to deny my own logic and reason, just as I have to do with tattoos, another "sticking point" (pun originally unintended but too delicious to pass up!) I have --- in my own mind, I cannot comprehend how permanent marking of one's skin cannot be a desecration of the temple of the Holy Spirit and thus a sin, but if the Church does not condemn it, then neither do I. And our bodies are temporary vessels anyway, left unbothered, they will decompose to the dust from whence they came, and I have to doubt that the tattoos will be restored in our resurrected bodies on the last day. Ultimately, the tattoos won't matter. And another, very similar scenario, that came to me today: Let's say you have five people in a small lifeboat on the high seas. One of the five goes crazy, and starts attacking the other four. He is also stomping on the planks of the lifeboat and threatening to kick holes in it and drown everyone on board, including himself. Pitching him overboard is the only way to make things stop, as he is a strong man, nobody on the boat is armed, and the others cannot overpower and subdue him --- it will be all they can do, to wrestle him long enough to throw him out. He cannot swim and will drown in a short time if he is thrown overboard. Throwing someone from a boat into open water is not per se immoral --- the throwing overboard is not necessarily fatal, though his inability to swim means he will drown in a few minutes. And just to add to the argument, if he did, at one time, have a "right" to be on the lifeboat, did he give up that right when he became violent and started trying to kill everybody else? I'm reminded here of another similar analogy I used some time back (I'm pretty sure it was here on CCS), of a mentally deficient savant who knows enough to load and use a gun, and is an excellent shot, but is otherwise devoid of reason. He starts shooting up the town square and has a backpack full of ammunition. He keeps killing people, and keeps reloading and reloading. He doesn't comprehend the malice of what he is doing, rather, he thinks it is a funny game and is laughing maniacally. A SWAT team member is a trained sniper. There is no other way to stop the madman except to shoot him dead. Do we then say "oh, we can't shoot him because he's non compos mentis, he lacks reason and is therefore innocent, so we just have to wait until he runs out of ammunition, even if he kills many more people before that happens"?
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on May 19, 2022 0:16:29 GMT
But does the pill always prevent ovulation? If it does, then where do the "oops babies" come from? If the pill did always prevent ovulation, 100% of the time, no fails, no exceptions, never, then questions of implantation would become moot. The whole crux of the BCP-as-abortifacient discussion comes down to "okay, the ovum 'slipped one past the goalie', so if that egg gets fertilized, then does the BCP do something to the uterine wall, or other ambient conditions in the uterus, that either kills the newly conceived entity, or prevents it from implanting?". That's the whole question. The birth control pill was known to be 99% effective. Which means 1% can get through as the woman has already gone into ovulation. And it is in the valley of that 1% where the problem lies.
|
|