Removing a Foetus, Always Abortion? Always Murder?

Various | June '03 | Multiple

[Hank Kerchief]

No Comment.

[Support Free Republic]

There's A Better Way To Beat The Media Clymers (And You Don't Have To Skate)!
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[narses]

Ping. I'd love to hear informed commentary.

[sinkspur]

So would I. First blush, the principle of double effect would say the doctors couldn't take the fetus, as it was a direct action against the fetus.

However, this is such a bizarre aberration, and the fetus was not developing, or developing so slowly that it could never have reached viability.

Would this not be like the separation of siamese twins, in which one knows that one of the twins will not survive?

[ahadams2]

removing a foetus from a womb is always abortion and always murder.

[Hank Kerchief]

removing a foetus from a womb is always abortion and always murder.

Only from a womb? How about from a test tube?

Hank

[narses]

I have no ability to form an opinion. I am at sea on this. Your siamese twin analogy and a fallopian tube/ectopic pregnancy analogy are the best I can come up with. If the surgery is designed to save both lives, if possible, and one dies, that is probably moral, but I don't know. I'm glad beyond all ability to express myself that I haven't been faced with such a moral dilemna yet. I hope if I am, that God's Grace leads me to the right conclusion.

[sinkspur]

Technically, I wonder if this a fetus? And, yes, the ectopic preganancy might also work here.

I don't know. That's why moral theologians make the big bucks.

[sinkspur]

Was there a "womb"? The article doesn't say.

[narses]

I'd say the test tube, yes, but from a fallopian tube, from the belly of a young boy, I don't think so. The analogy is bad, but it becomes justifiable homicide, not murder, under very rare circumstances. A test tube baby threatens no other human life, an ectopic pregnancy does.

Is there a Catholic Doctor or Canon Lawyer in the house? HELP!

[sinkspur]

Weigh in here, when you can.

[narses]

I'd say he was a fetus, a human life, unique DNA, etc. No womb, threatening the life of his brother. Bad. I'd want real treasure, if not here, then in heaven to make this call. Pray for their souls (the whole family), they need it.

[sinkspur]

Your perspective is also welcome.

[MarMema]

Wow Hank, you came up with a zinger here. :-)
These poor people.....

[nickcarraway]

How in the world could the baby remain alive, but not grow?

[nickcarraway]

Well, asking this question assumes that those involve could know what was going on. If this is true, it is such a unknown circumstance, those involved probably weren't informed enough to make a proper moral assessment.

[nickcarraway]

ping

[drstevej]

Life begins at conception. I am against abortion in all cases except where there is clear threat to the life of the mother. I don't know the details here, but it may be an analogous situation.

In the case of clear threat to the life of another, I believe the person whose life is threatened has the same choice regarding self defense as when one's life is threatened in other circumstances.

I personally am not a pacifist in these situations. I respect the convictions of others who are.

[sitetest]

Dear sinkspur,

There is just not enough information here to make any sort of judgement.

I think that the principle of double-effect may apply (though I've read that there are some moral theologians who still don't accept this.). If the surgery performed was necessary to save the boy's life, and a consequence of the surgery was the death of the fetus, this may apply. If the surgery directly killed the fetus, then it doesn't.

Let's look at an ectopic pregnancy as the example. The fertilized ovum attaches in the fallopian tube. The woman will die from the ectopic pregnancy. To prevent her death, surgery is performed to remove the now-diseased fallopian tube (fallopian tubes don't take well to having embryos attach to their internal walls). The surgery doesn't directly kill the fetus. However, once the tube is removed, the fetus will die, as he will no longer be able to draw sustenance through the fallopian tube.

Even knowing that a consequence will be certain death, in not having directly caused it, and in having acted to save the woman's life, there is the double-effect.

In the current case, there just is so little to go on, all I can do is speculate. Perhaps it was determined that the continued existence of the blood vessels from the boy's body to the fetus would eventually kill the boy? Perhaps the blood vessels could have been removed, and the area cauterized? At that point, the fetus no longer drew sustenance, and died? I don't know.

All I can say is that if surgery was performed that directly killed the fetus, it was immoral.


sitetest

[sinkspur]

How in the world could the baby remain alive, but not grow?

Speculation is that Chernobyl radiation may have had some effect here.

I'm stumped. There was no hesitation on the part of the doctors, however.