New arena for birth-control battle

In one type of treatment for ectopic pregnancy, the doctor gives Methotrexate, with the express intent of killing the embryo.

Exactly why it is wrong. Treat the fallopian tube as "diseased" and remove the tube with the intent of saving the woman from the malfunctioning tube.

As yet there is no way to then impant the zygote and allow it to continue to develop. So it will perish after removing the tube. But this is not the intended effect, it is a secondary effect. As such, it is licit in a way that directly effecting the death of the zygote is not.

SD

There is an additional reason to use the tube-removal technique, at least if the other tube is intact: there is less chance of future ectopic pregnancies due to a damaged fallopian tube wall.

However, one way to look at the extopic pregnancy is as though the child is a ticking bomb. No one intended that the mother be killed by the child, but the chances are good that she will be. If the fuse of the bomb can be disabled, without any death, then so be it. But, the child is going to die in any case, with our current technology.

From what I've read, the best course is the salpingectomy - to remove the tube. But, what if the mother only has the one tube?

I am not sure why you want me to discuss no longer valid historical medical care.

Because it clearly sets out the moral stakes being discussed.

I'll repeat: Cardiac disease with decompensation. Eclampsia. Ectopic pregnancy - I don't care what you call it, but you're still removing or killing a living embryo to save the life of the mother. In one type of treatment for ectopic pregnancy, the doctor gives Methotrexate, with the express intent of killing the embryo.

How many times do I have to keep repeating myself?

I don't believe there is ever a justification for the direct killing of the unborn child. Treatment of ectopic pregnancy with Methotrexate is immoral.

Eclampsia generally only occurs int he third trimester, by which point the child can be viably born prematurely if the need arises.

I'm not familiar enough with "cardiac disease with decompensation" to comment on it intelligently other than to say that allowing a murder to occur to save another persons life is immoral.

It is okay to treat an underlying illness, even if the course of the treatment will likely or certainly result in the death of the child. It is not okay to directly murder the child.

I'm not a Marxist

Just because you aren't calling for the collectivization of property doesn't mean you are not a philosophical marxist.

And I could easily take your question and turn it on its head - why is the mother's life less valuable than the fetus?? (there have been other answers to your question as well that sum up my views exactly; see the pings).

I never said that the mother's life is less valuable then the child. I said that you cannot licitly murder one person to save another. I don't place differing values upon different lives.

People like you are a threat to my health and well-being.

If anything is threatening your health and well-being, it is your own actions and lifestyle. I don't even know you, so I could hardly threaten you. You are certainly quite paranoid though.

If the fetus is developed to the point where it can survive outside the mother's womb, of course efforts should be made to save it and abortion should only be used as an absolute last resort (but that's a call for a woman and her doctor to make, not you).

Well, I disagree here, because I think all human life must be protected. You obviously have a number of exceptions to this rule.

As for the destruction of innocent lives, sorry, but it happens all the time with "ends justify the means" reasoning. Think of Iraq and Afghanistan - how many innocent lives were lost then?

No, it doesn't happen all the time. The US Armed Forcs go to great lengths to avoid taking innocent civilian life. However, some civilian death is an inevitable side effect of any war. The important thing to note is that the cvilian deaths are not the intended effect of the prosecution of war. At least since the WWII terror bombing of Germany and Japan, western countries have not practiced mass warfare on defenseless civilian populations. However, the death of civilians is part of the reason most people feel that war must have a serious justification for it to be used by a State - the whole Just War theory - the good ends of the war must produce something better than the evils of the war itself.

And if a Sept 11 scenario were to repeat itself, most people would consider it acceptable to shoot down a plane and kill everyone on board rather than risk that plane crashing into a building and killing 1000s more. By your logic, it would be better to just let it crash, since that's the "natural outcome".

The situation is not comparable to a pregnancy, since an unborn child is not an agressor liable to measures of self-defense. Nor is a plane deliberatley being flown into a building something "natural".

In any case, the intention in shooting down the plane would be to prevent the use of the plane to cause mass homicides, not to kill everyone aboard, which is an unfortunate side effect. The intention in an abortion is always and everywhere the death of the unborn child.

Moreover, the justification for shooting down the plane only holds good if there is a moral certainty that one is preventing greater destruction from allowing it to stay aloft. For example, a plane hijacked over the middle of the ocean or desert hardly presents a threat to a densely populated city. There is certainly a better chance the crew will regain control than there is that the plane will be used as a bomb. Therefore, one could not licitly shoot it down until it is actually an apparent threat. Thus, one might warn the plane hijacked over the ocean that if it comes within 5 miles of any settled area, it will be shot down, but one may not shoot it down willy-nilly in disregard to the lives of those aboard.

The way I look at it, how many eggs die with the mother? Her potential to have children in the future is much greater than the fetus'. She has already lived to maturity and has proven fertility. Thus her life trumps the baby's. Add to that the loss to her family if she dies, especially if there are other children.

If the question was "if one must be allowed to expire to save the other" such reasoning might be able to be upheld. However we are really discussing:

(a) Murder the unborn child to save the mother.
(b) Allow the unborn child to develop long enough to be safely born while the mother dies a natural death.

Since course of action (a) involves a murder, it cannot be safely chosen from a moral perspective.

For one reason - common sense. If the mother dies, the fetus dies, too. By my reasoning, it is not a matter of choosing one or the other to live, as the baby wouldn't survive anyway.

This would only truly be so in the case of ectopic pregnancy, and the best treatment of ectopic pregnancy is the removal of the diseased fallopian tube, not the direct murder of the child. For other indications discussed such as cancer or eclampsia, the mother can generally live long enough to allow her child to have life. So it doesn't seem clear to me at all, even accepting the moral balance of take the child's life or let both die, that allowing the child a few weeks of additional development at risk to the mothers health is enough to justify taking its life.

Better to give both a chance at life than at least one a certain death sentence.

Would you prefer that both die, rather than just one?

I said it before, but I have to keep repeating myself to you. If such a case arises (and again, I am not aware of any real justifications for direct abortion given the current state of medical technology), better two natural deaths than one murder. Why is that so hard to understand for you?

If anything is threatening your health and well-being, it is your own actions and lifestyle. I don't even know you, so I could hardly threaten you. You are certainly quite paranoid though.

Justifiably so if you look at how theocracies turn out. I was speaking in general terms of what would happen if someone with your views came to power and passed laws based upon them - therapeutic abortions would be outlawed and women would die. Not to mention the medications that would get banned...

The situation is not comparable to a pregnancy, since an unborn child is not an agressor liable to measures of self-defense.

In a manner of speaking it is, if continuing to carry it poses a threat to a woman's life. Again, that's a call I only want qualified medical professionals to make.

This whole discussion would become moot, of course, if we ever got to the point of developing an artificial womb.

Was your education so poor that you confuse the provision of information with the passing of judgement?

Hermann, questions can be a very powerful tool in the art of persuasion because they can be disarming. Now, take a moment and look at that question you asked me. Would you describe that question as disarming? ;-)