<p>Cardinal–
As I uinderstand it, there is no treatment for ectopic pregnancies where the fetus remains living. Pregnancy outside the uterus will not sustain growing life. When the dr. thought I had an ectopic pregnancy, he assured me there was no other choice than to remove the fallopian tube.</p>
<p>One of my grandmothers nine sisters, my great aunt, died as the result of an ectopic pregnancy- sounds like a horrible way to go.</p>
<p>I am glad that they are able to catch and treat it more often now.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Although the article doesnt specify, perhaps the woman was Catholic. In that case, the only birth control permitted would be NFP (Natural Family Planning). NFP can be very effective, but it takes patience and practice, and the success rate varies with the level of commitment.</p>
<p>As an former Catholic, I see this as an example of the deep-seated sexism of the Catholic Church. The men who run it simply see a woman’s life as not as valuable as that of any man, even a pedophile. Period. The Sisters of Mercy do far more good in the world that the vast majority of priests, and hew much more closely to the teachings of Jesus. It’s this kind of thing that made me an ex-Catholic long before I found the religion that actually meshed with my beliefs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s my understanding as well. But that’s not what makes the surgical removal of the fallopian tube permissible for Catholics. Instead, Catholics rely on the doctrine of double effect: we may be permitted to perform an action to achieve a goal, even though as an unfortunate and unavoidable side effect of the action someone dies. But we may not directly, intentionally kill someone.</p>
<p>So, suppose we have a drug that we can use to vaccinate babies against a serious disease. This is a tremendous drug that saves many babies, but unfortunately, some unlucky babies will die from an adverse reaction to it, babies that otherwise would have survived because not every unvaccinated baby gets the disease. Can we use that drug? Yes, of course, says the Church, because we aren’t directly trying to kill those unlucky babies.</p>
<p>Now, suppose we have a situation that has an almost similar effect. We know how to make our lifesaving vaccine, but the only way we can make it is to kill a baby, deliberately kill it. If we make the vaccine, we can save hundreds of thousands of babies. May we select a baby and kill it? No, says the Church, not even if the baby is very sick, not even if its parents agree, not even if it will save a million other babies. We must not intentionally kill this baby; that is completely impermissible, no matter how much good would come of it.</p>
<p>The Church regards a fetus as a person, with the same moral status as any other person. May we directly kill a fetus, to save another person’s life? No, says the Church. We couldn’t do it to save a million lives, and we can’t do it to save one life.</p>
<p>Mary13 - yes well… <em>whisper</em> - (plenty of Catholic women use more than NFP for their birth control. In fact, a good friend of mine got the blessing from her priest to have her tubes tied after the birth of her second - due to the risk of her life and carrying another baby.)
Then again, perhaps she developed pulmonary hypertension around the time of the pregnancy or underestimated the seriousness of her disease.</p>
<p>Consolation, I agree.
About the decision to ex-communicate - it’s important to remember this decision was made by ONE man; a Bishop who is not infallable. The same decision may not have been reached by another Bishop. IMO - when Bishop’s like this one decide to take on this argument they do a disservice to their faith and their flock. JMHO. </p>
<p>Did anyone see a mention where the mother was ex-communicated as well?</p>
<p>May we select a baby and kill it? No, says the Church, not even if the baby is very sick, not even if its parents agree, not even if it will save a million other babies. We must not intentionally kill this baby; that is completely impermissible, no matter how much good would come of it.</p>
<p>And, guess what…if a bunch of people are hiding out from an enemy that will certainly kill them once they’re found, and one of the people has a baby - even a very sick baby - who is about to start crying and give away their hiding place…you can’t suffocate that baby just because by doing so you’ll save a bunch of people. Even if the parents agree to it…even if it will save a bunch of people.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Pipmom, under the law of New York City, where I was born (the same is true of New York State law applicable to people born in New York outside the City), I have been entitled since I had my final surgery last summer to have an amended birth certificate issued not only with a change of name (which I, like anyone else who has a legal name change, have had the right to do since my name was changed five years ago), but also with the sex designation changed from “M” to “F.”</p>
<p>I suppose I’ll do it someday, but I just haven’t gotten around to filling out the necessary forms yet. (Among other things, I will have to submit the surgeon’s operative report to prove I actually had the surgery – pretty intrusive, but that’s the law. I have the report already; this particular surgeon sends one to his patients routinely, since New York isn’t the only jurisdiction that requires it.)</p>
<p>There’s certainly no rush to do it, because all my other identification has long since been changed to show the proper gender designation, including drivers’ license, passport, and Social Security Administration records. (Believe it or not, there are specific SSA and passport agency regulations addressing the procedures and requirements for such changes.) The only occasion I can think of on which I would ever need to show or use my birth certificate would be if I wished to get married again. Since New York does not (yet) permit same-sex marriage, I would have to get it changed in order to marry a man. If I wanted to marry a woman, I could actually use the loophole of not having changed my birth certificate yet to have a marriage license issued, even though for all other purposes I’m legally female under both state and federal law. </p>
<p>Therefore, I’m one of the few people who has a choice about marrying a man or a woman in a state that doesn’t permit same-sex marriage, so long as I hold off on changing my birth certificate. Which just goes to prove how silly it is not to permit same-sex marriage for everyone. I don’t think I’d actually take advantage of the loophole, though, even if I wanted to get married again, to a woman. It would be very, very difficult for me at this point in my life to present myself as “male,” or to present any documentation designating me as “male,” for any reason, even to get married. Both because it seems unfair to take advantage of a loophole not available to other women in New York, and because it wouldn’t sit right with me – it would feel inauthentic, and contrary to my resolution these last 10 years or so to do the best I can to lead an honest and authentic life. I don’t want to be anyone’s “husband” ever again, even as a mere technicality.</p>
<p>I know people who’ve used the loophole, and feel that there’s no reason not to take an advantage of an opportunity that the legal system happens to offer. I understand that viewpoint, and don’t think there’s anything wrong with seeing it that way. But I’m not sure I could do it myself. Not that there’s any present desire or opportunity for me to marry again, or any great likelihood of either in the future, so this is an entirely hypothetical discussion!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Except that that very thing was known to happen during the Holocaust when families were trying to hide from the Nazis. And it’s hard for me to condemn the people – usually the babies’ mothers themselves – who did it, in an attempt to save their other children and the rest of their families.</p>
<p>"Apparantly she already had 4 kids and I can’t imagine why she allowed herself to become pregnant. "</p>
<p>Maybe she is a very wealthy woman, and will have no trouble with all the costs it takes to bring these kids to maturity; maybe society won’t have to “pick up the tab” if she chooses to have more babies than she can afford.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>All birth control methods fail sometimes, including abstinence. And then also, she might not have known that a pregnancy would be so dangerous for her.</p>
<p>How does abstinence fail? Other than reading of the Virgin mary about 2000 yrs ago, I haven’t heard of a woman getting pregnant that was using abstinence as birth control. Am I overlooking something?</p>
<p>younghoss - your comments are rather rude.
My comment that I can’t imagine why she allowed herself to become pregnant refers to her serious illness. Not that she already had “too many” kids. I was more concerned that she would leave 4 motherless children.
There is no evidence that I have seen from any articles that indicate she is unmarried and not able to support her family. To go down that road is speculative and irrelevant to the discussion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Abstinence can fail as a birth control method for the same reason abstaining from dessert is failing me as a diet plan. It <em>is</em> my intention to abstain from dessert, but when faced with a dessert right in front of me, my willpower is not as good as my intentions.</p>
<p>More seriously, abstainers with strong willpower can still get pregnant as a result of rape, including marital rape.</p>
<p>The Bishop in the case of the excommunicated nun did not actively excommunicate the Sister. She was automatically excommunicated as a result of her actions. </p>
<p>From an AP article on that topic:
"Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, head of the Phoenix Diocese, indicated in a statement that the Roman Catholic involved was “automatically excommunicated” because of the action. The Catholic Church allows the termination of a pregnancy only as a secondary effect of other treatments, such as radiation of a cancerous uterus.</p>
<p>“I am gravely concerned by the fact that an abortion was performed several months ago in a Catholic hospital in this diocese,” Olmsted said in a statement sent to The Arizona Republic. "I am further concerned by the hospital’s statement that the termination of a human life was necessary to treat the mother’s underlying medical condition.</p>
<p>“An unborn child is not a disease. While medical professionals should certainly try to save a pregnant mother’s life, the means by which they do it can never be by directly killing her unborn child. The end does not justify the means.”</p>
<p>Olmsted added that if a Catholic “formally cooperates” in an abortion, he or she is automatically excommunicated."</p>
<p>If one believes that a fetus is indeed a full human life entitled to the same rights and respect as any other human, this action must necessarily appear completely moral; otherwise one must re-evaluate whether one believes that the life of a fetus is indeed as important as that of any other human being. The prohibition against murdering (meaning by deliberate action and not as a result of combat) someone in order to save the life of another person is not unique to Catholicism. Talmudic wisdom tells Jews that if one is told to murder another person under pain of death, one must submit to death. Moreover, if a town is compelled to surrender a particular person to be executed, assuming that person is innocent of a capital crime, under pain of destruction of the village, the village is to disobey the order to turn the person over and themselves face destruction. </p>
<p>What I find particularly wrong with the situation of the excommunicated nun is that excommunication is the punishment specifically for abortion while it is not the punishment for murder. A murderer can be saved, while someone who permitted an abortion is damned to Hell.</p>
<p>In Church teaching, can’t someone who cooperates in an abortion repent and confess, like any other murderer, or any other sinner of any kind?</p>
<p>By its very terms, excommunication seems to preclude taking part in the normal process of confession, absolution, and communion. I think that there’s some process for re-communion with the Church – or there can be – but I don’t know what it is.</p>
<p>I note – largely without sympathy for the position of the Church – that there is a significant difference between a murder and an abortion in these circumstances. The murderer has done something that he and everyone else understands is sinful and wrong. Those who performed or facilitated the abortion in this case claimed moral justification for it, and in fact many people – including lots of non-Catholics, like me, and probably plenty of “misguided” Catholics – agree with them that the abortion was a morally justified act. So this is not just a case of someone committing a grave sin, for which he can be forgiven. It’s a case of direct challenge to an important, controversial Church doctrine.</p>
<p>Depending on the country and diocese- the excommunication because of abortion can be lifted by regular confession to a priest (if the bishop has allowed priests to lift abortion related excommunications) or by confession to the bishop, who can forgive the sin and thus restore the person to full communication. </p>
<p>Whenever someone commits a mortal sin, whether it be murder, abortion, theft, adultery, etc. they automatically excommunicate themselves until such time as they make a confession and receive absolution. They cannot receive communion until they are forgiven.</p>
<p>Perhaps, then, I misunderstand the concept of excommunication. I thought that it essentially meant that one’s sin was unforgivable and that the person can no longer participate as a member of God’s communion.</p>
<p>Regardless, I find the very concept of excommunication somewhat arrogant. Ought one’s sins–in at least a religious context–be judged before God and not the corporeal and flawed institution of the Church? I thought that God decides who is saved and who is damned, not people.</p>
<p>What’s missing, by my way of looking at black/white doctrinal law, is what is available to even the most Orthodox Jews, namely, ANY Torah law can be broken in order “to save a human life.” In Hebrew, the principle is called “p’kuach nefesh.” Important laws, too, can go by-the-boards, for example, Sabbath observance.</p>
<p>Example, and it happens a lot: A Jew is having a heart attack and needs ambulance service from his home to hospital or he/she will die. Without hesitation, and with the assurance of every Rabbi even the most orthodox, that family MUST (not may, not might, but MUST) break every Sabbath law (and Sabbath is way up there, one of the l0 commandments. They must phone up the ambulance and ride to hospital, sirens ablaze, using every medical technology with electricity to save that person’s life. If a heart specialist doctor is needed in particular that Saturday, who’s an observant Jew, s/he too will jump in the car to go and save the life. </p>
<p>Commentaries from Talmud, “The Torah (meaning, Religious Law) is to live by, not to die by.” </p>
<p>Exceptions can be made to The Law but only to save a life. It’s taken very seriously, too; for example if in the above another heart specialist was in the hospital building already, the doctor shouldn’t jump in a car but leave it to the one already in place.</p>
<p>I can’t understand why this wouldn’t also apply to the life of that mother lying in that Catholic hospital, and apparently their ethics committee saw it similarly, although expressed in Catholic doctrinal phrases not Talmud. </p>
<p>So I can follow the Catholic reasoning right up until the point of this case. I see why, for a Catholic, it is impossible to choose between the life of that mother and that fetus because in Catholic (not Jewish) understanding, life began at the moment of conception and they see before them two living beings.</p>
<p>A Jewish answer would be to save the life of the mother over the life of the fetus, every time. For such differences, I don’t go to a Catholic hospital, ever, because in a crunch situation I would not want to be governed by Church Law on life and death matters. I respect those who do, but wouldn’t put myself into that situation, which has implications for how I feel about my children’s mates as well. </p>
<p>With all the good the Catholic Church does in their communities, and there is plenty to extol there, I can’t get past this fundamental difference in the definition of when life begins between our two faith systems.</p>