Incoherent rage re: El Salvador and abortion

The BBQ Pit
201

Right- Bricker, if I have two patients, both of whom have ectopic pregnancies, both of whom are suitable for either MTX, Salpingostomy and Salpingectomy. I explain each procedure to them, and it’s risks and benefits ask them to think about what they want to do. I tell them I will be back in 1/2 hour for their decision.

One of my patient’s is a devout Catholic, who, after speaking with her priest, wants only a Salpingectomy.

The other has an equally strong religious belief, and after speaking with her spiritual advisor, wants Methotrexate, which is acceptable to her religion.

Why should Catholic belief take priority in a non-Catholic patient with a non-Catholic doctor in a non-Catholic hospital?

i.e. If the patient, being advised of all her options wants a Salpingectomy, well and good. If she doesn’ t, why should she be forced to have one because a religion she doesn’t believe in favours it?

I have personally seen lots and lots if women in Irish hospitals with ectopic pregnancy. Every single time, the doctors explain all the options, and that if the woman is a Catholic, the RCC feels salpingectomy is the best option.

Even in Ireland with it’s 95% Catholic population, most of the women choose to go against the Church.

Their eternal souls, their relationship with G-d, their choice-no?

202

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Except that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, which may by church law establish norms for the Roman Catholic Community of the United States, is no more bound by the actions of the Latin American bishops than they are of the Patriarch of Antioch.
[/QUOTE]

Well, that simplifies things, obviously then the actions of the Church in El Salvador pressuring the government to get that law in is just an insubordination, any moment now I expect the condemnation from the Vatican or at least the US conference of Bishops…

(crickets chirping to the tune of an Advent Hymn)

203

[QUOTE=Bricker]
That’s not so. I have explained the difference.
[/QUOTE]

Your explanation was:

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Salpingostomy or methotrexate treatment amounts to a direct attack on the unborn child. Full or partial salpingectomy is simply a removal of what will cause the death of the mother.
[/QUOTE]

Again, in the situation under discussion here (ectopic pregnancy), the presence of the unborn is what will cause the death of the mother. A distinction without a difference.

204

[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
Well, that simplifies things, obviously then the actions of the Church in El Salvador pressuring the government to get that law in is just an insubordination, any moment now I expect the condemnation from the Vatican or at least the US conference of Bishops…

(crickets chirping to the tune of an Advent Hymn)
[/QUOTe]

Are you an idiot?

I just explained that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops would not be remotely swayed by the Latin American Conference of Catholic Bishops, so we cannot assume that the Latin American norms represent the pro-life movement here.

Obviously, then, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops has no particular sway in Latin America, either.

So why would you suggest, as you do above, that the lack of condemnation from the USCCB proves anything? That’s very dishonest. It’s a garbage argument.

Similarly, I have explained that the various episcopal conferences have great discretion in setting their own norms of doctrine and law – providing, of course, that they do not run afoul of any basic matters of faith or morals.

That being the case, why would you expect the Vatican to condem anything in this instance?

Another dishonest and garbage argument.

205

[QUOTE=Steve MB]
Your explanation was:

Again, in the situation under discussion here (ectopic pregnancy), the presence of the unborn is what will cause the death of the mother. A distinction without a difference.
[/QUOTE]

And I agreed that the presence of the unborn child would cause the death of the mother. I’m not trying to draw that as a distinction.

If you can’t understand what the distinction is, why don’t you ask for clarification, instead of dismissing it as a distinction without a difference?

In one case, the good end (saving the life of the mother) is procured by an intrinsically bad act (killing the unborn child). In the other case, the good end (saving the life of the mother) is procured by a act whose sole purpose is to save the life of the mother AND does not constitute a direct attack on the unborn child.

THAT is the distinction. One act is a direct attack on a living human being, albeit a very very tiny one. The other act is not.

Now it’s true that the other act is an INDIRECT attack on that human being, because, inevitably, it will cause the death of that human being. But it’s not the intent of the act. It’s an unintended effect of the good act.

Consider a desert island with two people shipwrecked, with a liferaft but only enough water for one to take it and survive long enough to float away and be rescued.

We can’t say it’s moral for the one person to kill the other person just to ensure he has enough water.

To be moral, an act must be at least neutral itself, and intended for a good end. We cannot licitly commit an evil act intending to bring about a good result.

Do you now understand the distinction?

206

[QUOTE=irishgirl]

Why should Catholic belief take priority in a non-Catholic patient with a non-Catholic doctor in a non-Catholic hospital?
[/quote]

Are you under the impression that I’m arguing that Catholic belief should take priority in a non-Catholic patient with a non-Catholic doctor in a non-Catholic hospital?

Where do you get that idea?

I’m arguing that secular belief as to morality, enacted into law as expressed by the democratic process, should take effect.

It happens that Catholic doctrine forbids theft. But I don’t hear you complaining about people being prosecuted for theft… because they are prosecuted as a result of the secular law. The fact that the secular law also reflects the Catholic understanding means nothing.

Now, if the Catholic understanding of what’s good and what’s bad in the area of theft happens to match what’s codified into law, then I’m perfectly comfortable with jailing people for violating that law.

We live in a democratic republic. If the positions advanced by the pro-life movement gain enough acceptance to be codified into law, then I’m perfect happy with that result. But it’s not “Catholic belief [taking] priority in a non-Catholic patient with a non-Catholic doctor in a non-Catholic hospital.” It’s secular law taking priority with a non-Catholic patient with a non-Catholic doctor in a non-Catholic hospital.

207

[QUOTE=Bricker]
If you can’t understand what the distinction is, why don’t you ask for clarification, instead of dismissing it as a distinction without a difference?
[/QUOTE]

I understand perfectly well what you think the distinction is. However, I reject it as empty sophistry.

You are asking us to believe that a doctor who performs a salpingectomy is thinking “I hope this works so that this woman survives”, while a doctor who performs a salpingostomy or methotrexate treatment is thinking “I hope this works so that this fetus dies”. The absurdity of this inference is obvious, and yet it is the inescapable corrolary of your intent-based distinction.

Is it moral for one person to set sail on the raft with the water, leaving the other behind?

Every attempt I have seen to support this argument falls back on circular argument (e.g. killing in self-defense is not “an evil act” precisely because it is intended for the “good result” of protecting oneself from assault) sooner or later (usually sooner).

Well enough not to find it at all convincing.

208

The belief that an embryo or a fetus is a “baby” is purely a religious belief. Any attempt legally treat abortion as “murder” is effectively codifying a religious belief into law.

209

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
The belief that an embryo or a fetus is a “baby” is purely a religious belief. Any attempt legally treat abortion as “murder” is effectively codifying a religious belief into law.
[/QUOTE]

No, that’s not so.

No religion in the mix: when is it a baby? The instant it’s born? That seems absurd; clearly we could induce labor a week early and still get a baby… so what’s in there must be a baby at 35 weeks.

How about at 34 weeks? 33 weeks? When do you draw the line? It has to be somewhere. To me, the moment is obvious: the moment we have a creature with its own DNA, its own chromosones distinct from its parents, then it’s a human being. Maybe “baby” isn’t the right word for that two-celled creature. I grant that. But it’s a human being, as far as I can see it. This is not a religious belief. It is, to me a logical necessity: when else would the dividng line be drawn?

I grant that not everyone sees it that way. There are reasonable arguments to be made for saying that it’s a human being when it’s self-aware, or when it’s viable outside the mother. I just don’t think those are as useful definitions, for several reasons, First, they lack rigor. Who can measure “self-awareness?” And while viability is, I grant, measurable… take it out and it dies, it wasn’t viable. Period. The only objection I have to that yardstick is that it changes. 100 years ago children were not “viable” at the age they are now. Are we willing to accept a definition of humanity that changes as technology improves?

I’m not.

So while I admit that other arguments, good ones, can be made for other answers, I also am making an argument for my point of view that has nothing to do with religion.

210

[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
Not true, Catholicism is the official state religion of El Salvador, that was one of the first things I learned in school there, I also learned that even though that is so, officially and in practice other cults and religions are allowed. It is also true that the power the church had was diminishing over the laws and government, but El Salvador currently defies what is happening in other countries in Latin America, were the people are demanding more liberal reforms, just as it is one of the few remaining coalition members of the willing in Iraq, I see El Salvador as the ultimate follower of the dreams of conservatives, particularly of the USA. (The recent dollarization is part of the package.)
[/QUOTE]

Sorry for my error; I looked up the question of whether there is an official religion and most entries said there was not. If there is, it certainly makes the issue simpler and leaves out the question of whether people can vote their religious conscience rather than deferring to a secular view of things.

211

[QUOTE=Bricker]
I’m happy to look at Catholic Church policy. …

I apologize for the “asshole” comment above. But I won’t withdraw the “ignorant” part, because it’s clear that you didn’t know what you were talking about. I hope that THAT condition is now cured.
[/QUOTE]

Apology accepted. Yeesh - I take one day off to pay computer games and this thread is 5 pages long already.
I guess more Catholics should read the rules you posted - including some priests. When it gets talked about at all, it too often becomes some variation of no abortion (at the local and more personal level). That looks like what they have in El Salvador and Ireland, and I wonder how many other countries. Right here at homel, there are guys like that DeMint and Senator Napoli. Couple that with the “concept” that SOME of these same people want to do away with morning after pills and birth control, and you see why I got pissed off at the whole situation.

212

[QUOTE=Bricker]
No, that’s not so.

No religion in the mix: when is it a baby? The instant it’s born? That seems absurd; clearly we could induce labor a week early and still get a baby… so what’s in there must be a baby at 35 weeks.
[/QUOTE]

This is a semantic debate. Calling it a baby once it’s outside the womb is perfectly reasonable. Sure there’s some arbitrariness about it, but it make perfect sense to differentiate a newborn from an unborn. There is no reason we can’t consider it murder to kill a viable fetus.

But **Diogenes **is making a mistake, too, since the term fetus applies up to the moment of birth. Rather, we make the distinction between a viable fetus and a nonvivable fetus, and there is no need to invoke religion when we sanction against killing a viable fetus. Besides, the scientific/religous debate about murder is not relavent. Science can aid us in defining murder, but ulitminately murder is not a scientific term, it’s a moral one.

213

[QUOTE=WIN News]
"The Catholic Church in El Salvador has been actively engaged in manipulative tactics to sway an already conservative legislature into passing the extreme laws. The Church bussed Catholic schoolchildren to the capitol to stage anti-choice demonstrations and by confronting thousands of churchgoers after Mass to solicit their signatures on anti-choice petitions. This effort to convince legislators that it is the will of the El Salvadoran people, and not just the Church’s agenda.

[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Entrez PubMed]
Researcher Soledad Varela discovered that the Catholic Church in El Salvador had been actively engaged in manipulative tactics to sway an already conservative legislature into passing the extreme laws. Although some legislators were in favor of this amendment, some believe that the reform was wrong and that therapeutic abortions and terminations of pregnancies resulting from rape should not be penalized.
[/QUOTE]

http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/214/context/archive%20

[QUOTE=Womens News]
The ruling party of President Arnoldo Alemán has launched an anti-abortion campaign, seeking to outlaw all abortions and force independent women’s centers to close by choking off their sustaining international contributions. … During the Sandinista era, efforts to legalize all abortions were halted early on because the revolutionary commandantes dared not incur the wrath of Cardinal Miguel Obando y Bravo, the ultra-conservative archbishop of Managua.
[/QUOTE]

And then there is DeMint.

Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives.
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life.
Voted YES on funding for health providers who don’t provide abortion info.
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad.
Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion.

[QUOTE=Bill Napoli]
A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.
[/QUOTE]

The first two quotes, which look very similar, are to show that The Church is involved after all, regardless of what the official policies are - the local bishop or cardinal needs to do some studying perhaps. The DeMint and Napoli stuff was just tossed in gratuitously.

214

Bricker- your point seems to be that you would be happiest if Catholic doctrine was written into secular law, because you feel, morally, that it would best.

215

[QUOTE=Bricker]
And once again, you insist that THIS is the definition, despite repeated demands that you provide proof. I don’t accept this definition. It’s arbitrary. Why should your arbitrary definition be accepted over my arbitrary definition?
[/QUOTE]
Because it makes sense, while yours is absurd.

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Fine. I have spoken to Mrs. Bricker, and she endorses every argument I have advanced here in this thread. So if you believe my argument is rebuttable because it’s not being made by someone that could be personally affected by the issue, my wife – who was strongly Catholic and strongly pro-life well before I even met her – also advances this argument. Mmmmkay?
[/QUOTE]
And you actually believe her ? If she decided she didn’t want a pregnancy, I expect she’d be like other “pro-life” women and decide that abortion is only immoral for other women.

[QUOTE=Bricker]
That being the case, why would you expect the Vatican to condem anything in this instance?
[/QUOTE]
Because what is happening is blatently evil. Of course, the real reason you don’t hear the Vatican condemn this is because the Vatican is evil as well.

[QUOTE=Bricker]
In one case, the good end (saving the life of the mother) is procured by an intrinsically bad act (killing the unborn child).
[/QUOTE]
Only if you agree it’s intrinsically bad and a child.

[QUOTE=Bricker]
I’m arguing that secular belief as to morality, enacted into law as expressed by the democratic process, should take effect.
[/QUOTE]
So if the majority voted that it’s the duty of a man to rape a woman once a week, you’d do it ?

[QUOTE=Bricker]
It’s secular law taking priority with a non-Catholic patient with a non-Catholic doctor in a non-Catholic hospital.
[/QUOTE]
No, it’s religious law being imposed on the general population.

[QUOTE=Bricker]
To me, the moment is obvious: the moment we have a creature with its own DNA, its own chromosones distinct from its parents, then it’s a human being.
[/QUOTE]
Then being human is basically worthless. A mindless lump of flesh is still a mindless lump of flesh, no matter the name. This is a religious belief without the guts to admit that it is religious.

[QUOTE=Bricker]
It is, to me a logical necessity: when else would the dividng line be drawn?
[/QUOTE]
When it has a mind.

216

[QUOTE=SteveG1]
That looks like what they have in El Salvador and Ireland, and I wonder how many other countries.
[/QUOTE]
(My bolding).

Count us in (the Dominican Republic). If the (much hated)* local cardinal has its way we would be somewhere near Salvador. Abortion is already illegal here (but it’s not considered murder, legally speaking), but it is routinely performed anywhere around the country** disguised as either a medical procedure, or because the mother did something to kill the fetus which would oblige the doctor to perform a D&C, or as a legitimate medical necessity.

It is extremely easy to find a friendly doctor that is willing to perform an abortion, it is also extremely easy to find non-medical people willing to do it too by using various methods. Death by botchered abortions are not unheard of (I tend to believe there are more than reported; it is shameful for the family and dangerous for the person who did it to report it as so). Nothing the Catholic hierarchy opines about the matter will change the mind of a woman who desperately needs a way out of an already desperate situation.

As a side note, when I was pregnant I was worried about the fetus having serious abnormalities due to my age (34 when I was pregnant). We hadn’t made our mind, but were considering abortion should the results of test point in that direction. I learnt that my very serious, professional, and excellent ob-gyn was open to the idea of performing an abortion, even if it didn’t exactly threaten my life. Luckily that wasn’t a decision we had to make.

*At least by the three Dopers that live here.

** A cite would be hard to come by, as you would expect. But the price of an abortion is even discussed in public internet fora.

217

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Because it makes sense, while yours is absurd.
[/QUOTE]

Tell us why it makes sense, given that even a one year old infant is not self aware.

Do you know what “self aware” means? Bricker’s definintion isn’t too bad, although there have been a few problems pointed out which he readily conceded and made modifications to his definition accordingly. I don’t agree with it, but I can see how it might make sense to some people. Meanwhile, **Maureen **(and and now you) cling to this bogus definition for no apparent reason, refusing to acknowledge any of the glaring problems with it.

218

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
And you actually believe her ? If she decided she didn’t want a pregnancy, I expect she’d be like other “pro-life” women and decide that abortion is only immoral for other women.
[/QUOTE]
Why do you have to abscribe dishonesty to Mrs. Bricker’s position (hi, fellow countrywoman!). It is perfectly possible that she would make a decision in accordance with her belief if the time comes when she could be in need of an abortion.

There *are * a lot of honest Catholics… Which is not to say I agree with them.

219

[QUOTE=SteveG1]
The first two quotes, which look very similar, are to show that The Church is involved after all, regardless of what the official policies are - the local bishop or cardinal needs to do some studying perhaps.
[/QUOTE]
It would be interesting to see what the manipulative tactics were that the Church used. Your one quote mentions that there were legislators who support exceptions to the abortion ban in certain cases; they were outvoted in a political process.

You can’t expect people to not vote their conscience on issues, and their religion will inform that. While I am pro-life I don’t vote on that issue alone because I don’t think any president will overturn the current law and in the meantime Republicans are more likely to kill and hurt people in other ways. I can’t separate what I feel is morally right from how I believe the world should be, even in a secular society like the United States.

220

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Tell us why it makes sense, given that even a one year old infant is not self aware.
[/quote]
And we know this how ? Unlike an animal or a, say, 2 month old fetus, it has the basic neurological machinery for self awareness.

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Do you know what “self aware” means?
[/quote]
It means to be conscious and aware of one’s self. I consider it necessary but not sufficient for personhood.

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Bricker’s definintion isn’t too bad, although there have been a few problems pointed out which he readily conceded and made modifications to his definition accordingly.
[/quote]
And he ignored most of the problems.

[QUOTE=Mighty_Girl]
Why do you have to abscribe dishonesty to Mrs. Bricker’s position (hi, fellow countrywoman!). It is perfectly possible that she would make a decision in accordance with her belief if the time comes when she could be in need of an abortion.
[/QUOTE]
Because self interest tends to trump religion, unless the person involved is a fanatic.