It’s so nice to see an institution that sticks to moronic, hidebound, nonsensical traditions.
My parents are Catholic, my mom is very active in the local Catholic scene. I attended Catholic school, and I knew this. This is not the reason I walked out and became an atheist: the fact that the whole “religion” thing is a house of card did the trick.
The issue arises given that the Catholic church runs a number of hospitals, including the one where the recent story with the excommunicated nun unfolded. A woman who is hospitalized in a Catholic hospital and cannot go elsewhere to get treatment (or to terminate the pregnancy then return for other care) is trapped by a doctrine that she may not have any personal connection to.
Eonwe (and anyone else), I continued this over in GD. Here’s hoping it doesn’t turn into the usual 15-page train wreck.:eek:
I don’t have a cite for this, beyond my own Catholic upbringing, but the vast majority of American Catholics I’m aware of take church doctrine on abortion and sex with a huge grain of salt. The Pope has less influence on what goes on in Catholics’ bedrooms and clinic visits than he’d probably like.
BTW, is there an issue I’m not aware of where RCC-owned hospitals are hiding their church affiliations? If the name of the hospital has “Catholic” or “St.” in it somewhere, that’s usually a big hint.
West Suburban Medical Center and Westlake Hospital are both part of the Resurrection Health Care System*, a Catholic organization here in Chicago. Now, I have no idea whether they adhere to the Catholic “no abortion even to save the life of the mother” teaching (although I note that putting “abortion” in their Search yields 0 results), but they are certainly Catholic hospitals without a clear indication of such in their name.
*Resurrection tells me they’re religious, but does not connote specifically “Catholic” to me.
ETA: Also, remember that in an emergency, EMS will take you to the closest hospital with facilities to treat your condition; you don’t get to pick.
I learned about it when I was a wee little shaver and I read Betty (A Tree Grows In Brooklyn) Smith’s book Maggie Now
As Giltathriel said, the OP is deceptively phrased. Heck, it’s outright inaccurate. The Roman Catholic church (of which I am not a member) does allow the pregnancy to be terminated when necessary to save the mother’s life – for example, when necessary to end an ectopic pregnancy. This is not abortion in the classic sense though.
The point is that a threat to the mother’s life is not sufficient grounds for ending the life of the unborn. If two individuals are in danger – and remember, the RCC does regard the unborn as a living human organism – then every effort must be made to save both of them. If the unborn is viable, then it should be delivered prematurely, and if it is not, then it would not survive if the mother were to die. Either way, it is poor form to say, “Oh, one of them is being threatened. Let’s just go ahead and kill the other one.”
What about situations wherein one absolutely must choose between one or the other? I can’t speak for the RCC, but it seems to me that the physician should exercise his very best judgment and decide which one has the greater chance of survival. Obviously, this is not the same as simply deciding to kill the unborn for the sake of the mother, though that may be a possible outcome. As a family physician that I know once said though, such situations are highly hypothetical, and to the best of my knowledge, no such situation (that is, one where the physician must choose one or the other), has ever been medically documented.
If I could amend the RCC’s position, I would include this distinction. Nevertheless, it is deceptive to suggest that they would simply allow the mother to die for the sake of the unborn. That is not their stance.
What about the one linked to earlier in the thread, where a nun was recently excommunicated for allowing just such a decision at a Catholic hospital in Phoenix?
I think it’s your understanding that’s flawed. No, you may not do an abortion to save the life of a mother in a Catholic-church abiding Catholic hospital. The ectopic example is misleading - the treatment for a ruptured tube is to remove the tube, and the church allows that the fetus will come out with it. Because the treatment’s intent is to remove the tube, not to end the pregnancy, it’s allowed. If a mother has eclampsia with a life threatening high blood pressure and seizures, you may not terminate the pregnancy to treat the eclampsia. You can give high blood pressure meds to try to bring the bp down and antiseizure meds to attempt to stop the seizures, but you cannot terminate the pregnancy (even though it’s medically the best chance the mother has of surviving.)
First, I’d want there to be a more thorough review of whether it was truly necessary in this case. What do experts outside of this panel say, for example? Also, what were the odds of this woman surviving to the point at which the unborn would have been viable? (I say this, fully recognizing that viability is a fuzzy boundary rather than a sharp dividing line.)
Second, I’d note that the fetus was not yet viable at this stage. Under those circumstances, I’d have no problem with ending the pregnancy. It is entirely possible, however, that the RCC was objecting to the manner in which the pregnancy was terminated, since they believe that the death of the unborn is only permissible as a secondary effect rather than the primary action. I’m not saying that I would agree with drawing this distinction, but it is one that I would consider before judging their actions. (Remember that the new media often glosses over such details, especially when it comes to scientific or ethical matters.)
Again, I’m not saying that I would agree with the RCC’s approach to this issue. Rather, I would be more cautious before concluding that this was indeed a situation where the abortion was strictly necessary. I also suspect that the RCC’s stance was more nuanced than what’s being presented here – and I say this as someone who is not an Roman Catholic.
No, that’s exactly why I said that it’s not an abortion in the classic sense, though in a manner of speaking, it is. Far from demonstrating any misunderstanding on my part, your words support what I said, and what was likewise stated in the article to which I linked. The RCC does allow pregnancies to be terminated in order to save a mother’s life, with ectopic pregnancies being the classic example, but this is not abortion in the usual sense of the term.
I guess I misunderstood you then. My apologies.
BTW, at least one expert says that abortion is NOT necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman who has pulmonary hypertension. That’s according to Dr. Paul A. Byrne, Director of Neonatology and Pediatrics at St. Charles Mercy Hospital in Toledo, Ohio.
I realize that some might disagree with him on this matter. In any event though, this means that it’s not absolutely clear that abortion was indeed necessary in order to save the woman’s life.
had no idea. knew they were backwards bastards, but not that bad!
True. But one doesn’t call EMS to get an abortion, and very few EMS situations would result in a situation where you had to decide whether you wanted one (Pregnant victims of car crashes and train wrecks make up a miniscule percentage of ambulance deliveries). I’m not sure this factoid is relevant to the OP.
I am **not **debating abortion. I honestly don’t understand what **Tanaqui **said. It seems like the word “not” should have been in there, so I was trying to find out what she meant.
My wife is currently 6 months pregnant. We chose a catholic hospital for the delivery. It is not obvious from the name that the hospital is catholic.
I enquired of Mr. Delivery Doc if he could “tie the tubes” while he’s in there in the case of a C-section delivery. Nope, sorry, not allowed at this hospital.
So I guess at some time after delivery I will have to go get fixed myself.
As to the idea of abortions not being allowed, except for rape?
Well I am pro-choice (but I don’t like abortion), so I do believe that abortion should be allowed across the board.
BUT I do see a difference between an “accidental” preganancy and a “forced” pregnancy, (or if you prefer an illegal pregnancy). The upshot is that I would be infinitely more supportive of someone that decided on an abortion after a rape than someone that wanted an abortion because they ran out of condoms or couldn’t be bothered taking the pill*.
Not that laziness or stupidity are the only ways that unwanted pregnancies occur by the way, or that I want to force anybody to do anything they don’t want to do.
As the moderator said, I don’t want to debate, but in the interest of clarifying: I’m not saying that Brazil’s laws are disgusting because they allow abortion in case of rape, I’m saying it’s disgusting because they *don’t *allow abortion in other cases. The way of thinking that leads to that conclusion is the disgusting thing, not abortion itself (I’m pro-choice in almost all situations).
Well, if it happens to you, the percentage of it affecting you is not a minuscule percentage.
I mentioned it because the advice was given to avoid all hospitals with a “St.” in their names, lest they be Catholic hospitals. You can’t always choose where to go, even in a big city like mine with dozens of hospitals. And in an emergency threatening the life of the mother, like sudden extreme hypertension, you could very well end up at St. Something’s (or a Catholic hospital without an obvious moniker) despite yourself. Ergo, the Catholic position on abortion can very well affect you personally, even if you’re not a Catholic (which was why the Catholic hospital thing was brought up in the first place.)