I mean, it is pretty weird that we deep freeze boxes full of live fertilized human eggs. Not saying it’s wrong, but it’s weird enough I am not surprised people think it’s wrong.
here is what i read that some roman catholics say other roman catholics say. in other words, i read this in an rc web site answering a question about whether some other priests argue for this. they answer was: some people do. so i don’t think it’s a straw man built by pro abortion rights activists, but i think must be more extreme than what most clergy would argue.
the argument is that it is immoral to take a pill to end the pregnancy, since the purpose of the pill is to end a human life.
however, it is okay to remove that section of the fallopian tube to save the life of the woman, which morally justifies the fetus inevitably dying as a consequence of trying to save the mother.
it is a similar argument to saying bombing nazi soldiers is justified even though it will inevitably kill some civilians.
i cannot think this is the opinion of most people though. that strikes me as very sophistic since there is the fetus is absolutely guaranteed to die by removing the fallopian tube, and it does more harm to the woman as compared to the pill.
I’m not clear what you are saying here. I’m pretty sure what i wrote is the official view of the Catholic Church. It’s not okay to have an abortion, but it’s okay for a woman with an ectopic pregnancy in a fallopian tube (the most common type) to have the fallopian tube removed, to protect her life. And it’s just an unfortunate side effect that the embryo will inevitably die.
I mean, I’m a Jew, and i follow the Jewish belief that the life of the mother is more important than the life of the not-yet-human developing within her. So if her life is at risk, I’m in favor of removing the fetus/embryo/blastula in whatever way is best for the mother, whether that’s surgically removing body parts or giving her drugs to kill the dangerous thing growing within her, or something else. But I’m pretty sure i understand the Catholic position.
I don’t know that there is an “official” church position in this. it might be like asking for an official US position on something not legislated or decided by a supreme court. There is different case law that might conflict.
So some priests might rule that ectopic pregnancies should only be treated with the fallopian tube removed. but i couldn’t find anywhere that was the official church position, or even a common one taken by priests. the most i could find was this website by Catholics, for Catholics, which said (as i recall) that some priests say this.
Assuming there is a pill that can safely resolve an ectopic pregnancy and that is the intent some people would consider that sufficient to avoid being “bad”, even if the method of action killed the child and permitted the dissolution of the body post death to relieve the threat. Some people might take a “that’s too close” to a bad intent approach, and advise to be extra careful one shouldn’t. I think the relative benefits/risks of a pill vs surgery would come into play as well. I’d have to check around but i could imagine there are multiple opinions within Catholicism.
The surgery is much more risky than the pill and is guaranteed to reduce the woman’s fertility, at least as i understand it.
To pick the surgery instead because it might be slightly more moral according to some scholastic logic is, in my opinion, literally casuistry of the worst kind.
1 Like
It definitely gives me some vibes of “tricking god”. I feel this way about a variety of religious things, but to differing degrees. Some things I can totally buy “well it’s not really a trick because it’s about [respecting god or alternative explanation.]”
This one feels like, “Well, we could treat the infection in your foot, but instead we could cut off your foot, which has the side effect of removing your infection.” And it hammers very hard on the “tricking god” concept, in my mind. I can’t imagine that god wants you to undergo an unnecessarily dangerous procedure because the abortion is acceptable if it happened as a result of another procedure.
1 Like
I will repeat where these laws should logically lead to:
Every act of intercourse must be monitored every day for the following month in order to determine if a pregnancy has occurred. If a pregnancy has occurred, then every resource must be used in order to enable this unborn child to be born.
Given that 30-50% of all pregnancies results in miscarriage, this is the logical conclusion to ensure the protection of unborn children. The death of an unborn child, even unintentionally, is a crime that is not excused by ignorance.
Now, it is everybody’s duty here to write your Representative!
It would follow that to reduce the odds of sex leading to a blastocyst not implanting that older more powerful men should have handmaid’s who are younger and more likely to carry the blastocyst to term…
Yes, it all sounds like some bad streaming series.
(Both turn guiltily to camera.)
Or a prescient novel…
2 Likes
We should just be testing the fertility of women on a regular basis, and any women found to be suboptimal for reproduction are removed from the sexable population.
It would be incredibly immoral to do anything else, as you’re just allowing the especially inferior women to kill humans.
Of course, your solution follows from this, because men are superior and deserve to have sex, so we’ll need to reserve the breeders for that purpose.
This sounds like some of the FB/IG incel comments on those short videos with the models of various well-curved-ness demonstrating various styles of prom type glamorous dresses 
1 Like
It’s bizarre that many GOP figures are promoting support of IVF in the media, but doing the opposite in legislation.
https://twitter.com/Fritschner/status/1763007418244505795?t=3epLhnRI1jucDTsuPF7Luw&s=19
1 Like
General voters follow the media.
Hardcore activists look at the legislation.
3 Likes
Why, they’ve been playing this game since I was a kid.
5 Likes
They also said no national abortion ban but leave it up to the states, however…
1 Like
Part of what makes this so contentious is that nobody really believes it should be left to a vote.
Everyone argues it’s about fundamental rights, which cannot be removed by vote. They just disagree about whose rights.
Some liberals argue that the process of reforming the supreme court circumvented the democratic vote. I think that is certainly true at least as far as we mean the popular vote. But they don’t believe states should be allowed to take away abortion rights even if a majority in a state or the country votes for it.
Waiting for the first state’s voters to vote to take away abortion rights.
I agree in that it will surprise me if a state votes to remove these rights through a straight, popular vote.
But do you disagree with my point? Doesn’t agreeing with roe mean you don’t think it should be held to a popular vote ?