To me this is the same ethics problem as the earlier controversy about whether pharmacists should be required to fill prescriptions they have objections to (such as for Plan B).

The way I see it and want the law to see it, there are two separate contractual relationships here: (1) between the individual provider (doctor or pharmacist) and his employer, and (2) between that employer and its customer/patient. If the doctor or pharmacist is self-employed then (1) does not exist.

For (1), the individual provider should have the right to refuse service, unless the employer requires that service as a condition of employment. But the employer should be free to so require, because whether that service is an essential part of the job depends entirely on the promises the employer wants to make to customers. And certainly if the provider has reservations, he has a duty to let the employer know well in advance, not at the last minute. Religion should not be an entitlement to have your cake and eat it too.

For (2), the provider's employer should be bound by the promises it has made to customers, subject to full consequential damages if it doesn't deliver. And for any company holding itself out as a hospital or pharmacy that includes all legal services (or drugs, respectively) unless they prominently post a sign stating exceptions.

So many straw man questions here, I don’t even know where to start.

Most hospitals don’t do abortions. Most abortions are performed in clinics which literally have no other purpose.

The only reason for a third trimester * therapeutic abortion* is to dodge the law against infanticide.

Doctors who perform routine late term abortions are social outcasts which is why people like Kermit Gosnell got away with murder for so many years.

I’m going to predict that in ten years people providing trans surgery and hormones will suffer this same fate when they are literally sued out of business for providing these services to mentally ill children.

Should medical personnel be permitted to opt-out of a state-sponsored execution? have we gotten rid of first, do no harm?

Do you think using the power of the state to force people to do things they find to be morally wrong to be reasonable? and if so, where do you draw the line? eugenics? offing old people because they're a drain on society? the mentally and physically disabled for the same reason?

> Do you think using the power
> of the state to force people
> to do things they find to be
> morally wrong to be
> reasonable?

Depends on what they're getting from the state. Year ago I thought pharmacists shouldn't be compelled to sell the morning-after pill if they sincerely thought that abortion was murder.

Reynolds cleared my head with a teentsy-little blog post.

During medical school in 1988, the resident on my OB-GYN rotation permitted any med student with a moral objection to abortion to skip participating in abortions. So even 31 years ago (at a university whose progressive credentials were unquestioned) this procedure was viewed as categorically different than all others, since that option was offered to us on no other occasion.

Once again, it is the right that allows people to choose what they want to do, and the left that forces people to do things against their conscience.

So tell me again why it is the right that is portrayed as fascist?

Answer: Leftist projection

Everyone has the right to decline to participate in anything for any reason. Or no reason at all.

And that's a good thing.

Would you really want someone performing a procedure on your body when they don't want to and believe doing so would subject them to punishment from their SkyDaddy?

Yes, this might mean they don't get hired for that particular job. There are other jobs, especially for someone with that level of training.

Block conservatives on facebook: No problem.

Block conservative videos on YouTube: no problem

Refuse to show trailers for Unplanned: no problem

Blacklist conservatives in Hollywood: no problem

Tell men they cannot get a vasectomy without their wife's consent: no problem

Forcibly take conservatives money through taxes to pay for things they believe are wrong: no problem

A gay caterer refuses to serve at a church party: no problem

On the other hand...

Conservative politely declines to serve at a gay wedding: WHAT?!?! They may go into the medical field and let gays die!

Conservative does not want to perform an abortion: WHAT?!?! They may let people die!

Catholic charities wants to adopt to married mothers and fathers: WHAT?!?! They may go into the medical field and let gays die!

Conservative thinks handouts trap people in poverty: WHAT?!?! They may let people starve to death!

Look, exceptions make bad rules. I don't think anyone should be forced to participate in abortions, cater anyone's wedding, etc. Just as I don't think someone should be forced to sell guns (and one could argue here that "WHAT?!?! someone could die without the self defense" here too).

I do not believe for one second medical provides will start letting gays or pregnant women die if they are forced to not participate in treatments. And in the unlikely event that starts happening, it can be dealt with. But this path of jumping to a ridiculous extreme is allowing the government tyrants to control more and more of our lives because they can always draw a "what if" conclusion.

Hospital Administrator (conducting interview): Doctor, from time to time, you may be called upon to perform an abortion at this hospital. Are you comfortable with that?

Doctor: No, I'm afraid not.

Administrator: I don't think you'd be a good fit here. Thank you for your time.

This whole thing doesn't strike me as particularly complicated.

Advancing his anti-abortion agenda...

I was thinking of it as advancing a pro-freedom of choice agenda.

...some critics fear it will become a pretext for denying medical attention to LGBT people or women seeking abortions, a legal medical procedure.

A woman seeking an abortion would probably seek the services of someone offering to perform abortions, just like people seeking other types of services, for example lithotripsy, would seek the services of someone offering to provide lithotripsy. I doubt that allowing people who don't provide abortions to opt out of providing abortions will have any great effect on the availability of people offering to provide abortions.

I suppose this could be seen by some as a devious attempt to open the door for right wing misogynists to deny medical attention to women by taking jobs at abortion mills and then opting out of participating in the abortions.

It's more likely that the conscience rule is seen by pro-abortion zealots as interfering with their goal of making abortion some kind of sacramental rite of passage for healthcare professionals.

Would an OBGYN get to deny care to a woman because she's a lesbian? Would a black doctor be allowed to not treat white people? Would a conservative nurse get to deny care to a liberal patient? If someone showed up with an STD, could that patient be kicked to the curb because of a supposedly immoral lifestyle? How about if the patient was fat, smoked, drank, and had unprotected sex? Would that be grounds to deny care?

Unintended consequences, I see a few.

@:Advancing his anti-abortion agenda...

I was thinking of it as advancing a pro-freedom of choice agenda.
____________

Good point. Socialism has so taken hold in the minds of people, including people who are often libertarian like Amy, that they confuse the right to do something with the right to require someone else to do it. The right to bear arms does not mean the government funds guns, nor does it mean conscientious objectors must sell them -- even if the buyer claims their life is in danger. Likewise, the right to have an abortion does not mean those who think it is murder must fund or perform the procedure.

When I see all this talk about folks being "forced" to do things they don't want to do in life to be a member of society I wonder what they believe is part of the social contract.

We are all forced daily to do things we do not want to do... we are all forced daily to fund things we do not want to fund.

All of this is part of the social contract... and yet it seems like some folks want to cherry pick when and where they are part of society.

Shall we add a new constitutional amendment that permits tax payers to only fund projects they personally believe in?.. there are lots of things I would like to opt out of paying for that I haven't been given a choice.

I was happy to pay because I thought the street went both ways, but I suppose it doesn't. So let's just each individually fund the projects we personally believe in and see how things go.

I am a healthcare provider and I would never assist in one. There is literally no situation where an abortion saves moms life but live delivery would not. Not one.

It's not just "something they dont want to do". Its against their moral code. More akin to forcing cameramen to film child porn. Its utterly unacceptable. And given the current shortage of workers IN healthcare, few if any employers are going to make this a hiring requirement. It's a nonissue to anyone outside the rabid pro-abortion no matter what group.

Momof4 Says:

"There is literally no situation where an abortion saves moms life but live delivery would not."

What about ectopic pregnancy?

How exactly does someone "deliver" an embryo attached to the ovary or fallopian tube?

Such pregnancies cannot result in successful delivery.

"It's not just "something they dont want to do". Its against their moral code."

Many professions compel people to do things that violate their moral code... generally the response they get is that they have chosen the wrong profession.

Would you tolerate police officers who refuse to engage in aggressive arrests because they morally object to violence?

How about veterinarians who refuse to put animals to sleep?

All professions have a standard for what is required and if you are unwilling to meet that standard then the job probably isn't for you.

“What about ectopic pregnancy?

How exactly does someone "deliver" an embryo attached to the ovary or fallopian tube?”

You answered your own question, and still threw up that strawman.

Removing an ectopic pregnancy is clearly not an abortion for all sorts of clearly defined medical reasons. It has no chance at viability.

Mom of four is correct as usual.

Isab,

Terminations due to ectopic pregnancy are defined as abortions by the CDC.

This is where conversations like this get really silly.

People will create their own definitions of abortion that don't include medically necessary procedures... and then claim that there are no medically necessary abortions.

This is dishonest and fallacious reasoning.

Isab,

Just to drive my point home, here is some data:

https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-united-states

"Abortions performed in the first trimester pose virtually no long-term risk of problems such as infertility, ectopic pregnancy, spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) or birth defect, and little or no risk of preterm or low-birth-weight deliveries."

Like it or not... terminations due to inviable ectopic pregnancies are classified as abortions.

What you are doing is creating your own non-standard definitions and then ignoring the medically necessary situations.

Even though I'm a pro-life Christian, I actually DO agree with Amy's premise: as long as the employer wants you to perform abortions, you should either perform the abortions or resign.

My Aunt, for example, wanted to retire in 2010 from the Social Security Administration, but after she found herself disagreeing with how the Bush administration wanted to handle things, she simply retired early in 2006 and has been enjoying her life ever since.

Isab,

Terminations due to ectopic pregnancy are defined as abortions by the CDC.

This is where conversations like this get really silly.

People will create their own definitions of abortion that don't include medically necessary procedures... and then claim that there are no medically necessary abortions.

This is dishonest and fallacious reasoning.

Artemis at May 5, 2019 2:48 PM

Do people walk up and tell you that you are a nitwit on a regular basis? If not, they should.

I was happy to pay because I thought the street went both ways, but I suppose it doesn't. ~ Artemis at May 5, 2019 11:42 AM

It doesn't always.

Quakers and other conscientious objectors were excused from the draft for military duty, provided they met the standards set for being classified as a conscientious objector.

As a birthright Quaker, Richard Nixon could have claimed an automatic exemption from the draft, but felt it was his duty (and to his political advantage) to join the Navy in World War II. Of course, as a Quaker, he was also supposed to refrain from drinking and swearing, so perhaps he just wasn't a very good Quaker.

People who say they would have trouble rendering an impartial verdict on religious or moral grounds are generally excused from jury duty, provided the judge does not perceive their objection as a ploy to avoid jury duty.

The various Civil Rights acts and arguments are, on the other hand, founded on the principle that having a free market and a free society means not being able to arbitrarily exclude others from participation in it, no matter one's moral view. So, you don't get to say you morally object to having "those people" in your shop or your employ.

There's a degree of difference, however.

Gay marriage, in one example, involves more than access to a market and society and, thus, falls into a bit of a grayer area where it can be, and is being, debated. Marriage is, for many folks, a religious rite as well as a civil accommodation.

Abortion, too. Viewed as murder by a significant portion of the population, those objecting and their concerns should not be casually dismissed.

Requiring an abortion objector to participate, even remotely, in an act he holds as murder is bit different from forcing a pacifist to pay taxes that fund the Defense Department.

Performing an abortion is not a "standard" of the medical profession, nor is providing birth control or abortifacients a "standard" of the pharmaceutical profession.

Nor is objecting to abortion a reason to forego a career in medicine or pharmacy. There are plenty of non-abortion aspects to a pharmacy or medical profession that would attract a person to either.

Mind you, we're not talking about someone taking a job in an abortion clinic and then trying to weasel out of work by claiming a moral objection.

In addition, taking a job in a CVS or Rite-Aid pharmacy does not entitle one to dictate the company's terms of service due to one's own moral objections. If the company's policy is to provide lawful abortifacients or birth control and one takes a job there, then one is bound by the terms of employment to respect that policy.

In one's own private practice or business, one has a bit more freedom to dictate terms - within the law. And that law should respect and accommodate differing points of view and religious concerns.

Conan Says:

"Quakers and other conscientious objectors were excused from the draft for military duty, provided they met the standards set for being classified as a conscientious objector."

Right... the standards were extremely rigorous.
We never let folks just be excused from the draft because they claimed to find violence morally objectionable.

Those folks would have been imprisoned.

I am fine doing the same thing with health care workers.

Let them demonstrate a lifetime commitment to moral living (i.e., never had premarital sex, never did drugs, never committed a crime, etc...)... if they cannot do so then they can go to prison.

Conan Says:

"Nor is objecting to abortion a reason to forego a career in medicine or pharmacy. There are plenty of non-abortion aspects to a pharmacy or medical profession that would attract a person to either."

Who is compelling cardiac surgeons to perform abortion procedures?

It is completely legitimate to go into medicine and completely avoid obstetrics and a specialization.

If abortion is morally objectionable then just avoid that one specialized field. That isn't that difficult, is it?

As for pharmacists, their job is to fulfill prescriptions provided by medical professionals. If they object to a particular adverse drug combination their are avenues for them to object and/or raise concerns. They still have an obligation to fill prescriptions outside of those limited last line of defense circumstances.

JDGalt is right. This is a false dilemma. The scenario would be handled like any other critical care requirement, which is to ensure that there is adequate capacity to render care. There is no justification much less need to compel any individual to perform such procedures, even under exigent circumstances.

Also doing so would violate basic standards of care, which are constituted by both ethical and legal requirements on medical providers. In all cases, the patient must be provided with competent and willing care to support the best possible medical outcome. That obviously precludes forcing an unwilling and unpracticed provider to render care.

That's actually the underlying issue here, not an individual duty to care. It's to compel institutions themselves to perform abortions in all circumstances, which we now see include termination of live births.

Artemis said: "Terminations due to ectopic pregnancy are defined as abortions by the CDC."

No, they don't. Nobody does. Nobody includes ectopic pregnancy resections in abortion stats.

They're completely different CPT codes.

The only one including them in abortion stats is you, for straw-man purposes.

...if they cannot do so then they can go to prison. ~ Artemis at May 5, 2019 3:04 PM

You're awfully quick to suggest we send people to prison who don't fall into line with your way of thinking; and awfully quick to dismiss any objections they may have as secondary to government fiat.

That's a pretty authoritarian impulse, there.

I am fine doing the doing the same with health care workers. [sending them to prison] ~ Artemis at May 5, 2019 3:04 PM

That's not really your call to make. The First Amendment acknowledges their right to object on religious grounds; or on any other grounds.

Mark,

This entire conversation is about medical professionals refusing treatment due to moral objections.

The following is a direct quote from the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services that guide the operations of Catholic hospitals:

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/health-care/upload/Ethical-Religious-Directives-Catholic-Health-Care-Services-fifth-edition-2009.pdf

"48. In case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct abortion."

An extrauterine pregnancy is an ectopic pregnancy.

In other words... the stance of the Church is that it is morally objectionable to abort an ectopic pregnancy.

What this means in practice is that Catholic Hospitals will refuse to terminate the pregnancy until the heart beat of the fetus is gone... but this is a life threatening situation for the pregnant woman.

I have not made a strawman argument... you and others are just in denial of what this moral objection standard permits.

There are already people who morally object to the termination of ectopic pregnancies despite the fact that they pose a real and significant threat to the mothers life and cannot result in a viable delivery.

Conan Says:

"You're awfully quick to suggest we send people to prison who don't fall into line with your way of thinking; and awfully quick to dismiss any objections they may have as secondary to government fiat."

I am only looking for universal standards.

What did we do to folks who morally objected to the draft who couldn't prove some long held religious conviction?

We sent them to jail despite their moral objections.

As I said before... we force lots of folks to do things they don't want to do against their morally held convictions.

So let's either stop doing that altogether, or punish them all the same way. I just want to standardize things.

Personally I think it would be great to stop funding private prison systems because I believe they are immoral... and there are lots of folks who agree with me... but somehow that one isn't optional.

Many professions compel people to do things that violate their moral code...." ~ Artemis at May 5, 2019 12:11 PM

Artie, that was a pretty silly argument. I can think of no profession that compels the people in them to violate their moral codes.

In fact, most actual professions have a code of ethics and enforce compliance as a condition of licensure.

Because abortion is so politicized, we can't even acquire reliable, agreed-upon medical information and statistics relating to abortion procedures. I *think* that there is virtually no instance where it's necessary to affirmatively kill an embryo or fetus in order to save the mother from death or a serious medical problem. Where the is a true emergency, such as a tubal pregnancy or a need for an emergency uterine procedure of some sort, not even a Catholic priest who is also a surgeon would consider dealing with that emergency if the woman was also pregnant to be an "abortion;" it would be an unavoidable "double effect." If the pregnancy is far enough along, it may be necessary to get the fetus out of the womb, but it's not necessary to kill it too. It's not easy to think of a medical emergency that would trigger the doctor to refuse treatment due to objections to elective abortions.

“I am only looking for universal standards”

There is your problem. No such thing, in law, ethics or medicine. Everything is situational to some extent.

And since 99 percent of health care is outside the uterus, having some kind of “universal standard” for the medical profession in this area, is just stupid.

I am only looking for universal standards. ~ Artemis at May 5, 2019 4:32 PM

So are most authoritarians.

What did we do to folks who morally objected to the draft who couldn't prove some long held religious conviction?

We sent them to jail despite their moral objections.

As I said before... we force lots of folks to do things they don't want to do against their morally held convictions.

Artemis at May 5, 2019 4:32 PM

Going to jail instead of going to war was not against their moral codes. They were living up to their moral codes.

And we didn't send all of them to prison. Some were assigned to do community service. Others went to war as medics and corpsmen - one even earning a Congressional Medal of Honor in that role.

Conan Says:

"I can think of no profession that compels the people in them to violate their moral codes."

Come on Conan... exactly how long would a police office last if they refused to arrest people because they were morally opposed to incarceration?

The reality is that in general we screen those folks out before they go into the profession.

The same applies here. If you are morally opposed to abortion then don't become an OBGYN. There are lots of other medical professions that will never expose you to abortions even tangentially.

A dermatologist or plastic surgeon for example isn't going to be expected to perform those procedures.

Come on Conan... exactly how long would a police office last if they refused to arrest people because they were morally opposed to incarceration? ~ Artemis at May 5, 2019 4:50 PM

C'mon Artie, at least make a coherent argument. How many people aspiring to be police officers object to the incarceration of criminals? It's sort of the purpose of the job.

And since abortion is only one aspect of being an OB/GYN, an objection to it should not hinder someone from entering that field at all. An OB/GYN who objects to abortion can refuse to or can refer patients who want one to another doctor and continue to practice the specialty without violating his or her moral code.

“The same applies here. If you are morally opposed to abortion then don't become an OBGYN. There are lots of other medical professions that will never expose you to abortions even tangentially.”

Well then, Where you come up with an effective authoritarian enforcement tool to make the medical establishment organize their practices according to your cooked up rules of what an OBGYN should be willing to do, get back to us Kim Il Jong.

Until then I guess they are free to do as they like.

Isab Says:

"There is your problem. No such thing, in law, ethics or medicine. Everything is situational to some extent."

If folks aren't convinced we should let people morally object in general... then I am not convinced we should let people morally object in this special case.

I think we can agree that this is also an ethical position.

Conan,

My argument was coherent, it is actually yours that is inconsistent.

You claimed that you can think of no profession that compels people to act in ways they find morally objectionable.

I then pointed out that police officers are required to use force despite some folks morally objecting to the use of force... and your response is basically then those people shouldn't be police officers.

That is precisely the point I have been making.

If you cannot perform the duties of the job, then choose to do something else.

No one is forcing anyone to be an OBGYN... people who choose that profession know that sometimes abortions are part of the job.

None of that is a surprise.

Conan Says:

"Going to jail instead of going to war was not against their moral codes. They were living up to their moral codes.
And we didn't send all of them to prison. Some were assigned to do community service."

So folks who morally objected to war going to prison was part of them living up to their moral code.

But a doctor who refuses to treat a patient because of their moral code shouldn't go to prison to live up to their moral code because that would be authoritarian?

Look... if you want to say that those folks think abortion is murder and should not be punished that is fine... but the same logic applies to folks who didn't want to take a rifle and murder someone on the battle field.

If you are okay locking up one of those people and not the other then you are being inconsistent.

All I am saying is you should pick a lane.

Golly, you're a nasty little person.

Crid,

Not really... I brought up a legitimate point regarding the termination of ectopic pregnancies (something the Catholic Church explicitly classifies as abortion in their guidance document)… and was told by others that this wasn't abortion and wouldn't fit the bill.

I am still waiting for someone to explain to me what the Church means by this statement:

"In case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct abortion."

If ectopic pregnancies are exempt from this moral objection standard.

What I find nasty is that folks are willing to just let women die who are in medical need because they are in denial of the actual stance of religious organizations.

Apple-to-oranges, Artie.

Abortions are only a part of the scope of the job of an OB/GYN. The job can be done without ever doing an abortion - and, perhaps, never being asked to. An OB/GYN can choose to focus on childbirth and women's reproductive health without performing abortions.

And you didn't use the use of force in your argument, you used incarceration. The incarceration of lawbreakers is a major component of a police officer's job - almost its raison d'être.

And, no, I didn't say that a police officer who objects to incarceration should find a new job. I said that someone who has moral objections to incarceration would likely find little appeal in the job of police officer and probably not pursue such a job. Whereas even someone who objects to abortion could find much to like in being an OB/GYN.

If you are okay locking up one of those people and not the other then you are being inconsistent. ~ Artemis at May 5, 2019 5:57 PM

I never said I was okay with locking up conscientious objectors. I'm the one who's not advocating locking people up for voicing moral objections.

"...if they cannot do so then they can go to prison." ~ Artemis at May 5, 2019 3:04 PM

By the way, Artie, the country going to war and people attempting to evade the draft is a very different situation than a woman asking her OB/GYN about an abortion.

On a side note, I had a friend who, during the first Gulf War, re-registered with Selective Service as a conscientious objector. He was told what he needed to do to meet the military's fairly-stringent standards for being considered a legitimate CO. He was told it might result in a being sent to prison. Nonetheless, he set about meeting the standards, including attending anti-war protests. I disagreed with him about parts of his reasoning, but respected his commitment to what he believed. I have no objection to someone being a CO, if that's what he truly believes.

Institutional childhood. RECENTLY.

The vibe is like thunder, the vibe is an earthquake. C'MON, tell the truth

What I find nasty is that folks are willing to just let women die who are in medical need because they are in denial of the actual stance of religious organizations.

Artemis at May 5, 2019 6:09 PM
This statement is so incoherent, it literally makes no sense what so ever.

Why don’t you let Catholics worry about what their church says, and how they interpret it? It certainly isn’t any of your business.

I am still waiting for someone to explain to me what the Church means by this statement: "In case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct abortion." ~ Artemis at May 5, 2019 6:09 PM

If Crid is right, whatever institution you were raised in, it wasn't a Jesuit one. You've never debated a Catholic, have you?

The key word in that statement is "direct."

Conan,

Isab said the following exactly:

"Removing an ectopic pregnancy is clearly not an abortion for all sorts of clearly defined medical reasons."

How exactly do we square that circle with the Catholic Churches stance that:

"In case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct abortion."

The word "direct" doesn't help here.

Their stance is that terminating in an ectopic pregnancy is morally licit and involves abortion.

Isab Says:

"Why don’t you let Catholics worry about what their church says, and how they interpret it? It certainly isn’t any of your business."

Sure it is... because you claimed that removing an ectopic pregnancy was "clearly not an abortion"... but the Catholic Church objects to removing ectopic pregnancies on the basis that they are abortions.

I am simply using their stance as evidence that your original objection to my example was unfounded.

If you choose to terminate an ectopic pregnancy any Catholic could claim a moral objection to provide medical treatment despite the fact that a woman's life was in danger and that the fetus cannot possibly be delivered.

Conan Says:

"I never said I was okay with locking up conscientious objectors. I'm the one who's not advocating locking people up for voicing moral objections."

I am not advocating for locking anyone up either... my stance is a purely conditional one.

What I said was the following:

"Those folks would have been imprisoned.
I am fine doing the same thing with health care workers."

In other words, I am fine treating them the same. If you object to imprisoning moral objectors to war then we are in the same page and we have no issues.

Many of the pro/anti abortion fights are happening in legislatures. This is just one sides defense from the other sides legislature attacks or counter attacks or expected attacks.
Just like the defense of marriage act, was supposedly put in place even though Democrats claimed homosexuals aren't trying to change the laws to get married. Then look even with DOMA marriage changed.
With that in mind, Democrats who love putting every possible regulation on a business, hate any regulation being put on abortion providers, even ones on other similar businesses.
There are many fights over these regulations. But one of the big ones is if you are a medical clinic, what medical care are you required to have on hand and provide when things go wrong.
The answer depends on if you have an agreement with a nearby hospital. I think even some dentists have to do this, just in case, to meet regulations. But abortion clinics, it varies and is one of the big battlegrounds. Louisiana recently changed a law requiring abortion providers to have either emergency medical equipment or an agreeing hospital within 30 miles (like other clinics), it used to be 90 miles.
https://www.nola.com/news/2019/01/louisianas-remaining-abortion-clinics-face-closure-under-new-law.html

This may close a few abortion clinics.
The obvious Democratic legislature counter is to require all hospitals to perform abortions, and/or agree to back up all abortion clinics.
What happens to a hospital which has no Drs willing to perform abortions? Forced to hire ones who do it or force Drs you have to perform them. And there you have this bill as a defense.
If you think it isn't needed, I remind about DOMA, went from Clinton pushing it as an unnecessary defense of the social contract, to Clinton cheering it's overthrow by an activist judge.

...but the Catholic Church objects to removing ectopic pregnancies on the basis that they are abortions. ~ Artemis at May 5, 2019 7:48 PM

Okay, I've been in this thread way too long, but I'll throw this in there before I run away screaming.

According to the National Catholic Bioethics Committee, 97% of ectopic pregnancies occur in the fallopian tubes, so I'll deal with them. And 50% of those resolve themselves with the death of the embryo in the tube.

The NCBC breaks down three common methods of dealing with ectopic pregnancies.

• Methotrexate
• Removal of the embryo from the fallopian tube
• Removal of the affected section of the fallopian tube

Methotrexate is a drug that "targets the most rapidly growing cells of the embryo, especially the placenta-like cells which attach the early embryo to the wall of the tube." Since those cells are part of the living embryo, this constitutes a direct attack on the living embryo, a direct abortion.

Removal of the living embryo from the fallopian tube constitutes a direct attack on the living embryo, by default, also a direct abortion.

Removal of the affected section of the fallopian tube does not constitute a direct attack on the living embryo and, thus, is not considered a direct abortion.

Conan,

I believe you are ignoring key pieces of context. Let me summarize:

1 - monof4 said the following :"There is literally no situation where an abortion saves moms life but live delivery would not."

2 - I objected to this statement and used ectopic pregnancies as a counter example - please note that nothing you stated above results in a "live delivery" of an ectopic pregnancy... just a terminated fetus... but the mothers life was definitely in danger. So we have to agree here that ectopic pregnancies are indeed an example where abortion saves a moms life but live delivery is impossible. In other words, my objection was valid and correct.

3 - Isab jumped in to tell me that my example was wrong because "Removing an ectopic pregnancy is clearly not an abortion"... however, as your analysis has easily demonstrated, it isn't actually all that "clear" for certain moral objectors. There are all sorts of conditions and exceptions and considerations to determine if it is an abortion or it isn't... and despite your best efforts to create a coherent architecture, it will vary from religious observer to religious observer.

Let me give you an example of a catholic who disagrees with your analysis for example:

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/kschiffer/xxxxwhen-pregnancy-goes-awry-the-moral-ending-to-an-ectopic-pregnancy

"The matter of methotrexate therefore remains a question for individual conscience to resolve, until such time that there is an authoritative teaching on the question."

So for you the issue of methotrexate is crystal clear... but for folks at the national catholic register it is murky and a question for the "individual conscience".

No matter how you slice it, the issue of dealing with ectopic pregnancies is anything but "clear" as Isab asserted... and it wasn't a "strawman", but a very valid counter example to what momof4 asserted that turns out to be incorrect.

Lastly, the example you give that is morally acceptible namely the "Removal of the affected section of the fallopian tube" is also the most invasive medical option available with the most complications associated with it in terms of risks and fertility consequences to the woman.

So let's not act like this is a reasonable fall back position for most women experiencing an ectopic pregnancy and in danger of bleeding out. If they are brought into an emergency room and the only available doctor refuses to do anything but that procedure... that is not responsible or ethical medicine. They have deprived a woman of her best chance to conceive again by excising part of her reproductive system when it isn't medically necessary to do that... and it wouldn't be to save the life of a viable fetus.

Did a lot of reading about the Catholic teaching on extra-uterine pregnancies. A direct attack on the embryo or fetus is never to be permitted. This rules out using drugs to exterminate the embryo caught in a fallopian tube, or surgically opening the tube to remove the embryo and then sewing the tube up. Both of these methods may also preserve the tube. Instead, the official teaching appears to be that the tube itself must be excised. The teaching also acknowledges that, medically, once an ectopic pregnancy occurs, the tube is compromised and a deadly risk; therefore it can be excised before any rupture occurs. Obviously this teaching is controversial. As I read it, a doctor who follows this teaching to the fullest extent would not be endangering the woman's life because the doctor is willing to remove the portion of the tube that contains the embryo. This may compromise future fertility, though, so it's sub-optimal. Extra-uterine attachment somewhere else gets more complicated, but again, it seems as though anything that would be an "emergency" is going to involve bleeding because of a damaged interior organ. The doctor is permitted to remove the damaged organ, which is going to have the unavoidable side-effect of causing the fetus to die.

RigelDog,

Thank you for taking the time to research the issue as much as you have. Everything you say is consistent with what I already knew about the details of the Churches position.

Here is the main point. If a woman with an extrauterine pregnancy goes to someone who follows the teaching to it's fullest extent, they will be denied the least invasive most efficacious medical procedure in favor of the most risky medical procedure involving medically unnecessary organ/tissue removal.

We have been discussing tubal pregnancies which it the most frequent type of ectopic pregnancy... but not the only type. There are also ectopic pregnancies involving the ovary.

This means that the "moral" option for such a doctor is to excise the woman's ovary when her life threatening medical condition could be resolved without complications through the proper administration of medication.

That isn't the ethical practice of medicine. That isn't a morally defensible stance because the embryo in question cannot possibly survive... the woman didn't make some questionable decision to try and blame her for either.

She is just a victim of an unfortunate set of medical conditions and such a doctor would deny her the best standard of care in preference of pushing their own extreme and illogical religious beliefs onto her.

It isn't a first amendment issue when we are talking about the medically unnecessary removal of other peoples internal organs.

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!

First of all, this debate did not start over emergency abortions to save a woman's life. It started with performing pre-planned abortions, filling prescriptions for abortifacients birth control, and other tasks that ran against one's religious convictions. Things that could be planned for, for which arrangements could be made.

In emergencies, national or local, one sometimes finds one's convictions tested and oneself having to do things in an ethical gray area - you know, like tie down and gag a drunken airline passenger who tried to open the plane door at 36,000 feet.

What I find nasty is that folks are willing to just let women die who are in medical need because they are in denial of the actual stance of religious organizations. ~ Artemis at May 5, 2019 6:09 PM

No one, Catholic or not, is advocating just letting women die. The Church is trying to find a way for Catholics - medical professionals and patients alike - to stay within the faith's moral principles and still save her life.

And the moral principle is that an embryo is a living human being; that human life is a gift from God, not to taken casually - especially a life that cannot speak for itself or defend itself.

Artie, I haven't been a practicing Catholic for a long time. However, in the time I was a regular church-going Catholic, and even afterward, I never met any Catholic who was willing to just let people die.

It isn't a first amendment issue when we are talking about the medically unnecessary removal of other peoples internal organs. ~ Artemis at May 6, 2019 9:39 AM

Yes, it is a First Amendment issue. At least it has been when other religions have argued against surgeries, vaccinations, blood transfusions, and other medical treatments, even life-saving ones.

Are you qualified to determine that such a removal is "medically unnecessary?"

While removing the section of tube does decrease a woman's fertility, my understanding is that once there has ben an ectopic pregnancy in a tube, the likelihood of having another one in that tube is significantly greater. As such, her fertility has already been reduced. Not to mention that the organ/tissue is already compromised and a potential threat to the woman's life in a future pregnancy.

It's also my understanding that removal of the damaged segment of the tube is not the only invasive surgical option; that removal of the embryo from the tube involves invasive surgery as well, with all the attendant risks surgery involves.

So for you the issue of methotrexate is crystal clear... but for folks at the national catholic register it is murky and a question for the "individual conscience". ~ Artemis at May 5, 2019 9:36 PM

No, Artie, it's not "crystal clear" - to me or even to Catholics. Most of the reading I've done has indicated that there is a fair amount of debate among Catholic ethicists whether methotrexate is a direct attack on the embryo - that "since those cells are part of the living embryo, this constitutes a direct attack on the living embryo...." The article I read indicated the prevailing consensus was that it was a direct attack, but the issue hadn't been officially settled yet.

And, by the way, Artie, we're both referring to the same source. From your article: "For an answer to that question, I sought the expertise of Fr. Tad Pacholczyk, director of education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center."

The ethics of methotrexate in ectopic pregnancies are not quite as murky as you allege. Here's more from the article about the debate over methotrexate: "There are other ethicists who disagree. They deny that methotrexate is morally permissible because they view the surrounding tissue, and the ensuing placenta, as a vital organ of the fetus, essential to providing nourishment and protection. They would hold that stopping the development of such tissue is intending to stop the development of a vital organ of the embryo, which is to intend the death of the embryo." [Emphasis mine]

Father Pacholczyk advises, in that same article, "A person in these circumstances should learn about the differing views on this issue held by theologians and ethicists whose work is in accord with the Magisterium, and should then make a decision in good conscience."

Learn about the differing views on this issue. Hmmm.

No matter how you slice it.... ~ Artemis at May 5, 2019 9:36 PM

Let's see. That's at least the second time you've used that particular phrase on this forum in the last several days. This and other no-room-for-dissent phrases are the kinds of phrases in your arguments that make me (and others) view your arguments - and, as a result, your thinking - as absolutist, as black-and-white.

Conan Says:

"First of all, this debate did not start over emergency abortions to save a woman's life. It started with performing pre-planned abortions, filling prescriptions for abortifacients birth control, and other tasks that ran against one's religious convictions. Things that could be planned for, for which arrangements could be made."

What are you talking about Conan?

Amy herself posed the following question in her original blog post:

"What if the mother's life is at stake?"

In response to this monof4 had this to say:

"There is literally no situation where an abortion saves moms life but live delivery would not. Not one."

This response was made on the very first day Amy's post was up.

So on the first day Amy made the post she asked about what happens when a woman's life is on the line... and someone responded that a woman's life is never on the line where abortion can save her (a point that we have now clearly established was incorrect).

So what do you mean the debate did not "start" over abortions to save a woman's life?

Amy started that discussion in her original post and someone took up that conversation on day 1.

"No one, Catholic or not, is advocating just letting women die."

They are advocating the medically unnecessary removal of organs. So you are right, they won't "just let a woman die"... they will perform surgical procedures with increased risk of death instead of just giving them medication with better health outcomes.

The issue here is you are parsing words to carelessly.

Medical ethics precludes forcing patients into options that carry additional risk of death when safer options exist. Those folks are being flippant with women's lives... they are being callous with women's lives... but yes, they aren't advocating for their "direct death".

"And the moral principle is that an embryo is a living human being; that human life is a gift from God, not to taken casually - especially a life that cannot speak for itself or defend itself."

No one said it should be taken casually.

There is no morally justifiable stance to place the care of a completely unviable embryo ahead of that of the mother and result taking her live casually.

We are talking about promoting the medically unnecessary organ removal of women to handle a fiction of a "direct" versus an "indirect" intervention.

It is a distinction without meaning in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. The so-called "indirect" intervention always results in the death of the embryo... it just does additional and permanent damage to the mother.

That isn't the practice of ethical medicine.

"It's also my understanding that removal of the damaged segment of the tube is not the only invasive surgical option; that removal of the embryo from the tube involves invasive surgery as well, with all the attendant risks surgery involves."

Your understanding here is inaccurate.

All three interventions can be medically indicated under the correct circumstances.

If caught early enough then methotrexate is the least invasive medical option without any long term side effects.

If the issue is discovered after the woman is in significant pain and appears to be in danger of the tube bursting then it is likely too late for methotrexate to act quickly enough, so surgery on the tube will be necessary... but this is less invasive than tissue/organ removal and doesn't have the same risks to fertility down the road.

If the tube has already ruptured, then surgical excision is medically indicated and we are already in an emergency scenario.

The problem here Conan is that the Catholic recommendation is to push all women into the thirst most invasive and risky category without proper medical indication or cause.

It is like recommending treating every splinter in your finger with the amputation of your entire finger to "prevent infection", when you can instead remove the splinter and clean out the wound with soap and water.

Again, in the scenario of tubal ectopic pregnancy it is impossible to preserve the life of the embryo... there is no known medical path to transplant it somewhere else. The life or death decision has already been made before any intervention has taken place.

The choice to leave women with only the most invasive option is callous and unethical.

No one who thinks that way should be in the medical profession because your job is to heal others while causing the minimum damage.

"Yes, it is a First Amendment issue. At least it has been when other religions have argued against surgeries, vaccinations, blood transfusions, and other medical treatments, even life-saving ones."

That is for the patient... not the doctor.

A pediatrician cannot just refuse to vaccinate children because they are morally opposed to vaccination.

If a patient with an ectopic pregnancy wants to opt to surgery when given all the options then that is her right... it is her internal organs after all.

However, no one has a first amendment right to just remove your organs when you would prefer another viable less invasive medical treatment.

The important distinction here are the rights of the patient versus the rights of the doctor... the patient has the right to refuse the best medical advice for their personal care... a doctor does not have the right to refuse to offer the best medical care.

Question:

If one has a moral or religious objection to the harming of life, should that be allowed or disallowed across all spheres? For instance, moral objection to military action AND to medical procedures. If we can't allow one, j don't think we should allow the other. Just to be consistent.

Anon,

I have been looking for consistency here for years... you are unlikely to find it because it isn't convenient for the arguments some folks want to make.

As already discussed in this thread, some folks are okay with conscientious objectors to violence so long as they meet a list of very stringent criteria (including the threat of imprisonment). Yet they don't seem so keen on applying those same standards to this situation (in fact even suggesting that I desired universal standards got me called an authoritarian).

This is not a forum where folks want everyone treated equally. This is a forum where many folks want one set of rules for themselves and a completely different set for other people.

Conan,

You should also familiarize yourself with the following case from Ireland before you get comfy with your assertions that the moral objections of Catholics do not result in unnecessary death:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar

It feels like you have a very rose colored glasses view on religious intervention into the medical sphere.

Unfortunately there are real consequences to life when medical practitioners refuse to do their job under the influence of dark age thinking.

Also, you made the following bogus assetion in your post that I wanted to address:

"This and other no-room-for-dissent phrases are the kinds of phrases in your arguments that make me (and others) view your arguments - and, as a result, your thinking - as absolutist, as black-and-white."

Conan... this entire conversation has been about me adding nuance to a conversation that was absolutest and black-and-white and somehow that has all gone over your head.

Let me reiterate... this is the statement I was objecting to:

"There is literally no situation where an abortion saves moms life but live delivery would not. Not one."

That is an example of an absolutest black-and-white statement.

I don't see you raising any issues with it or pitching a fit.

I objected to that statement and offered a counter example where there was a situation where abortion could save a moms life and live delivery was impossible.

I added a grey area... I added nuance... and your interpretation of that grey area is that it is just another example of black-and-white thinking.

Furthermore, you are the one defending absolutist doctrine of the Catholic church which is about as black-and-white as it gets.

What I am saying if that not all situations fit the mold the church is trying to box them into.

That is shades of grey thinking Conan... not absolutist at all.

I feel like you are a side character straight out of 1984 sometimes.

Conan,

Last statement for now because I double checked something.

Here is how you quoted me:

"No matter how you slice it.... ~ Artemis at May 5, 2019 9:36 PM"

And then you proceeded to call me an absolutist black-and-white thinker on the basis of that quote.

But let's actually look at my full statement:

"No matter how you slice it, the issue of dealing with ectopic pregnancies is anything but "clear" as Isab asserted"

In other words, I am apparently an "absolutist black-and-white" thinker because I asserted that an issue wasn't clear cut.

You are a joke.

I'm late, but, for starters (this letter was sent to the New York Times Magazine in May of 2006):

"...if the same parties who put forth such a strong rationale for limiting (women's) access to contraceptives started to clamor for legislative protection for pharmacists who refused to fill Viagra prescriptions for male clients who will not certify that they will use the drug only in the context of connubial, procreative sex, one might begin to take their philosophical/moral/ethical concerns seriously."

Kyle Brown, M.D.
Iowa City

Trust said: Tell men they cannot get a vasectomy without their wife's consent: no problem
______________________________________________

The implication you made - wittingly or not - is that it's easy enough for a married woman to get HERSELF sterilized without telling her husband. No, it isn't. A while back, I mentioned that doctors are understandably leery about sterilizing almost anyone under 30 or so or sterilizing any married patient who wants to get the operation without the spouse's knowledge. Even Warren Farrell, when he complained about that in "Father and Child Reunion," didn't suggest that married women have it easy in that respect. So it's not just male patients. (Also, if you are NOT married, it's a lot EASIER to get sterilized in your 20s if you're male!)
_____________________________________

And if anyone here still seriously believes - as one allegedly highly professional person here did in 2013 - that "no woman in the Western hemisphere need bear a child if she doesn't want to" (as if Ireland, for one, didn't ban abortion before 2018), here's something Katha Pollitt mentioned this March:

"...Chile legalized abortion for rape victims and in situations where the fetus has a fatal condition or the woman’s life is in danger, leaving Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador, and the Dominican Republic as the only countries in Latin American where abortion is totally banned, even to save the woman’s life (which is not to say it’s always available even where it’s legal)."

(Do I need to point out, regarding those last 12 words, that having to take off time from work when you don't know how you're going to pay the rent, paying for gas to cross state lines or at least drive 100 miles, paying for a motel because of the mandatory 24-hour waiting period, paying for the abortion, and paying for care afterward, are not trivial roadblocks? I.e., if one doctor refuses to do the operation or give you the name of a doctor who will, you can't just go to another doctor, necessarily. What if the next one says the same thing, depending on your community?)

Pollitt also once said:

"What if it's not your life that's at stake but 'just' your health? Or your diploma? Or your job? Or your marriage?"

In 2006, historian Russell Shorto wrote a cover story on the contra-contraception movement. Yes, we need an update, but do we really want to ignore it when conservatives make it harder and harder for women AND men to avoid unwanted pregnancies until the day when you (or someone you know) go to get the Vasalgel operation only to be told "I won't do that" or "I'm not allowed to do that or even tell you who will"? Or the day that pharmacists won't hand out the male Pill...

Russell Shorto wrote a cover story
___________________________________

Forgot to say: It was for the New York Times Magazine. Here it is:

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/magazine/07contraception.html

Lenona,

I don't know how far you have gotten through the thread, but you will reach a point where some folks pretty much say they don't care about applying the same logic or restrictions to themselves.

They are fully aware of their inconsistency and are unbothered by it.

Moral objections only seem to count for "special" people.

And I assume we've all heard about this?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/georgia-abortion-law-governor-brian-kemp-signs-heartbeat-abortion-bill-into-law-today-2019-05-07/

First paragraph:

Georgia Gov. Kemp has signed into law the state's "fetal heartbeat bill," a piece of legislation that would prohibit abortion after a heartbeat is detected in an embryo. That is something that usually happens between five and six weeks into a women's pregnancy, before many women know they are pregnant.

(snip)

It reminds me of how, in many (most?) European countries, the restrictions on second-term abortion are just as strict as they are in the U.S. Why do Europeans tolerate that? Because they generally don't have to put up with such FIRST-term roadblocks as listed in my 10:01 post!

you will reach a point where some folks pretty much say they don't care about applying the same logic or restrictions to themselves.
___________________________________________

I know. See this:

"The only moral abortion is my abortion"

(it has stories about multiple patients)

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/anti-tales.shtml

You should also familiarize yourself with the following case from Ireland before you get comfy with your assertions that the moral objections of Catholics do not result in unnecessary death.... ~ Artemis at May 7, 2019 7:30 AM

Rigid adherence to any canon, religious or secular, will result in unintended consequences, and sometimes death.

Rigid insistence on wide-open access to abortion and insistence that it's nothing more than a "procedure" gave us monsters like Kermit Gosnell.

Furthermore, you are the one defending absolutist doctrine of the Catholic church which is about as black-and-white as it gets. ~ Artemis at May 7, 2019 7:30 AM

Artie, advocating respect for religion and religious viewpoints does not mean automatic and rigid adherence to them.

I was never a fan of Ireland's former rigid adherence to Catholic canon law - nor were many Irish Catholics, in Ireland or the US.

What the lawmakers who tied Irish law to Catholic canon law didn't understand is there is "more to being Catholic than abiding by canon law." Sounds like you don't understand that either.

The Church is advocating respect for human life, born or unborn. Now, I'm not in total agreement with their stance on the unborn part of that, but I can respect their argument - that human life should not be regarded as something that can disposed of casually, the mother's or the unborn child's.

I can also respect that medical science has far outpaced the ability of medical ethicists to keep pace with it. The problems and dilemmas posed by medicine today are wholly unlike those posed even a few decades ago, where people got "three score and ten" and then a few years of retirement followed by a fatal attack or a lingering exit by disease.

Modern medicine and science have enabled us to do things we could never have dreamt of even a generation ago. But they've also opened the door for a host of unintended consequences. We need sometimes to slow down and ask not if we can, but if we should.

And perhaps the concept of a human soul is as good a construct for that debate as any.

...this entire conversation has been about me adding nuance to a conversation that was absolutest and black-and-white and somehow that has all gone over your head. ~ Artemis at May 7, 2019 7:30 AM

Artie, you, of all people, do not add nuance to a conversation.

You weren't adding nuance, you were arguing against the position advocated by a religion - and showing marked hostility toward religion while you were at it, especially toward the Catholic Church.

Instead of breaking it down, you declared that the religion and its adherents were blindly adhering to medieval principles and callously butchering people or allowing them to die.

Artie, that ain't nuance. That word does not mean what you think it means.

Your understanding here is inaccurate. ~ Artemis at May 7, 2019 6:16 AM

The surgical removal of the embryo from the fallopian tube is not a surgical procedure? You sure?

According to WebMD, "If methotrexate therapy doesn’t work, surgery is the next step. It’s also the only option for women with high hCG levels, severe symptoms, and ruptured or damaged fallopian tubes." [emphasis mine]

Admittedly, this would probably be done, in optimal cases, with a small incision and a tiny camera, to prevent additional damage to the fallopian tube. Sometimes, however, that's not possible - e.g., where the patient has had severe bleeding or the tube has ruptured or been damaged.

In other words, I am apparently an "absolutist black-and-white" thinker because I asserted that an issue wasn't clear cut. ~ Artemis at May 7, 2019 7:35 AM

Not quite as simple as you allege. By using the phrase in question, you attempt to close off any debate of your position - saying, in effect, "No matter how you slice it, I'm right and this debate is over."

You debate as if you, and you alone, have the final word. You like stating your positions on things as if you were making proclamations from on high, enlightening the benighted masses.

Well, you're not. Unless Moses is bringing 2 tablets down from the mountain after talking to you, your position is as open to debate or as fallible as anyone else's.

...but a very valid counter example to what momof4 asserted that turns out to be incorrect. ~ Artemis at May 5, 2019 9:36 PM

If you go back to her comment on a 2011 thread, you'll note that momof4 was working on a nursing degree at that time. I don't know if she completed it, but I imagine even an interrupted course of study gave her some level of insight in the field of medicine, perhaps a bit more insight than what those of us who have not studied the field at all possess.

Mark later (at May 5, 2019 3:50 PM) backed up momof4's assertion, saying ectopic pregnancies and abortions are "completely different CPT [medical billing] codes."

Which brings me to this: You never answered my earlier question about what qualifies you to arbitrarily declare any surgery or medical procedure unnecessary. Or to immediately and arbitrarily declare someone else's assertion on medical terminology incorrect.

====================

Now, I'm going to leave this thread, Artie, before I get sucked into another of your Br'er Rabbit tar baby traps (too late).

I do look forward to reading your 3,000+ word rambling response calling me all sorts of names and impugning my character.

By the way, I liked the 1984 reference. Inaccurate, but it was still enjoyable. It's nice to know you've read a book, or are at least aware of them.

Conan,

You are so very funny... you called me an absolutist and inaccurately impugned my character by purposefully distorting a quote:

"No matter how you slice it.... ~ Artemis at May 5, 2019 9:36 PM"

Versus what I fully said:

"No matter how you slice it, the issue of dealing with ectopic pregnancies is anything but "clear" as Isab asserted"

And then whine and complain that YOUR character was impugned because I pointed out your dishonest distortion?

"By the way, I liked the 1984 reference. Inaccurate, but it was still enjoyable."

I wish it was inaccurate... but if you liked the reference then you will not mind if from now on I call you Mr. Parsons.

Conan Says:

"Not quite as simple as you allege. By using the phrase in question, you attempt to close off any debate of your position - saying, in effect, "No matter how you slice it, I'm right and this debate is over."

Dear god you are a moron.

When someone says "no matter how you slice it, this issue isn't clear cut"... they haven't closed off debate.

They have done the exact opposite and said that the issue is one open to conversation despite what other folks have said.

Up is down, left is right, war is peace, freedom is slavery... saying an issue isn't clear cut means the matter is not subject to discussion...

You really are Mr. Parsons.

It is amazing to finally meet a fictional character. It's like I just ran into the real mickey mouse.

Artie, I reread your arguments and found more than a few flaws in them.

You cited an article to defend your classification of ectopic pregnancy treatment (surgery) as an abortion.

"Abortions performed in the first trimester pose virtually no long-term risk of problems such as infertility, ectopic pregnancy, spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) or birth defect, and little or no risk of preterm or low-birth-weight deliveries."

Like it or not... terminations due to inviable ectopic pregnancies are classified as abortions. ~ Artemis at May 5, 2019 2:56 PM

You really need to read your own cites better. The article says first-trimester abortions "...pose virtually no long-term risk of problems such as...." It talks about ectopic pregnancy in terms of risks resulting from having a first trimester abortion, saying there is little-to-no risk of a later ectopic pregnancy if a woman has a first trimester abortion. The section you quoted does not say that terminating an ectopic pregnancy is an abortion.

Now, about your phrasing:

When someone says "no matter how you slice it, this issue isn't clear cut"... they haven't closed off debate. ~ Artemis at May 7, 2019 10:37 AM

Yes. They have.

When the first person says, "this is a pretty clear cut issue," and the second person says, "no matter how you slice it, the issue isn't clear cut," the second person is trying to cut off any debate on whether the issue is clear cut and, by extension, any debate on the original issue.

You advocated a position that people with moral objections to abortion should not be allowed to opt out of procedures that involve abortion. Part of the social contract, I believe you called it.

Then you got lost in the trees. You brought up a very specific, and unlikely situation and few of them require emergency surgery - i.e., most of the surgeries for such a condition would be planned in advance and have a window to accommodate religious objectors, if any, ahead of time. Amy's "What if the mother's life is at stake?" does not by itself postulate an emergency situation with no planning window.

You casually dismissed three people's arguments that terminating an ectopic pregnancy is not classified as an abortion, insisting you proved them wrong. But you didn't actually prove anything wrong - certainly not using the faulty cite.

You then selectively cited the NCBC on Catholic canon law regarding direct vs. indirect attacks on the embedded embryo, calling the third option, removal of the affected fallopian tube, "medically unnecessary organ/tissue removal."

I, in turn, defended the Church's position - only in principle - because I believe human life should not be casually snuffed out, even in its embryonic stages and I see some merit to the Church's position regarding that. Now, when that embryo actually becomes a "human" life is up for debate and I don't claim to have an answer for that one.

You were perfectly okay with arbitrarily closing certain occupations to people with religious objections to some of the tasks associated with them, however distant that association might be, even advocating throwing people in jail who refuse to perform the objected tasks. Your authoritarian streak is showing.

Artie, your usual way of arguing is to nitpick small issues to death, missing the forest for the trees. And you missed the forest on this one big time. Not only were you wrong on the abortion classification claim, but you missed the boat on "medically unnecessary organ/tissue removal" as well.

The UK's NHS, on its Web site, describes three options for treating an ectopic pregnancy.

• expectant management – you're carefully monitored and 1 of the treatments below is used if the fertilised egg doesn't dissolve by itself
• medication – an injection of a powerful medicine called methotrexate is used to stop the pregnancy growing
• surgery – keyhole surgery (laparoscopy) is performed under general anaesthetic to remove the fertilised egg, usually along with the affected fallopian tube [emphasis mine]

Of the surgical option, the NHS goes on to say,

In most cases, keyhole surgery (laparoscopy) will be carried out to remove the pregnancy before it becomes too large.
During a laparoscopy:

• you're given general anaesthetic, so you're asleep while it's carried out
• small cuts (incisions) are made in your tummy
• a thin viewing tube (laparoscope) and small surgical instruments are inserted through the incisions
• the entire fallopian tube containing the pregnancy is removed if your other fallopian tube looks healthy – otherwise, removing the pregnancy without removing the whole tube may be attempted [emphasis mine]

Removing the affected fallopian tube is the most effective treatment and isn't thought to reduce your chances of becoming pregnant again.[emphasis mine]

I guess the Catholics aren't the only ones advocating the removal of the affected fallopian tube. That is, unless you want to argue that you're more qualified to comment on this topic than the National Health Service.

By the way, you've still not told us what qualifies you to declare a procedure "medically unnecessary."

Parsons out.

So, Artemis and those who feel similarly, how about circumcision?

"Like it or not... terminations due to inviable ectopic pregnancies are classified as abortions."

Medically, but then a spontaneous miscarriage is medically classified as an abortion.
Legally, abortion involves a fetus that can come to term.

So. let's follow this to its obvious conclusion. If one is a physician (or more specifically, an OB) one will be legally compelled to perform abortions on demand. So then anyone who morally objects to abortion decides not to enter medicine (or obstetrics.) Say there's a sea change in statistical beliefs regarding this among those with the aptitude to go to medical school (eventually not that far fetched with rampant immigration from Catholic and Muslim regions and their higher fertility rates) and there's critical shortage of physicians/OB's. Would you force med students to become OB's? Force all college students with good STEM grades to take the MCATS and frog march the high scorers at gunpoint into med school?

Make no mistake, that is the logical corollary to your position that the right to have something creates the right to have someone compelled to provide it.

My right to own a gun gets its very own amendment, 10% of the Bill of Rights, no emanations and penumbras needed. Does that mean each and every one of you fascists is legally compelled to sell me one on demand?

So happy to see all the leftist respect for the 13th amendment here, not.

"1 - monof4 said the following :"There is literally no situation where an abortion saves moms life but live delivery would not."

Momof4 made a slight error - she should have said "no situation that could otherwise come to term." From that you've run into arguments about how many fetuses can dance on the head of a pin, so to speak, splitting hairs about catholic doctrine, in an attempt to justify scrapping the 13th amendment for anyone with medical training. And all this flailing about with non-sequiturs is to defend a decision that ultimately comes down to forcing someone to perform an abortion at gunpoint.

"some folks are okay with conscientious objectors to violence so long as they meet a list of very stringent criteria (including the threat of imprisonment). Yet they don't seem so keen on applying those same standards to this situation (in fact even suggesting that I desired universal standards got me called an authoritarian)."

Just what are those standards? With respect to the draft, they only go to probing the sincerity of the belief. They do not try to judge the belief against any other standard. Among other avenues, if you're a practicing member of an established religion whose established doctrines object to all violence, and can establish that you didn't just conveniently become one the day your draft notice arrived, you're covered. It's broad enough to have included Muhammed Ali, who made his living bashing another man's head in.
I'm pretty sure even yourmost vociferous opponent in this discussion would be OK with applying existing conscientious objector precedents for avoiding military conscription to performing abortions. As such, certificates of baptism and confirmation from any Catholic Diocese would be sufficient.

"but you will reach a point where some folks pretty much say they don't care about applying the same logic or restrictions to themselves."

That needs a citation.

There's a pro-choice bumper sticker that says "don't like abortion - then don't have one!" "You and your ilk show that to be a lie.

Conan,

You are grasping at really unusual straws here just trying to make something stick instead of dealing with facts. For example, when you say the following:

"You cited an article to defend your classification of ectopic pregnancy treatment (surgery) as an abortion."

I wasn't making any "classification"... the entire point is that at least some "moral" objectors classify ectopic terminations as abortions.

And when I say some I mean entire religious organizations such as the catholic church. This isn't a fact that is in dispute, so whatever objection you are trying to make is nonsense.

"When the first person says, "this is a pretty clear cut issue," and the second person says, "no matter how you slice it, the issue isn't clear cut," the second person is trying to cut off any debate on whether the issue is clear cut and, by extension, any debate on the original issue."

Conan... you are clearly so desperate to try and make your indefensible point you have resorted to insanity.

We need to take a step back for a moment and take a closer look at terms and what they mean.

An absolutist is "a person who holds absolute principles in political, philosophical, or theological matters."... they do not admit alternative interpretations or exceptions.

The other side of the coin would be something like a subjectivist or relativist who holds that principles in politics, philosophy, or theology will be a bit muddy and that different individuals can and will hold differing opinions on the matter.

The pretty serious logical error you are committing here is you are calling someone who advocates that an issue is subjective as being an absolutist simply on the basis that they have stated that different people have different opinions on the matter.

What you have done is rendered the term absolutist completely meaningless... because even if someone holds that a particular issue admits exceptions and differing interpretations... you will call them an absolutist on the basis of excluding that the same issue also doesn't admit exceptions and differing interpretations.

This is quite literally an example of double think from 1984. What you have setup is a situation where the only possible way for someone not to be an absolutist is for them to simultaneously believe than an issue both admits differing interpretations and doesn't admit differing interpretations at the same time... your requirement is for them to hold mutually exclusive logical positions simultaneously.

Perhaps ironically it seems you have arrived at this completely broken logical framework on the basis of your own absolutist position that the moment someone says "no matter how you slice it..."... that no matter what comes after it they are now branded an absolutist... reasonable exceptions do not appear to exist.

If someone said any of the following after demonstrating that there are a wide range of opinions on the subject:

"no matter how you slice it, this issue is the subject of considerable debate"

"no matter how you slice it, this issue is open to discussion"

"no matter how you slice it, this issue isn't really clear cut"

"no matter how you slice it, this issue admits different interpretations"

A reasonable person would see that they fall into the subjectivist camp.

Only an absolutist reads six words in and draws a context free conclusion as if nothing that is said afterward matters.

Conan,

By the way, the first person in this conversation didn't say the following:

"this is a pretty clear cut issue,"

They said the following:

"Removing an ectopic pregnancy is clearly not an abortion"

If you are looking for an absolutist there they are, not the person who dissagrees with such a hard line stance.

It is pretty telling that you don't have much confidence in your position when you keep misquoting everyone involved to try and make your case.

bw1 says:

"So, Artemis and those who feel similarly, how about circumcision?"

I am against any procedure that isn't medically indicated being forced on someone without their consent... that obviously includs the circumcision of newborns.

I am not against adults getting cosmetic surgery, so if as an adult someone wants a circumcision that is up to them.

There may exist some corner cases where circumscision is medically indicated, but this kind of thing really isn't that common.

"Medically, but then a spontaneous miscarriage is medically classified as an abortion.
Legally, abortion involves a fetus that can come to term."

Take that up with the Church.

So long as someone can "morally" oppose involvement in a procedure on the basis that they say it is an abortion it belongs in the discussion outlined by Amy.

Now if you want to advocate that a physician cannot "morally" opt out of a procedure unless it is legally defined as abortion then we would be getting somewhere more logical... but the Catholic hospitals across the country would want to have a word with you.

bw1 says:

"Make no mistake, that is the logical corollary to your position that the right to have something creates the right to have someone compelled to provide it."

No it isn't... it is a fallacious corollary.

As a matter of fact, it commits multiple logical fallacies.

Firstly it is an appeal to consequences as defined at the following site:

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/26/Appeal-to-Consequences

In particular, it isn't logical reasoning to determine the truth value of a proposition on the basis of whatever you believe the consequences might be. Furthermore, your "obvious conclusion" completely revolves about an imaginary speculative premise:

"Say there's a sea change in statistical beliefs regarding this among those with the aptitude to go to medical school"

I could easily counter with "say there isn't a sea change..." and then nothing about what you've said holds up.

Secondly your argument commits the slippery slope fallacy detailed here:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

"The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture."

Please read carefully... because your unusual notion that suddenly we are going to be marching STEM grads off to medical school because of a flood of people from hyper religious backgrounds is an extreme hypothetical without substantive justification.

bw1 Says:

"Momof4 made a slight error - she should have said "no situation that could otherwise come to term.""

That really isn't a "slight" error for someone who attempted to assert authority as a health care professional.

Ectopic pregnancies occur in about 2% of cases and are screened for during all initial ultrasounds. There are tens of thousands of them every year.

Anyone in the medical field who dealt with pregnancy would encounter this on a routine basis.

In any event, even if we take your modified declaration of "no situation that could otherwise come to term." it would still be inaccurate.

There are medical situations where an embryo could in principle go full term... but an abortion would save the mothers life.

In particular, if during the early stages of pregnancy a woman is diagnosed with an aggressive cancer she has a really awful choice to make... she can choose to forgo medical treatment and try to bring the baby to term with the very real risk that the cancer will spread so by the time the baby is born her treatment prospects are extremely dismal... or she can choose to abort and undergo chemo and radiation treatments in an effort to save her own life.

The thing is that there are far too many situations that occur to make the kinds of blanket statements you want to make. By the time you have taken everything into account your objections are likely to look like a pro-choice position to a staunch pro-life advocate.

like it or not, there are in fact people who would say that a woman with cancer must proceed with the pregnancy at the risk of her own life by forgoing treatment.

"That needs a citation."

It is in the thread bw1... here are some direct quote:

I made the following statement:

“I am only looking for universal standards”

In terms of applying the same logic and restrictions across the board.

This was the reply:

"There is your problem. No such thing, in law, ethics or medicine. Everything is situational to some extent."

In other words... the proposition of applying the same logical standards to other situations was outright rejected via special pleading.

Keep in mind the conversation was about making moral objections. So the argument basically was that other folks shouldn't get to morally object because it was "situational"... in other words, only some folks get to enact moral objections.

@Kyle Brown, M.D: "...if the same parties who put forth such a strong rationale for limiting (women's) access to contraceptives started to clamor for legislative protection for pharmacists who refused to fill Viagra prescriptions for male clients who will not certify that they will use the drug only in the context of connubial, procreative sex, one might begin to take their philosophical/moral/ethical concerns seriously."

I don't agree with the laws protecting pharmacists who refuse to sell contraceptives (as employees). Like the county clerk with religious objections to issuing same-sex marriage licenses, if your religion doesn't allow you to do the job, DON'T TAKE THE JOB. But I don't see the cases as equivalent:

1. The consequences of blocking access to Viagra are far less serious than blocking access to contraceptives.

2. Has any pharmacist ever asked for such certification? If a pharmacy invaded my privacy like that, I'd take _all_ my business elsewhere and tell my friends and family why. If that's the policy of the owners who bear the cost of lost business, it's one thing, but if an employee drives away customers, it's a valid reason for firing.

@Conan: "[Catholic doctrine on tubal pregnancies is:]
Methotrexate [a drug] ... constitutes a direct attack on the living embryo, a direct abortion.

Removal of the living embryo from the fallopian tube constitutes a direct attack on the living embryo, by default, also a direct abortion.

Removal of the affected section of the fallopian tube does not constitute a direct attack on the living embryo and, thus, is not considered a direct abortion."

Let's apply this reasoning elsewhere:

Pumping poison gas into your house to kill you is murder, if successful.
Entering your house and shooting you dead is murder.
Bombing your house is not murder, because I attacked the house and not you directly.

That sounds like seriously messed-up reasoning to me - but not atypical for Catholic doctrine.

That sounds like seriously messed-up reasoning to me - but not atypical for Catholic doctrine. ~ markm at May 9, 2019 9:23 AM

I didn't say I agreed with it. I'm just trying to explain it. I think it's a convoluted way of saving the mother without violating the moral principle that every embryo is, by default, a human life.

They've kinda boxed themselves in there. As I put it in an earlier post, medicine has far outpaced philosophy's ability to deal with what modern medicine can do.

At what point is an embryo a human life? In another post, I said I don't have an answer to that one? Catholic doctrine has long held that human life begins at conception, thus the embryo is human under that doctrine. If true, then anything that has a direct goal of killing the embryo has to be considered murder, by default.

Keep in mind that Catholics are not the only ones holding the belief that life begins at conception. This is not a Catholics-vs.-the-world issue. If it were, it would be much simpler to resolve.

Removal of the fallopian tube does not have a direct goal of killing the embryo. The direct goal in that case is to save the woman's life without actively attempting to "murder" the embryo. That the embryo will die as a result is a sad, but inevitable outcome.

Now that medical science can identify and cure and resolve an ectopic pregnancy at the embryonic stage, the doctrine of life begins at conception is no longer an absolute fit and may need to be re-examined.

Is the direct/indirect distinction splitting hairs? Yes, but sometimes that's all you can in a moral dilemma.

I appreciate your point of view, but your counter example was a little too simplistic. Did bombing your house have killing you as its direct goal? Was there no other goal involved in bombing it? Was bombing your house done as an act of a legally-declared war? Was it an act of terror.

Politics also comes into play. If the church admits one exception to "save the life of the mother," abortion advocates will pounce and use that one exception to press for abortion on-demand.

Those advocates are in the same boat, however. If they ever admit that abortion is the casual snuffing out of life's fragile ember, they'll lose their "simply a women's health procedure" and "my body, my choice" arguments.

So, both sides dig in their heels and refuse to budge.

By the way, I think Georgia's fetal heartbeat law is extreme and will have unintended consequences far beyond what the legislature considered. Here, Slate make an interesting case against its overreach.

While I appreciate, in principle, the Church's stance on the sanctity of life, I admit it gets kinda messy down there in the weeds and I do not support all the specifics. Like Churchill, I'm not a pillar of the Church, supporting it from the inside; I'm more of a flying buttress, supporting it from the outside.

And, as I tried to explain to Artie, there's more to being a Catholic than rigid absence to canon law. Sometimes canon law doesn't address a situation and you have to choose the lesser evil; knowing that, in doing so, you're still choosing evil - e.g., do you kill the home invader, or let him rape and murder your wife?

While I support laws to allow abortion in many cases, I'm also horrified at the pro-abortion crowd's casual dismissal of that sanctity and at their demands for abortion on-demand at any point in the development of a fetus.

I don't agree with the laws protecting pharmacists who refuse to sell contraceptives (as employees). ...but if an employee drives away customers, it's a valid reason for firing. ~ markm at May 9, 2019 9:23 AM

As I put it earlier, if you work for CVS or Rite-Aid and their policy is to dispense contraceptives, you may not be a good fit as a pharmacist for them - unless they can make an exception for you (and that opens up a whole 'nother can of worms). You're pretty much gonna have to dispense contraceptives and/or abortifacients.

On the other hand, if you open your own pharmacy, you can dispense or not dispense whatever fits your philosophy - within the law. And, as long as you stay within the law, it should protect your right to have and observe religious principles.

I don't support laws that force people to violate religious principles without an over-riding societal concern - e.g., animal sacrifice or polygamy. I don't support blithely dismissing their concerns if they run counter to what some part of society wants. And I don't support imprisoning people who voice a moral objection without letting them have a chance to make their case in an objective forum.

Sorry for the wordy response, but I've learned that, when Artie is in the neighborhood, it's best to try to cover all bases.

Sorry for the wordy response, but I've learned that, when Artie is in the neighborhood, it's best to try to cover all bases. ~ Conan the Grammarian at May 9, 2019 10:47 AM

He has a tendency to nit pick minor points, missing the entire forest for a sapling that catches his eye.

And, as I tried to explain to Artie, there's more to being a Catholic than rigid absence to canon law. ~ Conan the Grammarian at May 9, 2019 10:47 AM

That's adherence. I really hate spellcheck; and Apple keyboards.

Conan Says:

"And, as I tried to explain to Artie, there's more to being a Catholic than rigid absence to canon law."

As many times as I have attempted to explain the logical flow of this conversation I still don't get the impression that you really grasp what this entire discussion is about.

This is not a conversation about whether or not all Catholics hold the same rigid view. That is nothing more than a red herring.

This is a conversation about folks choosing to impose their will on other people at the cost of their health and general well being based upon their own moral objections.

It does not matter if *all* Catholics follow such a belief system if it is plausible that some would.

There was a statement made early on that there were no examples of any medical situation where abortion could save a woman's life where live birth couldn't accomplish the same goal.

That statement was completely inaccurate (it is not a nit pick to point out when someone gets something completely wrong).

At that point someone else indicated that it was *clear* that terminating ectopic pregnancies wasn't abortion.

It was at this point that I demonstrated that the doctrine of the Catholic Church... one of the largest religious organizations in the world did not agree.

The point is that at any point some illogical nut bag could deny a woman necessary medical care and instead do harm in violation of their sacred oath as a physician... and do so because of some seriously messed-up reasoning as markm put it.

There is no place for unethical medical practices by physicians.

At no point did anyone say that *all* Catholics would hold to such doctrines... in fact I specifically pointed out that not even all Catholics agree.

You've gotten lost in the weeds and missed the point entirely... like usual.

@artemis, in no particular order:

"In particular, if during the early stages of pregnancy a woman is diagnosed with an aggressive cancer she has a really awful choice to make... she can choose to forgo medical treatment and try to bring the baby to term with the very real risk that the cancer will spread so by the time the baby is born her treatment prospects are extremely dismal"

That's not, strictly speaking, to save the life of the mother. It's to reduce the risk of the mother's death. The moral principle is logically consistent - it involves balancing an incremental increase in the probability of the mother's death (which is never zero regardless) against the certainty of the fetus' death. If one accepts that the fetus is as much a human as a born child, then a mother postponing cancer treatment to bring a child to term is the moral equivalent of a mother running into a burning house to rescue her one-year-old, the latter being something society almost universally lauds. She's facing an increased risk of death to save the life of her child.

Legally, it becomes less clear. No law compels a parent to enter a burning building to save their child, although a firefighter could be held liable for failing to do so to save a stranger. While we laud heroism, we generally don't legally compel it.

The doctor's moral dilemma in such situations is like a firefighter who enters a burning building and finds a mother and her infant trapped inside. Neither can escape without his assistance, but the infant is trapped under some debris, and extricating the infant requires delaying the rescue of the mother.

If you are aware of a situation where failure to abort of a fetus that could come to term 100% guarantees the death of the mother, that would be interesting, but multiple obstetricians have claimed no such case exists.

"I am not against adults getting cosmetic surgery, so if as an adult someone wants a circumcision that is up to them."

Up to them, or up to them and a morally agreeable surgeon? (Remember the topic - in that context your answer is ambiguous.)

"In other words... the proposition of applying the same logical standards to other situations was outright rejected via special pleading."

Without more context (and admittedly, I'm being lazy in not finding it myself) that's not a clear conclusion from what you quoted. Personally, I'm all for a universal opt out. If a Janist doctor is unwilling to administer antibiotics because that would be intentionally killing bacteria, I don't have a problem with that, as long as he makes his position known to prospective patients/employers, although I have no objection to the free market denying him an economically fruitful career.

Finally, your claims of fallacies aren't as strong as you would like to think when you consider that the issue isn't solely about abortion or medicine. Since you speak of special pleadings versus universal standards, the issue really is whether entry into a professional field means one will lose the right to abstain from various activities based on one's conscience. The answer to that will influence the number of people willing to enter certain professions, and ultimately, may necessitate conscription into some professions. If you want professional compulsion, you have to be open to professional conscription.

Any time you propose that the government make someone do something, it's a good idea to mentally test your proposition by appending "at gunpoint" to the end of it, because ultimately, that's how government gets things done when people get obdurate, and people are prone to do.

@Markm: "1. The consequences of blocking access to Viagra are far less serious than blocking access to contraceptives."

Not really. The consequences of both are no sex.

It's important to keep in mind that the entire controversy here is based on peoples' desire for sexual gratification, not exactly the highest order of nobel aspirations. If conception was universally difficult and unpleasant, no one would be arguing about abortion or contraception. This is why Camille Paglia (not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination) asserted that the pro-choice crowd could never claim the moral high ground.

"Bombing your house is not murder, because I attacked the house and not you directly."

For that to be an application of the doctrine you'd have to establish to save whose life it was necessary to bomb the house

bw1 Says:

"That's not, strictly speaking, to save the life of the mother. It's to reduce the risk of the mother's death."

This is a distinction without meaning or justification.

Any medical procedure that is done to "reduce the risk of the mother's death" is done in an effort to save her life.

If you need to resort to nonsense like this to try and save your position then you already know you are way off in the weeds and refuse to admit that you do not have solid logical ground to stand on.

bw1 Says:

"If you are aware of a situation where failure to abort of a fetus that could come to term 100% guarantees the death of the mother, that would be interesting, but multiple obstetricians have claimed no such case exists."

You do realize your silly argument means that no one can be considered to have saved the life of another human being unless we can guarantee with 100% certainty that if not but for their intervention said person would have died.

Gun shot victim in the emergency room?... well maybe they would have pulled through on their own so the medical professionals pulling out the bullet, cleaning out the wound, and stitching up the wound didn't actually take part in saving their life in your warped illogical construction.

A person with pancreatic cancer with an almost certain death rate... well that whipple procedure didn't extend their life... for all we know it would have gone into remission on it's own... in fact there is an extremely remote possibility the doctors shortened their life. So I guess in this scenario the doctors didn't save a life either... in fact we might consider it murder since there is an extremely small probability that they shortened their life span.

A firefighter runs into a building to pull someone out of the inferno... they didn't save a life either because it isn't 100% certain that said person couldn't have gotten out on their own if given the chance.

Do you see how ridiculous your position actually is?

You have resorted to insanity in order to avoid admitting that you are incorrect.