The Question Of Tubal Pregnancies

A kerfuffle between Eponymous Flower and Live Action has arisen over the release of this video by Life Action.  Here is the video and my commentary will follow.



I believe the doctor is incorrect in claiming that all ectopic pregnancies will prove to be fatal to the babies involved.  In fact, a number of the children survived.  She seems to be confusing the term "ectopic pregnancy" with "tubal pregnancy".  It is quite common to confuse the two.  While tubal pregnancies are ectopic pregnancies, not all ectopic pregnancies are tubal.  The term "ectoopic pregnancy" means that the baby has implanted elsewhere besides the normal uterine wall.  He/she can implant in the tubes, but can also implant outside the uterine wall.  As noted earlier, some of those do survive.  However, I have no knowledge of a tubal pregnancy being successfully carried to term.

The author of the EF piece commits the same error in terminology - and quite a few other errors besides.  Some of those errors are committed by commenters who support Ms. Swetz's position.  For instance, David Martin erroneously states:

Abortion defined is the artificial ejection of the living child from the woman's body, which is exactly what happens in the "treatment" of an ectopic pregnancy. Therefore, it is an abortion. Ectopic pregnancy diagnoses are often just fabrications and used as excuses to eliminate the innocent.

This "definition" is extremely sloppy.  Notice that his definition doesn't touch upon deliberated death.  It might be helpful to differentiate between spontaneous abortion, commonly called miscarriage versus induced abortion, that which many prolifers simply call abortion.  The person committing the abortion always has as his/her purpose the intention of destroying the child.

Commenters named "Kathleen 1031" and "Dymphna" (also commenters on this blog), along with Peter Watson and "Fatty" attempted to interject some valid considerations into the overly simplistic take of Ms Swetz and others.  For their efforts they (particularly Mr. Watson) were treated derisively.  But don't take my word for it.  Pop over there yourselves.

Sedevacantism - Seducing From The One True Church

My blogging colleague The Eponymous Flower put forth a piece earlier touching upon the serious problems caused by Pope Francis' imprudent actions and remarks.  She makes two excellent points that we must all bear in mind as we try to deal with the seemingly nonstop barrage of nonsense emanating from the Vatican these days.

1. Faced with the incongruous proceeds from the Pope lately, many Catholics have become deluded by sedevacantism.  I said the following in a previous post but will repeat it again.  If such Catholics see flaws in the Holy Catholic Church and are distressed because they know it to be the One True Church, by what convolution of logic do they abandon that same One True Church?  Under no circumstance whatsoever can this sin of apostasy be justified.  These Catholics place their immortal souls in grave danger.  Still, another question must be answered.  For all the snarky comments I've received alleging that I don't appreciate that the Pope is a Pope of the world and not just the United States, I must wonder if the Pope realizes that he is the Pope of these traditionally-oriented Catholics who feel deep hurt at being dismissed as "rosary counters" and the such.  Do those commenters care about that question?  I will not hold my breath waiting for a reply.
2. Further down the article we see that the Pope is definitely infallible when four criteria of the Extraordinary Magisterium are met.  Otherwise, his teachings are solemnly binding only insofar as they conform to Tradition already set forth by the Magisterium.  The four criteria are below:
1. He solemnly teaches as Pope.
2. He teaches on faith or morals.
3. He teaches definitively.
4. He teaches so as to bind all Catholics.

I'll now touch upon a piece put out by Mundabor a few days ago called "The Bloggers, The Orks and The Uruk-Hai".  Not being much of a movie-watcher, I don't understand the references to "orks" and "uruk-hai" (whatever the heck they are).  I absolutely agree that we must shine the light and cry out when things contrary to the Faith issue forth from the Vatican (or even the Pope's pen or mouth).  We may no longer demure from that task.  However, I do think Mundabor crosses an unacceptable line when he speaks of "mocking him, ridiculing him, making him a laughing stock".  Ladies and gentlemen, it's one thing to shine the light on erroneous doings and sayings from the Pope; it's quite another thing to belittle him as a person.  He is the Holy Father; he is the Vicar of Christ.  His person must remain inviolate.  As we speak the truth about troublesome words and actions, we must take great care not to attack his person.  

But we must speak out.