[steve86]

Wrong on both counts. Many Catholic hospitals -- and I am Catholic -- offered the abortifacient long before being coerced to do so, which is not widespread. You would be shocked at a recent list of Catholic hospitals offering that murderous "service" along with other techniques of infanticide. These were performed even before RU-486 was invented.

The decision to offer RU-486 certainly wasn't under the direction of the Vatican -- I agree -- rather was a heinous decision on the part of hospital administrators.

Regarding ectopic pregnancies, the medical profession should invest considerable research effort into developing techniques to transplant the developing baby into the mother's uterus. If that attempt fails, as it usually would, then that's the way it goes. The baby unavoidably dies and the mother's life often would be saved. That is a whole lot different from murdering the baby -- not even giving it a chance -- at the outset.

I'm shocked and appalled you feel that a good faith effort to save innocent babies (along with their mother) is not consistent with Christian principles. The "mother's health" argument, as others have pointed out, it a slippery slope that has already been traversed. Most abortions done for the "mother's health" have nothing to do with ectopic pregnancy.

[IMRight]

The decision to offer RU-486 certainly wasn't under the direction of the Vatican -- I agree -- rather was a heinous decision on the part of hospital administrators.

The question then becomes to what extent (if any) the hospital can be called "Catholic".

Regarding ectopic pregnancies, the medical profession should invest considerable research effort into developing techniques to transplant the developing baby into the mother's uterus.

I'm afraid that's not possible. Such a pregnancy can't be detected until well past the point when any sort of procedure can be performed. I'd be in favor of anyone who wanted to try it (since it would be done long before mom's life was in danger), but the idea displays ignorance of how the baby grows.

I'm shocked and appalled you feel that a good faith effort to save innocent babies (along with their mother) is not consistent with Christian principles.

You're misrepresenting my position.

The "mother's health" argument, as others have pointed out, it a slippery slope that has already been traversed. Most abortions done for the "mother's health" have nothing to do with ectopic pregnancy.

Who's talking about the mother's "health"? I'm talking uniquely about not just a choice of one life over another, but a point when there is no choice at all. It's baby and mom die or baby dies and mom lives. The choice is only whether mom can be saved.