Abortion To Save The Live Of The Mother

[add]

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/125706-planned-parenthood-changes-its-stripes/page-5
See post # 92

[Papist]

Yes, and as you can see from the quote, the principal is highly questionable. I strongly encourage you to read the entire article. I think there is a strong case, and a much stronger case than the contrary, that the supposed difference between a direct abortion and the hysterectomy to remove the cancer is a fiction. Actually, I will just quote a little further:

 

The historical origins of double effect as a tenet of Catholic casuistry might provide a similar explanation for the unity of its applications. If one were to assume that it is absolutely prohibited to cause the death of a human being, then it would not be permissible to kill an aggressor in self-defense, to sacrifice one's life to protect others, to hasten death as a side effect of administering pain-relieving medications, or to endanger non-combatants in warfare. If one were to assume instead that what is absolutely prohibited is to cause the death of a human being intentionally, then these exceptional cases can all be classified as cases of non-intentional killing.

 

Critics of double effect might then claim that a better way of explaining what these cases have in common is to point out that they are exceptions to the prohibition on causing the death of a human being, and that the pattern of justification that they share requires that the agent acts in order to promote a good end and shows adequate respect for the value of human life in so acting. What the critics of double effect emphasize is that the distinction between what is intentional and what is foreseen does not explain the permissibility of these exceptions.

 

T.M. Scanlon (2008) has recently developed this kind of criticism by arguing that the appeal of double effect is, fundamentally, illusory: an agent's intentions are not relevant to the permissibility of an action in the way that the proponents of the principle of double effect would claim, though an agent's intentions are relevant to moral assessments of the way in which the agent deliberated. That an agent intended to bring about a certain harm does not explain why the action was impermissible, but it can explain what is morally faulty about the agent's reasoning in pursuing that line of action.

 

So the abortion is a self-defense act against an aggressor....the baby?  I am not buying that.

 

In your example of the pregnant woman who has uterine cancer. The removal of the cancerous uterus will result in the death of the baby but it would be permissible under the principle of double effect.

The conditions of double-effect are satisfied in this case: 1) The act itself is good; it is the removal of a diseased organ. 2) All that one intends is the removal of the diseased organ. One does not want the death of the baby, either as a means or an end. Nonetheless, one sees that the unborn child will die as a result of the removal of the diseased organ. 3) The good action, the healing of the woman, arises from the removal of the diseased uterus, not from the regrettable death of the baby which is foreseen and unintended. 4) The unintended and indirect death of the child is not disproportionate to the good which is done, which is saving the mother’s life.

 

 

Edited December 19, 2012 by Papist

[Kevin]

So the abortion is a self-defense act against an aggressor....the baby?  I am not buying that.

 

In your example of the pregnant woman who has uterine cancer. The removal of the cancerous uterus will result in the death of the baby but it would be permissible under the principle of double effect.

The conditions of double-effect are satisfied in this case: 1) The act itself is good; it is the removal of a diseased organ. 2) All that one intends is the removal of the diseased organ. One does not want the death of the baby, either as a means or an end. Nonetheless, one sees that the unborn child will die as a result of the removal of the diseased organ. 3) The good action, the healing of the woman, arises from the removal of the diseased uterus, not from the regrettable death of the baby which is foreseen and unintended. 4) The unintended and indirect death of the child is not disproportionate to the good which is done, which is saving the mother’s life.

 

I think I mentioned at the beginning of this, that there have been many cases of people one might consider as innocent who killed people - schizophrenics, for example, who may be as pure as driven snow, but because of a brain problem and through no fault of their own act as "aggressors".

 

Yes, you keep explaining it to me, but actually, there is really no point, because even if I accepted this, there would still be hypothetical cases or indeed actual cases (I am no doctor) where this doctrine would nevertheless require the mother to die with the unborn child who would already die if one of these methods were not applicable. Which is insane. I only hope that somehow, double-effect can be extended to such a case. I recall that there was a similarly insane doctrine about the assured damnation of unbaptized infants that underwent a slight qualification in order to avoid such an insane conclusion, so I can only hope this will happen, or that medical technology somehow makes this impossible.

 

 

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/125706-planned-parenthood-changes-its-stripes/page-5
See post # 92

 

 

 

I understand that the pro-choice lobby probably did distort the issue - but by question is not about that any more. I am not really even considering probable instances, but logically possible ones, and what doctrine would seemingly require.

Edited December 19, 2012 by Kevin

[Papist]

I think I mentioned at the beginning of this, that there have been many cases of people one might consider as innocent who were killing - schizophrenics, for example, may be as pure as driven snow, but because of a brain problem act as "aggressors".

 

Yes, you keep explaining it to me, but actually, there is really no point, because even if I accepted this, there would still be hypothetical cases or indeed actual cases (I am no doctor) where this doctrine would nevertheless require the mother to die with the unborn child who would already die if one of these methods were not applicable. Which is insane. I only hope that somehow, double-effect can be extended to such a case. I recall that there was a similarly insane doctrine about the assured damnation of unbaptized infants that underwent a slight qualification in order to avoid such an insane conclusion, so I can only hope this will happen, or that medical technology somehow makes this impossible.

 

I understand that they probably are. I am not really even considering probable instances, but logically possible ones.

 

What doctrine is this?

[theculturewarrior]

I am going to need to think about this thread.  I will respond to it later.  There are childish issues that I must attend to first.

[Kevin]

What doctrine is this?

 

This is from New Advent, but I think it's accurate:

 

The Catholic teaching is uncompromising on this point, that all who depart this life without baptism, be it of water, or blood, or desire, are perpetually excluded from the vision of God. This teaching is grounded, as we have seen, on Scripture and tradition, and the decrees of the Church. Moreover, that those who die in original sin, without ever having contracted any actual sin, are deprived of the happiness of heaven is stated explicitly in the Confession of Faith of the Eastern Emperor Michael Palæologus, which had been proposed to him by Pope Clement IV in 1267, and which he accepted in the presence of Gregory X at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274. The same doctrine is found also in the Decree of Union of the Greeks, in the Bull "Lætentur Caeli" of Pope Eugene IV, in the Profession of Faith prescribed for the Greeks by Pope Gregory XIII, and in that authorized for the Orientals by Urban VIII and Benedict XIV. Many Catholic theologians have declared that infants dying without baptism are excluded from the beatific vision; but as to the exact state of these souls in the next world they are not agreed.

 

Now this position is altered:

 

On this subject, the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allows us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism."

 

And yes, this is an alteration of doctrine: the first says "No Hope" the second says "Hope".

 

I really really really hope you don't want to say that the change doesn't mean what I take it as meaning, and that unbaptized infants are in fact damned (or put in Limbo, which is the same thing since the essence of damnation is exclusion from the Beatific Vision).

[Kevin]

I am going to need to think about this thread.  I will respond to it later.  There are childish issues that I must attend to first.

 

You shouldn't. Actually, I am going to abandon this thread, because it is distressing me too much. So at least, you'll have to carry on without me.

[Papist]

This is from New Advent, but I think it's accurate:

 

The Catholic teaching is uncompromising on this point, that all who depart this life without baptism, be it of water, or blood, or desire, are perpetually excluded from the vision of God. This teaching is grounded, as we have seen, on Scripture and tradition, and the decrees of the Church. Moreover, that those who die in original sin, without ever having contracted any actual sin, are deprived of the happiness of heaven is stated explicitly in the Confession of Faith of the Eastern Emperor Michael Palæologus, which had been proposed to him by Pope Clement IV in 1267, and which he accepted in the presence of Gregory X at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274. The same doctrine is found also in the Decree of Union of the Greeks, in the Bull "Lætentur Caeli" of Pope Eugene IV, in the Profession of Faith prescribed for the Greeks by Pope Gregory XIII, and in that authorized for the Orientals by Urban VIII and Benedict XIV. Many Catholic theologians have declared that infants dying without baptism are excluded from the beatific vision; but as to the exact state of these souls in the next world they are not agreed.

 

Now this position teaching is altered better explained :

 

On this subject, the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allows us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism."

 

And yes, this is an alteration of doctrine: the first says "No Hope" the second says "Hope".

 

I really really really hope you don't want to say that the change doesn't mean what I take it as meaning, and that unbaptized infants are in fact damned (or put in Limbo, which is the same thing since the essence of damnation is exclusion from the Beatific Vision).

 

Fixed.

 

_{NOTE: newadvent.org is not doctrine.}

[Kevin]

Fixed.

 

_{NOTE: newadvent.org is not doctrine.}

 

I definitely understand that it isn't from the mouth of the Church, but it cited enough encyclicals to give it credibility as reflecting the position of the church.

 

However, as I said, I'm disengaging from this, because it is too stressful for me.

[Papist]

I definitely understand that it isn't from the mouth of the Church, but it cited enough encyclicals to give it credibility as reflecting the position of the church.

 

However, as I said, I'm disengaging from this, because it is too stressful for me.

 

Sorry. I didn't mean to upset you.

[KnightofChrist]

I definitely understand that it isn't from the mouth of the Church, but it cited enough encyclicals to give it credibility as reflecting the position of the church.

However, as I said, I'm disengaging from this, because it is too stressful for me.

Because attacking the Church, calling her insane, is hard work.

[Kevin]

Sorry. I didn't mean to upset you.

 

No, you didn't. I am just upsetting myself - you clearly and reasonably stated the Church's position. I just don't want to spend the rest of my Christmas hung over something that may only exist in the hypothetical. So I'm letting it go. I am sorry if I have some off as combative, I know I become like that at times.

[Kevin]

Because attacking the Church, calling her insane, is hard work.

 

I never said the Church was insane, nor did I intend it to be name calling. However, perhaps I deserve to be treated with hostility because of my aggressive rhetoric. But I still don't understand how such a position is defensible, when it feels completely wrong to me. Maybe I am just not smart enough to understand the Church's position. I am not saying that out of false humility. And I...it's not an attack...I love the Church and I would have been lost without it, but when it says something or seems to say something that feels wrong to me, then if I didn't say something my love would just be hypocrisy.

 

But, I hope that I just don't understand right. I have also just found out some very stressing news that has nothing to do with this. So, I'm just going to say I don't understand and call it a day. Again, I am sorry if I hurt anybodies feelings, I didn't mean it.

[Tantum Ergo]

One cannot kill an innocent human being, even if good may come of it. 

 

You seem to be hung up on the example of a mentally deranged person wielding a gun. If a person is shooting a gun at you, they are clearly an aggressor, and you have the right to defend yourself. The person's mental problems may lessen, or even eliminate, their moral culpability for their action. But they still commit an aggressive act against you that directly threatens your life, and you have a right to defend your life against an aggressor. 

 

A baby in it's mother's womb, on the other hand, is in no way an aggressor. A baby cannot attack or kill anyone. The poor baby does nothing but exist. If a baby's very existence threatened it's mother's life, then all pregnant women would be in mortal danger. Rather, it is not the baby itself that threatens the mother's life, but some medical problem or disease. Thus we cannot kill the baby directly, but we can do all we can to treat the medical problem. In some cases, the medical treatment may unfortunately lead to the baby's death (for example, a hysterectomy). 

 

Even if, theoretically, a person's very existence threatened our own life, we cannot morally kill them. We cannot kill someone for simply existing. Self-defense implies that there is an aggressive action to defend against. Existing is not an aggressive act. That person has just as much a right to live as you. Their quality of life or potential length of life on this earth does not matter. They still have infinite dignity as a person made in the image of God.

 

The same principle can be seen in the just war teaching. Even in a just war, a soldier cannot intentionally kill a non-combatant/civilian, for any reason. Even if, theoretically, the just side would be guaranteed to win the war by killing civilians, it could not morally be done. The dropping of the bomb at hiroshima, for example, was a horrendously immoral act. We cannot kill innocent people so that a perceived good may come of it. That opens up a whole pandora's box. It wouldn't stop at abortion. It would be used to justify killing civilians in wartime, euthanasia, "mercy killing" of the mentally or physically disabled, and many other evils. Killing an innocent person is always evil and cannot ever be justified. 

 

I hope this explains it a little more clearly. This certainly can be a hard teaching to understand, and for sure many struggle with it. I truly hope you find peace in whatever struggles have come your way. 

 

 

 

Edited December 20, 2012 by Tantum Ergo

[Kevin]

 

A baby in it's mother's womb, on the other hand, is in no way an aggressor. A baby cannot attack or kill anyone. The poor baby does nothing but exist. If a baby's very existence threatened it's mother's life, then all pregnant women would be in mortal danger. Rather, it is not the baby itself that threatens the mother's life, but some medical problem or disease. Thus we cannot kill the baby directly, but we can do all we can to treat the medical problem. In some cases, the medical treatment may unfortunately lead to the baby's death (for example, a hysterectomy). 

 

Even if, theoretically, a person's very existence threatened our own life, we cannot morally kill them. We cannot kill someone for simply existing. Self-defense implies that there is an aggressive action to defend against. Existing is not an aggressive act. That person has just as much a right to live as you. Their quality of life or potential length of life on this earth does not matter. They still have infinite dignity as a person made in the image of God.

 

I have decided that, it is probably as the scholar person originally said, and that a double-effect indirect abortion can be be performed in cases where the mothers life is threatened.

 

Edited December 21, 2012 by Kevin