A "good" abortion?

[Caesar]

Last year a priest told my religious studies class that in certain situations, murder is not a sin. For example, killing someone who is about to kill you or someone else.

Does this work for abortion? Say, a doctor discovers that a woman will die because of complications during the birth of her baby, is he right to perform an abortion to save the woman?

 

[mtr01]

Last year a priest told my religious studies class that in certain situations, murder is not a sin. For example, killing someone who is about to kill you or someone else.

Does this work for abortion? Say, a doctor discovers that a woman will die because of complications during the birth of her baby, is he right to perform an abortion to save the woman?

No, Caesar, it is never permissible to perform an intrinsically evil act even to bring about a good end. This is described in the Catechism in paragraphs 1749-1762

In this regard, your priest was wrong in what he taught your class. Merdering someone before they murder you is always evil. Same for an abortion…it is always wrong no matter what the intented outcome.

That being said, one is not helpless in these cases. In your first example, self-defense is permitted. If, in the act of reasonable self-defense, the attacker was killed, it would be morally acceptable. The difference here is that the intent was self-defense, not intentional murder.

In the case of a woman suffering with childbirth, medical procedures to save the woman’s life that may unintentionally cause the death of the child would not be evil. Again, the direct intent of any such actions MUST NOT be to abort the child.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Last year a priest told my religious studies class that in certain situations, murder is not a sin. For example, killing someone who is about to kill you or someone else.

Does this work for abortion? Say, a doctor discovers that a woman will die because of complications during the birth of her baby, is he right to perform an abortion to save the woman?

He is right to treat the woman and attempt to save both.

 

[DadOf11]

On the opposite side of this debate is the heroic events where some women (my wife included) would say that the babies life comes first - meaning do all you can to save the baby - even if it means her own life. Pope John Paul II canonized as a saint an Italian woman (wish I remebered her name) who did just that. She had cancer - but treatment for that would assuredly kill the baby. She was probably within her right to go through with the treatment for cancer - but she refused. She waited until she delivered her baby - but by then it was too late. She died shortly after giving birth.

This wasn’t exactly within the bounds of the OP - but I thought it was a concept in line with the topic. So many people can’t even fathom this type of a sacrifice.

God Bless,
DadOf11

 

[dal11]

Saint Gianna Beretta Mola

 

[RyanL]

…For example, killing someone who is about to kill you or someone else.

As has been said, you can never do good by doing evil. That is not morally permissible – the ends do not justify the means. Commonly put, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. As has also been said, you cannot murder someone because they’re going to murder you at some indefinite point in the future. Preemptive killing is not morally permissible.

And yet…you can morally kill someone in self defense.

How is this? This is the case if the self-defense is proportionate to the threat. You cannot morally kill a man who pushes you, even though you would be acting in self defense. You cannot morally kill a man who is coming at you with a knife if you can simply shut and lock the door in between you and run away (and there’s plenty of time to do so). It is only when you are acting exclusively intending to save your own life that you might be justified in taking the life of another.

Again, how is this? This is so because of “double effect”. There are two effects which are present: (1) saving your own life and (2) slaying the aggressor. What you intend to do is save your own life, which is morally permissible. If this may only be accomplished by killing the gun-wielding mad man, that is the least harmful means of accomplishing (1). (2) is not the intended effect, and therefore it is a second, unintended effect for which you are not morally culpable.

In the abortion context, this would play out in cases of (among a few other rare instances) ectopic pregnancies. This is where the embryo implants in the fallopian tube rather than the uterus. If the embryo is allowed to grow, the fallopian tube will rupture and the mother will die. Can you now morally kill the embryo by directly aborting it? No. Why not? Because you’re directly attacking the human being (embryo) when there’s an alternate surgical means available to correct the situation without having to directly kill the human. How? You remove the fallopian tube. It is true that the embryo will die if this is done, but that is not the intended effect. The intended effect is to save the life of the mother, and no other life is directly attacked in this procedure (therefore the minimum level of harmful conduct is undertaken). This is the moral equivalent of closing the door on the knife wielding adversary in the example above.

What happens to the knife wielding adversary on the other side of the door? Your intention is not to kill him, so it’s not relevant for this moral analysis (unless you’re a utilitarian, and then the means never matter…only the ends…which is partly why utilitarianism is morally bankrupt).

Does that make sense?

God Bless,
RyanL

P.S.,
Aquinas on same.

 

[VociMike]

Last year a priest told my religious studies class that in certain situations, murder is not a sin. For example, killing someone who is about to kill you or someone else.

Umm, that’s not murder.

As to the rest of your question, suppose a woman has a teenage old daughter, and the woman has severe heart disease and will die within a very few days without a heart transplant, and none are forthcoming. Can the mother have the daughter killed to get her heart for a transplant?

 

[Neo_Canaan]

There ain’t no such thing as a good abortion @ all.

 

[leonie]

How about delivering babies early–too early for survival. If a mother has toxemia the only way to save her life is to deliver the baby. If the baby isn’t viable, is it okay?

Of course, both baby and mother will die if the baby isn’t delivered, so it’s the baby’s only chance, too. I can never get an answer on this.

 

[adr]

If you have to choose between both mother and child dying and only the child dying, the moral choice is to save the mother. Such cases are extremely rare.

The death of the child is a consequence of such a choice, but not its intention.

 

[leonie]

If you have to choose between both mother and child dying and only the child dying, the moral choice is to save the mother. Such cases are extremely rare.

The death of the child is a consequence of such a choice, but not its intention.

It is rare, but my mom who is an ob nurse sees several cases a year. So, perhaps not as rare as some think.

 

[BlestOne]

When I had my first child I had toxemia so bad they had to deliver my son early…I made them wait until we both (but especially him) had the greatest chance of survival. My doctor was a bit ticked at me but my child was a gift from God and I was going to make sure he was given the best chance of survival. My second pregnancy was twins… about 5 months along I lost one of them. At about 7 months they discovered why I was so critically ill, it was because of that loss. I spent most of the time in the hospital and the rest of the time in bed. In the end, I was induced over 3 weeks early because they determined I wasn’t going to survive another 48 hours…well…here I am! A testament to faith in our Lord’s mercy for sure! My son was premature and did have health issues but is a bouncing 6 foot 200 lb young man at 16 yrs old!!! I recovered too… heeeheee!

The actual chances of having a life threatening pregnancy that would require medical intervention in excess of premature delivery…i.e. a therapuic abortion are actually less than 1 in a million. This is so not an issue! Ask any mom who wants her baby…she would die for that child. Don’t think in terms of what you would do if you have never been there…because you really don’t know until you are in the situation…Ask a mom that has been there, we will tell you… the baby comes first.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

When I had my first child I had toxemia so bad they had to deliver my son early…I made them wait until we both (but especially him) had the greatest chance of survival. My doctor was a bit ticked at me but my child was a gift from God and I was going to make sure he was given the best chance of survival. My second pregnancy was twins… about 5 months along I lost one of them. At about 7 months they discovered why I was so critically ill, it was because of that loss. I spent most of the time in the hospital and the rest of the time in bed. In the end, I was induced over 3 weeks early because they determined I wasn’t going to survive another 48 hours…well…here I am! A testament to faith in our Lord’s mercy for sure! My son was premature and did have health issues but is a bouncing 6 foot 200 lb young man at 16 yrs old!!! I recovered too… heeeheee!

The actual chances of having a life threatening pregnancy that would require medical intervention in excess of premature delivery…i.e. a therapuic abortion are actually less than 1 in a million. This is so not an issue! Ask any mom who wants her baby…she would die for that child. Don’t think in terms of what you would do if you have never been there…because you really don’t know until you are in the situation…Ask a mom that has been there, we will tell you… the baby comes first.

Blest One:

Thank you for your testimony. Doctors aren’t aways right. They’re quessing almost as much as we are.

You’re not only Blest, you’re a blessing for your sons and the Pro-Life Movement.

May the Lord richly bless you and your family. And, May you find that your name is inscribed in The Book of Life.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Last year a priest told my religious studies class that in certain situations, murder is not a sin. For example, killing someone who is about to kill you or someone else.

Does this work for abortion? Say, a doctor discovers that a woman will die because of complications during the birth of her baby, is he right to perform an abortion to save the woman?

Caesar:

Then it isn’t Murder. What he’s describing - Killing someone who is about thmurder someone - is NOT murder.

Murder is the deliberate killing of the Innocent with malace aforethought.

The police officer who killed the sniper who was shooting the students and others from the clock tower at the University of Texas did NOT commit murder as his act was a defenive act which stopped the slaughter of the people in the Quad.

Abortion, any Abortion, is a different case, because the baby is helpless and can’t act with the premeditation and malice aforethought such as in the above case.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

As has been said, you can never do good by doing evil. That is not morally permissible – the ends do not justify the means. Commonly put, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. As has also been said, you cannot murder someone because they’re going to murder you at some indefinite point in the future. Preemptive killing is not morally permissible.

And yet…you can morally kill someone in self defense.

How is this? This is the case if the self-defense is proportionate to the threat. You cannot morally kill a man who pushes you, even though you would be acting in self defense. You cannot morally kill a man who is coming at you with a knife if you can simply shut and lock the door in between you and run away (and there’s plenty of time to do so). It is only when you are acting exclusively intending to save your own life that you might be justified in taking the life of another.

Again, how is this? This is so because of “double effect”. There are two effects which are present: (1) saving your own life and (2) slaying the aggressor. What you intend to do is save your own life, which is morally permissible. If this may only be accomplished by killing the gun-wielding mad man, that is the least harmful means of accomplishing (1). (2) is not the intended effect, and therefore it is a second, unintended effect for which you are not morally culpable.

In the abortion context, this would play out in cases of (among a few other rare instances) ectopic pregnancies. This is where the embryo implants in the fallopian tube rather than the uterus. If the embryo is allowed to grow, the fallopian tube will rupture and the mother will die. Can you now morally kill the embryo by directly aborting it? No. Why not? Because you’re directly attacking the human being (embryo) when there’s an alternate surgical means available to correct the situation without having to directly kill the human. How? You remove the fallopian tube. It is true that the embryo will die if this is done, but that is not the intended effect. The intended effect is to save the life of the mother, and no other life is directly attacked in this procedure (therefore the minimum level of harmful conduct is undertaken). This is the moral equivalent of closing the door on the knife wielding adversary in the example above.

What happens to the knife wielding adversary on the other side of the door? Your intention is not to kill him, so it’s not relevant for this moral analysis (unless you’re a utilitarian, and then the means never matter…only the ends…which is partly why utilitarianism is morally bankrupt).

Does that make sense?

God Bless,
RyanL

P.S.,
Aquinas on same.

Ryan:

Caesar is right when he says that one may morally and ethically act (with lethal force if necessary) to save the live of another and not only one’s one. Otherwise, society could not nave police and military and give them he ability to take the lives of others.

You are right about proportionale response, see below, but self defense and that of others is linked in Catholic Doctine:

Respect for Human Life

*2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful… Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge.66*

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM

There is nothing here about retreating behind a door, esp if one’s loved ones are in the house.

However, the rest of your post is completely correct and based on sound doctrine. But, I couldn’t allow the mistake to pass.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[RyanL]

Ryan:

Caesar is right when he says that one may morally and ethically act (with lethal force if necessary) to save the live of another and not only one’s one. Otherwise, society could not nave police and military and give them he ability to take the lives of others.

I sure hope I haven’t implied anything else! If I did, I was not sufficiently clear; my intention was merely to address the propriety of killing in self-defense and not societal protection or the defense of others. I’d be far out of my depth in a dialog about Just Wars and the like…

Respect for Human Life

*2264 …If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful… *%between%

There is nothing here about retreating behind a door, esp if one’s loved ones are in the house.

Actually, I believe the portion which I have selected does talk about the duty to retreat, described as “more than **necessary **violence”. If you can do less harm to accomplish the same end, you ought to do less harm. I’m pretty sure the Church would back me on this. If you can only kill to save yourself (or others) in self-defense, you may morally do so.

Would you agree?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[BlestOne]

Blest One:

Thank you for your testimony. Doctors aren’t aways right. They’re quessing almost as much as we are.

You’re not only Blest, you’re a blessing for your sons and the Pro-Life Movement.

May the Lord richly bless you and your family. And, May you find that your name is inscribed in The Book of Life.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

Michael…yes I am blest! Thanks for the prayer!

No, Doctors aren’t always right…they told me I couldn’t have kids (oh my goodness where did these kids come from?) They also have been totally wrong about alot of other things too. If I had listened to Doctors, my oldest would not have survived infancy and I would have died during the next pregnancy, So I guess none of my kids would be here.

All my kids have turned out pretty good so far, even if a bit twisted like me, they are all very prolife and profamily…My oldest applied to the city of Chicago for a permit to hold a “great to be staight” parade and was turned down (they feared it would incite a riot)…he did this at 17 as his community service for his school. My youngest is in a prolife group at her school and is doing her community service project to raise money for that. My middle one actually goes to public school and is trying to start a Christian Skateboarding Club at his school. I just taught them that things worth believing in are worth fighting for…and they took it from there. I wouldn’t trade my kids for anything!!! They are good kids and they help make me a better person too.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Ryan:

You are going to have to get someone whose acquaintance with St. Thomas Aquinas is more recent then mine (I’ve read his sections on Just War and Regicide, just 29 years ago) and have him lead you to the appropriate passages. St. Augustine also wrote in support of the Just War Doctrine, but again, it’s 30 years since I read him…But, If you can read what these two had to say on the issue, you shoud be able to understand Just War Doctrine.

You’ve heard about what the cat drug in?..Well, The cat was helping the Orthodox Rabbi…

I sure hope I haven’t implied anything else! If I did, I was not sufficiently clear; my intention was merely to address the propriety of killing in self-defense and not societal protection or the defense of others. I’d be far out of my depth in a dialog about Just Wars and the like…

…The problem is that a murderous person isn’t just a threat to me, he’s also a thread to my neighbors, and if I retreat and hide behind the door, I’ve done nothing to help my neighbors, any of whom he may attack next…

Actually, I believe the portion which I have selected does talk about the duty to retreat, described as “more than **necessary **violence”. If you can do less harm to accomplish the same end, you ought to do less harm. I’m pretty sure the Church would back me on this. If you can only kill to save yourself (or others) in self-defense, you may morally do so.

Would you agree?

God Bless,
RyanL

Ryan, The Church doesn’t teach that the murderer is basically good and that he’ll stop trying to murder somone if I retreat. Quite the contrary, bitter human experience teaches us that the murderer will go and find a victim elsewhere, and that many murderers will murder multiple people.

My act of self defense may well stop a multiple murderer.

Don’t you think that would create a lawful duty to defend myself and others and/or to call the authorities if I’m unable to defend myself against the murderer?

The Pope was well aware of this, which was why he didn’t say that we had a duty to retreat. Wouldn’t you agree that Pope John Paul II who had no problem speaking about the doctrines of the Church would have told Catholics to retreat if he thought that was the doctrine of the Church?

Does retreating still sound like such a good option?

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[nMbR1BaRlOwGiRl]

www.abort73.com

It’s never ok

 

[Wendy-Kay]

How about delivering babies early–too early for survival. If a mother has toxemia the only way to save her life is to deliver the baby. If the baby isn’t viable, is it okay?

Of course, both baby and mother will die if the baby isn’t delivered, so it’s the baby’s only chance, too. I can never get an answer on this.

There are already provisions in the law and in medical protocals for these type situations. The intent is not an abortion but a consequence of.
Lots of women have to have fallopian tubes removed because of an ectopic pregnancy. The intent is to remove the tube and save the mother but the consequence is the child is removed and dies, too. There is no sin. Same for say, uterine cancer.
In this case, toxemia, if she is worsening despite bed confinement at the hospital and medications, the staff will still try to save both. Miracles happen!