ABC is not intrinsically evil when medical reason_2

  • Thread starter Thread starter josea
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

josea

Guest
Just an analogy: Imagine the case in which, for instance, a serious hemophilia could not be easily treated. The person should abstain from doing sports or living a normal “pseudo-risky” life juts worrying about dying by bleeding if an accident would happened. This person has two choices: to avoid a “normal” life or to take a medicament that, as prophylaxis and in case of an accident, would impair death by bleeding, to improve his quality of live. What is the normal thing to do? You can say that in this case taking the medicament is morally OK, but I did not give you this analogy to discuss the morality of an act that I know is perfectly OK, I told you that to show you that prophylaxis is a very normal medical treatment of a disease. You can tell the guy to abstain doing sports to safe his life but he can answer why should he do that if taking a medicine would allow him to have a normal live?

Dying because the reproductive function during pregnancy does not function like it is supposed to do should be considered as an illness and so should it be treated. When there is not other way, a treatment might be to prevent a pregnancy.

Why “woman A” does not abstain from sex? Because medically there is not reason to do it: complete sterilization solves the problem and because the couple tries to save what is left from its sexual life that it is also one of the reason why once they fall in love with each other: the unitive aspect.

For this, she would use medicines or surgery as a mean to achieve this goal and protect her life at the same time, as the nun does, and not even for medical reasons, when she uses them to protect her “personal integrity” and religious condition. In this case, by using ABC, I do not think one does evil to achieve a good; as in the case of the nun about to be raped**, there is simply not evil done**. This is what I have heard from some Church’s officials lately and this is not proportionalism.

Regards,

Jose
 
This is a continuation of ABC is not intrinsically evil when medical reason_1
 
If pregnancy may be a crisis due to some medical condition then the couple may abstain or use NFP. That is morally licit.

ABC is not morally licit. The ends do not justify the means.
 
  1. There’s a big difference between rape and the conjugal act. There’s a reason why Humanae Vitae bases its anti-contraceptive position on matrimonius usus and not coitus.
  2. Deliberately frustrating the procreative aspect frustrates the unitive aspect. To aim for the latter at the expense of the former is as contradictory as a triangle without three sides.
  3. As great as it is, “falling in love” is not the basis of morality. That’s an emotion, and is therefore entirely subjective.
 
The big question here is why the Church does not accept as licit the “switching off” of the reproductive function when the preventive medicine so advice it.

That should not be considered “intrinsic evil” at all. And so it is thought by many Church authorities. Here the sentence “the goal does not justify the means” does not apply because the mean is not evil by itself if used for medical reasons. On top of it one does not freely use this medical treatment to separate the two aspects of the sexual act but to safe the life of the woman if a sexual act would take place: one does not want to contracept. It is a medical necessity independently of how free the sexual relations are. It happens constantly in preventive medicine regarding other organs and functions and this medical treatment should be taken independently of whether or not one has sexual relations. This can not be intrinsic evil. Mutilation is intrinsic evil but amputations required by medical reasons are not. Amputation advised by preventive medicine is neither intrinsic evil, so should not be temporal or definitive sterilization in this case.

Jose
 
“Amputation advised by preventive medicine is neither intrinsic evil”

I guess that needs to be demonstrated, first.
 
40.png
josea:
Dying because the reproductive function during pregnancy does not function like it is supposed to do should be considered as an illness and so should it be treated. When there is not other way, a treatment might be to prevent a pregnancy.

For this, she would use medicines or surgery as a mean to achieve this goal and protect her life at the same time … In this case, by using ABC, I do not think one does evil to achieve a good … This is what I have heard from some Church’s officials lately and **this is not proportionalism. **Jose
Click to expand...
See my other thread post Re: Birth control for very serious reasonsthat refutes your attempt to redefine the pregnancy (in a “special case”) from an intrinsic *procreative good *of marriage to a life threatening condition that is seen as a medical problem that should be prevented.

See my other thread post Re: Birth control for very serious reasonsthat explicates and refutes the proportionate line of reasoning advanced by revisionist theologians called the “Preference” Principle or Principle of “Proportionate Good”, which supports the denial of the truth of moral absolutes basic to moral theology.
 
40.png
josea:
The big question here is why the Church does not accept as licit the “switching off” of the reproductive function when the preventive medicine so advice it. Jose
Click to expand...
I believe that a big part to your above question can be better understood as the reproductive function and the nature of conjugal love is more fully understood and appreciated. “Sexuality, ……is not something simply biological, but concerns the inmost being of the person as such” (CCC 2361); “Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all the elements of the person enter ……It aims at a deep personal unity ……and it is open to fertility”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top