Abortion: Absolutely NO Exceptions?

[GIMJ]

I apologize for the lengthy off-topic death penalty post. If there is more discussion to be had about the death penalty, which area would it be best to take it?

Go ahead and start a new thread in the Moral Theology section. If the Admins want it moved they will do that.

The fact is that using Church teaching one can either oppose and support the use of the death penalty. My question is not whether the Church makes exceptions for its use: it clearly does. My question is whether we necessarily should use the death penalty, even though it is morally acceptable.

I do not believe it is immoral to take the life of a guilty person, since God himself commands us to do that. I also do not think it is harmful to society to kill those who seek to do us severe, irreparable harm. There is a benefit to that.

What I question is whether we ought to show mercy to these criminals by delaying justice so that they have an opportunity to accept Christ and be saved. They have committed evil and deserve Hell for that, but then again, I deserve Hell for what I have done. Thankfully God in his steadfast love continually forgives me so that I may have a chance at entering Heaven.

I want to show others (even murderers, rapists, and child abusers) the same mercy that God has shown me, but if the trade-off is that society is worse off, then I think that for the better good we should implement a swift justice.

 

[Clonereject1138]

:

Yes, but what of the mothers? Mustn’t they be guaranteed equal protection as well? When the survival of the mother or child are mutually exclusive, doesn’t the mother have the right to save her own life (i.e., an ectopic pregnancy)?

priestsforlife.org/columns/columns2007/07-07-02absolutelynoexceptions.htm

She has had her life, a nice long one. The greatest thing ANY person could aspire to to is to save the life of another, and usher in the future. Thereby, in my humble and bigoted opinion, ANY baby is worth(and it is a tragedy to put worth on human life) more than an adult. They are the future, and must at ALL costs be preserved.

 

[Scottgun]

Take this scenario: If a soldier were protecting his comrades during an urban shootout and unavoidably injured or killed civilians, he would be in the moral clear. If, however, another soldier were recklessly firing his weapon for the sake of causing damage or in retaliation without regard to the potential victims, he would be morally culpable, even though his comrades were protected as a result.

The end result is the same: innocents die, but the intention of the different soldiers makes one’s action moral and the other’s action immoral.

Actually it is the acts themselves rthat make them good and bad. Defending comrades from harm is objectively good. Recklessly firing a weapon is objectvely bad.

 

[Seatuck]

It’s strange to have such a sudden change of heart, but I have been convinced. It feels good to say I’m 100% Pro-Life, without having to qualify my statement.

I now oppose the legalization of abortion in all circumstances. Removing a child from a fillopian tube is not in and of itself evil because it is intended to save life. If and when the day comes that a removed child may be placed elsewhere and preserved, then we must do so, but creating an exception for abortion in the case of the mother’s life removes that obligation.

Just a little fine tuning. It is not acceptable to remove a child from a fallopian tube. The tube itself or part of the tube must be removed if the ectopic is a closed one. I too pray for a day when the sucessful reimplantation of a child may be accomplished.
Try reading the following-

cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=57

 

[KarenNC]

Just a little fine tuning. It is not acceptable to remove a child from a fallopian tube. The tube itself or part of the tube must be removed if the ectopic is a closed one.

And it is precisely this that makes no sense to me.

An ectopic pregnancy is not viable from the moment of attachment and cannot under any known circumstances progress to even a very premature live birth. Thanks to a progression in medical knowledge and ability there are now options that are at least in some cases available other than removal of the tube that will much better preserve the woman’s future fertility, leaving her future sexual activity more “open to life,” and pose less risk to the mother than waiting until a rupture is imminent or has occurred to do surgery.

drdonnica.com/fastfacts/00005325.htm

It is my understanding that Catholics believe that we can accomplish nothing unless God wills it. God has provided humanity with the ability to learn methods of dealing with ectopic pregnancy in ways that are more conservative and better preserve future fertility. Why is this not viewed as a blessing? Is not insisting on using the more radical surgical methods when the other alternatives exist and are a viable option a rejection of a gift similar to insisting on waiting until gangrene sets in and then chopping off someone’s arm when antibiotics are now available to treat the infection in the first place?

 

[manualman]

Those ‘other medical options’ you mention are generally the use of a toxic chemical which intentionally and directly causes the death of the baby. The dead baby then will often be reabsorbed into the woman’s system instead of needing surgical removal. This is ‘ends justify the means’ reasoning. You think that since the goal is to better preserve the woman’s future fertility that justifies crossing the line between a surgical procedure that INDIRECTLY and unintentionally (if unavoidably) causes the death of the child versus purposely KILLING the child to get the disred outcome. This is not morally permissible in catholic teaching. The ends do NOT justify the means.

Surgical removal of ectopic pregnancy satisfies the 'Double Effect" principle.

1. The desired outcome is good. (Save the mother who will die)
2. The direct action taken is itself good or at least morally neutral (removal of the damaged section of fallopian tube).
3. The undesired indirect result (death of the child) must be unavoidable.
4. The action must have a proportionate outcome better than the alternatives. (Doing nothing leads to BOTH mom and baby dying)

Taking a drug to kill the stuck child fails the test, but removal of the tube passes all four.

 

[KarenNC]

Those ‘other medical options’ you mention are generally the use of a toxic chemical which intentionally and directly causes the death of the baby. The dead baby then will often be reabsorbed into the woman’s system instead of needing surgical removal. This is ‘ends justify the means’ reasoning. You think that since the goal is to better preserve the woman’s future fertility that justifies crossing the line between a surgical procedure that INDIRECTLY and unintentionally (if unavoidably) causes the death of the child versus purposely KILLING the child to get the disred outcome. This is not morally permissible in catholic teaching. The ends do NOT justify the means.

Surgical removal of ectopic pregnancy satisfies the 'Double Effect" principle.

1. The desired outcome is good. (Save the mother who will die)
2. The direct action taken is itself good or at least morally neutral (removal of the damaged section of fallopian tube).
3. The undesired indirect result (death of the child) must be unavoidable.
4. The action must have a proportionate outcome better than the alternatives. (Doing nothing leads to BOTH mom and baby dying)

Taking a drug to kill the stuck child fails the test, but removal of the tube passes all four.

Yes, it ends the life of the child a slight bit before it would end anyway. The means are not in any way going to change the end for the child. The death of the child is the result of the situation (the ectopic pregnancy, which is out of the hands of anyone but, in your teaching, your God) not of anything that anyone does. There is no way, no scenario, in which an ectopic pregnancy in a Fallopian tube is going to end up in a live birth…period. Not a somewhat early one, not a preterm one, not a one in which heroic measures might possibly save the child, none.This is not a “let’s hope for the best and maybe the baby will make it” kind of scenario. There is no “make it” in this situation. The death of the child is a given regardless of which method is used to protect the life of the mother. It was a foregone conclusion from the instant of implantation.

To me, it seems a simple case of pulling the best possible outcome out of a tragic situation and that choosing the least invasive means possible that are medically sound and do as much as possible to preserve the fertility of the woman is the most life-affirming and greater moral choice between the two.

 

[GIMJ]

To me, it seems a simple case of pulling the best possible outcome out of a tragic situation and that choosing the least invasive means possible that are medically sound and do as much as possible to preserve the fertility of the woman is the most life-affirming and greater moral choice between the two.

And exactly what standard of morality do Hellenist Pagan Universalist Unitarians use?

 

[neat62]

I was always taught that “new life” comes first…so even if the mother’s life is in jeopardy, if the baby has a chance at survival, the baby should be given the opportuntiy for life.

Now, as far as ectopic pregnancy goes…it is like 99.9% sure that the child will not survive…as it cannot grow within the fallopian tubes…a classical ectopic pregnancy never develops into a live birth.

 

[KarenNC]

And exactly what standard of morality do Hellenist Pagan Universalist Unitarians use?

Personally, I strive to live by the Nine Virtues

Wisdom: Good judgment, the ability to perceive people and situations correctly, deliberate about and decide on the correct response
Piety: Correct observance of ritual and social traditions; the maintenance of the agreements, (both personal and societal), we humans have with the Gods and Spirits. Keeping the Old Ways, through ceremony and duty
Vision: The ability to broaden one’s perspective to have a greater understanding of our place/role in the cosmos, relating to the past, present and future
Courage: The ability to act appropriately in the face of danger
Integrity: Honor; being trustworthy to oneself and to others, involving oath-keeping, honesty, fairness, respect, self-confidence…
Perseverance: Drive; the motivation to pursue goals even when that pursuit becomes difficult
Hospitality: Acting as both a gracious host and an appreciative guest, involving benevolence, friendliness, humor, and the honoring of “a gift for a gift”
Moderation: Cultivating one’s appetites so that one is neither a slave to them nor driven to ill health, (mental or physical), through excess or deficiency
Fertility: Bounty of mind, body and spirit, involving creativity, production of objects, food, works of art, etc., an appreciation of the physical, sensual, nurturing…

I also look to the philosophers, as did the ancients, as ethics and morality were the province of the philosophers rather than the priests.

Do I fail to reach my goals in this area? More often than I would sometimes like to admit. Moderation is particularly difficult for me. All in all it is a balancing act among them, depending on the specific circumstances.

 

[KarenNC]

I timed out on my previous post, so here’s the continuation…

I am, however, seeking to frame this argument within the bounds of the morality prescribed by the Catholic Church as it has been explained to me on these fora not within my own moral framework, especially in terms of the requirement to be as “open to life” as possible in all sexual and reproductive matters. To me, it seems contrary to both this requirement and to reason to needlessly destroy if preservation is possible when the outcome for the child will be exactly the same, regardless of which method is chosen and therefore, glaringly inconsistent.

Were the fate of the child not an absolute foregone conclusion in the case of a tubal pregnancy, I would not argue this with you, as I do understand the Catholic position on contraception and abortion (don’t necessarily agree with all the points of it, but I do understand it). All in all, to insist on on calling such a situation a willful abortion equivalent to intentionally ending a potentially viable pregnancy and therefore knowingly causing harm to the woman’s future fertility (and possible survival) when such is not required medically seems to me to be incredibly needlessly and counterproductively legalistic.

 

[GIMJ]

Personally, I strive to live by the Nine Virtues

Wisdom: Good judgment, the ability to perceive people and situations correctly, deliberate about and decide on the correct response
Piety: Correct observance of ritual and social traditions; the maintenance of the agreements, (both personal and societal), we humans have with the Gods and Spirits. Keeping the Old Ways, through ceremony and duty
Vision: The ability to broaden one’s perspective to have a greater understanding of our place/role in the cosmos, relating to the past, present and future
Courage: The ability to act appropriately in the face of danger
Integrity: Honor; being trustworthy to oneself and to others, involving oath-keeping, honesty, fairness, respect, self-confidence…
Perseverance: Drive; the motivation to pursue goals even when that pursuit becomes difficult
Hospitality: Acting as both a gracious host and an appreciative guest, involving benevolence, friendliness, humor, and the honoring of “a gift for a gift”
Moderation: Cultivating one’s appetites so that one is neither a slave to them nor driven to ill health, (mental or physical), through excess or deficiency
Fertility: Bounty of mind, body and spirit, involving creativity, production of objects, food, works of art, etc., an appreciation of the physical, sensual, nurturing…

I also look to the philosophers, as did the ancients, as ethics and morality were the province of the philosophers rather than the priests.

Do I fail to reach my goals in this area? More often than I would sometimes like to admit. Moderation is particularly difficult for me. All in all it is a balancing act among them, depending on the specific circumstances.

Okay…that’s no way to construct a system of morality. You’ve only made a list of “virtues” that you have a preference for. What if I don’t share your preference for those “virtues”, but I value their “vices” instead? Which of us is moral–the one who keeps to his own preferences most closely?

Morality must have a source that is independent of your opinions and biases. If GIMJ and KarenNC’s opinions are all that really exist, perhaps there is no such thing as morality at all.

 

[NMJenny]

I’m surprised no-one has mentioned St. Gianna Beretta Molla (stthomasirondequoit.com/SaintsAlive/id801.htm).

I just wish I’d known about her when I was suffering from dangerous blood clots during my last two pregnancies…

 

[KarenNC]

Okay…that’s no way to construct a system of morality. You’ve only made a list of “virtues” that you have a preference for. What if I don’t share your preference for those “virtues”, but I value their “vices” instead? Which of us is moral–the one who keeps to his own preferences most closely?

Morality must have a source that is independent of your opinions and biases. If GIMJ and KarenNC’s opinions are all that really exist, perhaps there is no such thing as morality at all.

I am not asking you to abide by my system of morality nor for your approval of it. I fully understand my position in relation to this. That is not the topic of discussion. The Catholic position is.

I am asking why, in the framework of Catholic morality and theology and given that actions are to be as life-affirming as possible, it is not more moral in the case of a tubal pregnancy to use current medical knowledge to employ when possible a procedure that will accomplish exactly the same end but possibly preserve the fertility of the woman, in a case where even the vaguest possibility of survival of the child is not in question regardless of the procedure done, rather than to willfully wait for the situation to progress to a point that requires more invasive and destructive surgery as well as greater risk to the life and future fertility of the mother. As I said, to equate such with a willful and desired abortion of a child who might possibly live to come to a live birth, however premature, seems to me to be incredibly legalistic–honoring the letter rather than the spirit of the law. It appears to be internally inconsistent.

 

[manualman]

Karen,

Yes, the child has no chance or making it either way. I don’t dispute that. But this does not give us the right to kill him directly.

Same teaching applies to those with a terminal illness. If someone with a painful condition who WILL soon die begs me to put a bullet into his head, it is neither mericiful nor moral for me to do it. I CAN, however, administer pain medication to him, even if the pain medication is known to hasten the coming of death. I’m not talking about an OD here, but the minimum needed to reduce the pain.

In both cases, we cannot commit and active evil act in order to achieve a good outcome. But if we follow the 4 principles I listed in the previous post, we come out OK in both cases.

Don’t try to oversimplify the catholic position as maximizing the ‘opneness to life.’ It is rather more subtle than that, which is why we find Invitro to be immoral and why the jury is still out on the question of adoption of ‘unwanted’ frozen embryos.

 

[KarenNC]

Karen,

Yes, the child has no chance or making it either way. I don’t dispute that. But this does not give us the right to kill him directly.

Same teaching applies to those with a terminal illness. If someone with a painful condition who WILL soon die begs me to put a bullet into his head, it is neither mericiful nor moral for me to do it. I CAN, however, administer pain medication to him, even if the pain medication is known to hasten the coming of death. I’m not talking about an OD here, but the minimum needed to reduce the pain.

In both cases, we cannot commit and active evil act in order to achieve a good outcome. But if we follow the 4 principles I listed in the previous post, we come out OK in both cases.

Don’t try to oversimplify the catholic position as maximizing the ‘opneness to life.’ It is rather more subtle than that, which is why we find Invitro to be immoral and why the jury is still out on the question of adoption of ‘unwanted’ frozen embryos.

I understand that it is more subtle than that. I find the way in which it appears to be applied to the case of a tubal pregnancy to be an oversimplification by flatly applying a blanket ban in a case where it makes no logical sense. The cases of the tubal pregnancy and euthanasia are vastly different. In euthanasia, your choice of action or inaction directly affects the continued life only of the person who is dying. The point at which that terminally ill person dies does not affect the continued life of another human being or put another human life in danger needlessly. In the case of a tubal pregnancy that is found early enough to be resolved by medication, you are deliberately delaying action to a point that puts the mother in greater danger needlessly by subjecting her to potential problems from a rupture, infection or from subjecting her to surgery that could have been avoided by using the medication. You are also knowingly making a choice that will needlessly make her less fertile in the future when there are other options available.

Let’s look at your four steps:

1. The desired outcome is good. (Save the mother who will die)
2. The direct action taken is itself good or at least morally neutral (removal of the damaged section of fallopian tube).—I would instead phrase this as “treatment of a pathological condition, one which would result in the death of the woman.”
3. The undesired indirect result (death of the child) must be unavoidable.
4. The action must have a proportionate outcome better than the alternatives. (Doing nothing leads to BOTH mom and baby dying)–I would phrase this as “doing the least possible harm in the process.” This is something that is best decided by the woman and her physician, in terms of which form of treatment would be least harmful overall. By removing the option of treatment with medication, you hamper that process needlessly.

In the case of a tubal pregnancy, the pathology is the fact of the pregnancy itself. The later rupture, infection, inflammation, damage to the tube, etc that are being cited are all symptoms of that underlying pathology as without the existence of that pregnancy, none of the other situations would exist and without resolution of that underlying pathology the rest cannot be successfully treated. The medication treats the pathology. If treating a uterine cancer with medication is not an evil act, then how is treating this pathology an evil act?

 

[GIMJ]

I am not asking you to abide by my system of morality nor for your approval of it. I fully understand my position in relation to this. That is not the topic of discussion. The Catholic position is.

Perhaps not, but it is relevant since you continue to challenge the Catholic position. Your problem is that you think the ends justify the means, especially when the same ends can be achieved through various means. You seem to think that it is a matter of preference in determining which action is the moral choice. That’s wrong. If there is such thing as objective morality,then our opinions regarding our actions become irrelevant to their actual goodness or evilness.

In the approach you prefer, the evil act of killing an innocent person is the direct action, whereas the good outcome of the mother’s life being spared is the indirect consequence. Playing semantics with the direct action taken (“treatment of a pathological condition, one which would result in the death of the woman”) does not change its criminal nature.

It’s almost cute how you try to marginalize and silence Catholics on this issue by accusing us of being “incredibly legalistic–honoring the letter rather than the spirit of the law.” It’s funny that you, just like the Pharisees of Jesus’ day, preach about honoring the law, while being personally ignorant of both the law and its spirit.

Catholics don’t believe that morality is subject to vote, so convincing us that the concept of objective morality is somehow flawed will be difficult (if not impossible) to do. It’s fine if you want to share and explain your views, but the Church always has the upper hand in these sort of debates.

---

Thanks for that link NMJenny. It was quite interesting!

 

[manualman]

Fine and good, except that the ‘treatment’ of the pathological condition is just a nice euphanism for killing the child with a chemical. The direct and intentional killing of the child. When the tube is removed, it is not an intentional killing. We just don’t have the technology to save or relocate the child.

If this were merely my analysis, we could debate it at greater length. But this is established catholic bioethics and has been batted around by folks smarter than any of us. Its a done deal.

 

[fix]

In the case of a tubal pregnancy, the pathology is the fact of the pregnancy itself.

What is pathological is the place where it has happend, not the child’s life.

The later rupture, infection, inflammation, damage to the tube, etc that are being cited are all symptoms of that underlying pathology as without the existence of that pregnancy, none of the other situations would exist and without resolution of that underlying pathology the rest cannot be successfully treated.

The infected tube, or other structure, is the pathology. The baby is not pathology.

The medication treats the pathology. If treating a uterine cancer with medication is not an evil act, then how is treating this pathology an evil act?

Because with cancer the traget is cancer cells. With an ectopic pregnancy the medication is targeting the innocent life.

 

[KarenNC]

Your problem is that you think the ends justify the means, especially when the same ends can be achieved through various means. You seem to think that it is a matter of preference in determining which action is the moral choice. That’s wrong. If there is such thing as objective morality,then our opinions regarding our actions become irrelevant to their actual goodness or evilness.

In the approach you prefer, the evil act of killing an innocent person is the direct action, whereas the good outcome of the mother’s life being spared is the indirect consequence. Playing semantics with the direct action taken (“treatment of a pathological condition, one which would result in the death of the woman”) does not change its criminal nature.

I have not “played with semantics.” In fact, it seems to me that the Catholic Church is the one doing so in this situation by stating that it is the tube that is the pathology, not the pregnancy and that removal of the tube is moral because one “doesn’t really intend” the death of the child when there is no other possible outcome for the child if the tube is removed. I have stated quite clearly that in any possible action under this particular circumstance the child will die. The only entity who can be held responsible for the death of the child in the case of a tubal pregnancy is God as, under your theology, He is the only one who could affect where the implantation occurred. The only question left is in what way does one then end this pregnancy and what good can be salvaged from this tragic situation.

If the Catholic Church took an absolute stand on the immorality of ending life under any and all circumstances, I would not quibble over this. However, it does not. It recognizes that there are cases in which causing the death of another person is not immoral. It’s called the “just war theory.”

ewtn.com/expert/answers/just_war.htm

“While one may desire, and employ, physical force for the sake of correction, restraint of evil and restoring justice, even if it entails injury and death, one may never desire it for its own sake.”

To me, a tubal pregnancy meets the same criteria set forth to rationalize the killing in a “just war”:
americancatholic.org/News/JustWar/justwar.asp

1. 
   *]Just cause. War is permissible only to confront “a real and certain danger,” i.e., to protect innocent life, to preserve conditions necessary for decent human existence and to secure basic human rights. Seeking to protect the life of the mother knowing that her life will be endangered
   
   *]Competent authority. War must be declared by those with responsibility for public order, not by private groups or individuals.
   *decision that the action is warranted and is the best possible option is made by the physician and the woman *
   
   *]Comparative justice. In essence: Which side is sufficiently “right” in a dispute, and are the values at stake critical enough to override the presumption against war? Do the rights and values involved justify killing? Given techniques of propaganda and the ease with which nations and individuals either assume or delude themselves into believing that God or right is clearly on their side, the test of comparative justice may be extremely difficult to apply. there is no possible alternative that protects the child to a degree sufficient to bring it to even the most premature of live births
   
   *]Right intention. War can be legitimately intended only for the reasons set forth above as a just cause.
   The intention is to preserve the life of the woman as well as her future fertility, not to end the life of the child, regardless of the means used to end the pregnancy. It is a tragic circumstance over which no-one had control, either to cause or prevent it either occurring or the child from dying.
   
   *]Last resort. For resort to war to be justified, all peaceful alternatives must have been exhausted.
   In this case, it is medically determined that this is the best alternative available and there are no possible alternatives which preserve the life of the child
   
   *]Probability of success. This is a difficult criterion to apply, but its purpose is to prevent irrational resort to force or hopeless resistance when the outcome of either will clearly be disproportionate or futile.
   To enforce the ban on medication use in this particular circumstance based on the life of the child to me is a blatant case of “hopeless resistance” when the outcome is not in question regardless
   
   *]Proportionality. This means that the damage to be inflicted and the costs incurred by war must be proportionate to the good expected by taking up arms.
   the cost to the child is no greater, the cost to the woman in terms of risk to her health goes up if she has to undergo surgery or wait for further complications to develop