Abortion and Risk of the Mother Life

[Petaro]

Abortion is murder and is always a grave evil. There are NO circumstances in which we can purposely kill an innocent baby.

What we CANNOTdo, is kill the baby. The moral option would be to treat both patients.

The baby is no less a baby in this situation. so if you understand the arguments against abortion, why are you unable to apply them to this “situation”?

Then we must love and care for both patients.

No, the truth cannot change.

A wise and true post! Evil is no excuse for further evil. The doctors must try to save both mother and child.

 

[1ke]

just personal opinions.

It’s not a matter of opinion. It’s a matter of truth. Abortion is always evil. That cannot ever change. Every person on the planet could “disagree” or deny this truth and it would still be true.

My guess is that more than 90% of Catholics who are pro-life will be in favor of an abortion in this particular case.

Which, if true, will serve to show how ignorant Catholics have become of the truth.

Any suggestions on how to improve the layout/questions to skew the results in your favour?

Do you believe this to be about getting survey results in one’s favor? No. It is about helping people learn the Truth, embrace the Truth, and live the Truth.

are there situations when an abortion is justified?

You have not answered my question:

How is the baby any different in this case? How is it OK to kill this baby, and not that baby?

 

[Hans_W]

It’s not a matter of opinion. It’s a matter of truth. Abortion is always evil. That cannot ever change. Every person on the planet could “disagree” or deny this truth and it would still be true.

Which, if true, will serve to show how ignorant Catholics have become of the truth.

Do you believe this to be about getting survey results in one’s favor? No. It is about helping people learn the Truth, embrace the Truth, and live the Truth.

You have not answered my question:

How is the baby any different in this case? How is it OK to kill this baby, and not that baby?

ike, you talk about the “truth” all the time, as if it was something absolute in this case.

St. Augustine accepted a distinction between an “unformed” and a “formed” fetus. He did not classify the abortion of an “unformed” fetus as murder because it was not certain that it had received a soul. So, he didn’t have the “truth”?

St. Anselm said that “no human intellect accepts that an infant has the rational soul from the moment of conception”. He saw abortion as a sin, but not murder, until the embryo was animated by a human soul. He didn’t have the “truth”?

St. Thomas Aquinas also distinguished between an “unsouled” and a “souled” fetus.

And so it goes on, until Pius XI ruled that abortion is out, even as a means to save the mother. And that might change again. I would say, it will. Or do you think we now have the final, absolute Truth?

Fact is that the “truth” (on the topic of abortion) has changed over time in the Catholic Church. I recommend you have a look at a fairly recent book (2006) “A brief, Liberal, Catholic Defense of Abortion” by Daniel Dombrowski (University of Illinois Press). Don’t let the term “liberal” fool you. This is seriously researched.

We are not talking about a run-of-the-mill abortion here. There must have been thousands of cases where a medically induced abortion saved the mother’s life. We don’t hear about them. Very few are making headlines.

The fact that cases like the Indian woman in Ireland two years ago and the 9-year-old Brazilian girl have divided Catholics, even the clergy, should give us reason to think a bit deeper.

You keep asking:

How is the baby any different in this case? How is it OK to kill this baby, and not that baby?

I thought I have answered that. The unborn babies are of the same value, of course. But we have another living human being to consider: the mother. Don’t you agree? If her life is in danger, do we just ignore her and let her die?

But (I can hear you saying) it’s the doctor’s job to save them both. Yes, except that there are cases - exceptional cases - when the mother is very likely to die if the pregnancy is not terminated. Millions of mothers must have died over the ages. That shouldn’t happen today anymore.

 

[1ke]

ike, you talk about the “truth” all the time, as if it was something absolute in this case.

Yes, truth is absolute and objective. That is a Catholic teaching.

St. Augustine accepted a distinction between an “unformed” and a “formed” fetus. He did not classify the abortion of an “unformed” fetus as murder because it was not certain that it had received a soul. So, he didn’t have the “truth”?

For someone who claims to be pro-life, you are certainly expending a lot of energy on old, disproven canards of the pro-abortion groups.

And that might change again. I would say, it will. Or do you think we now have the final, absolute Truth?

Yes. We do.

Fact is that the “truth” (on the topic of abortion) has changed over time in the Catholic Church. I recommend you have a look at a fairly recent book (2006) “A brief, Liberal, Catholic Defense of Abortion” by Daniel Dombrowski (University of Illinois Press). Don’t let the term “liberal” fool you. This is seriously researched.

Ah, so now the cat is out of the bag. We do not have a pro-life Catholic here genuinely torn on a “hard case”. We have someone who has been fooled by pro-abortion propaganda intent on spreading it and shocked that Catholics here will not fall for it.

I thought I have answered that. The unborn babies are of the same value, of course. But we have another living human being to consider: the mother. Don’t you agree? If her life is in danger, do we just ignore her and let her die?

Please show me where I have ever stated that. I have not.

What I have said is that there are TWO patients and we must treat them both, we cannot KILL either of them.

But (I can hear you saying) it’s the doctor’s job to save them both. Yes, except that there are cases - exceptional cases - when the mother is very likely to die if the pregnancy is not terminated. Millions of mothers must have died over the ages. That shouldn’t happen today anymore.

We can never kill babies, old people, or any innocent people, period. Not to save others. Not to save ourselves…

What we can do is try to save both. If one or the other dies in legitimate medical intervention to save the mother or the child, it is not abortion and not murder.

St. Gianna could have morally had a legitimate medical procedure to treat her cancer, and her unborn child might have died as a result. She chose not to have the procedure, but the Church did not teach that she couldn’t. What she could NOT do was simply murder her child.

Do you not see the difference? Abortion is murder, it has always been murder. It is not wrong to treat both patients and try to save both. It is not murder if you cannot save both.

 

[zz912]

Sorry, I am breaking my promise not to follow this thread anymore. It really intrigues me.
Not sure about how many of the original participants are still listening.

Interesting is that the original poster, devonsams, who asked the question in the first place, later so vehemently defends his/her one-sided view. What did you expect? Everybody agreeing? Why ask the question?

Just out of interest I am planning a survey in my diocese. I also asked friends of mine in Australia, Austria and Germany to do the same. They are keen to do a similar survey in their churches/dioceses. Only church-going Catholics are invited to participate.

Two simple questions:

(1) Are you anti-abortion (pro-life)
(2) Should an abortion be allowed in the following case: A 9-year old girl is pregnant with twins. The pregnancy resulted from a rape. The girl weighs 80 ponds (36 kg) and medical doctors declared that her life is in danger if she continues with her pregnancy.

Only Catholics who attend church every week are allowed to respond. No names are required, just personal opinions. Clergy is invited to participate.
I hope to get more than 1000 responses over this coming weekend. Not a scientific project, but it should give us some idea of how the general Catholic judges this case.

My guess is that more than 90% of Catholics who are pro-life will be in favor of an abortion in this particular case.

Any suggestions on how to improve the layout/questions to skew the results in your favour? I will post the results next week.

Another recent case comes to mind. An Indian woman in Ireland had to loose her life because an abortion on her was refused. She was told that she was in a Catholic country. I wonder how much damage this case has done to our Church, not to mention the anguish for her husband and family. And a great news item for the pro-choice crowd!

One more point: oldcatholicguy managed to retrieve my theoretical example of somebody having the choice of killing one person by saving five. I remembered that example from my second-year study on ethics, 10 years ago. It was supposed to illustrate that these silly abstract examples (including oldcatholicguy’s shooting policeman) don’t shed any light on the real problem: are there situations when an abortion is justified?

So you present the options as killing the babies, or the girl dies. I guess you’re not interested in truth and finding peoples’ true beliefs. Just interested in a push-poll to move forward a pro-abortion agenda.

How about this, include in your survey the option of carrying the babies as far along as possible for the girl to handle, and then delivering the babies.

That might change your responses just a bit.

 

[zz912]

Thank you jaimeleglise for chipping in here. I value your (name removed by moderator)ut. I also love the Church. I am proud to be Catholic. But that shouldn’t prevent us from using common sense, and compassion…

This is the language of those Catholics who reject Church teaching. They portray it as the Church teaching is somehow separate from or does not contain common sense and compassion, which is patently ridiculous.

Funny how you have to manipulate the discussion to set up your promotion of anti-catholic views.

What about the Indian woman dying in Ireland, two years ago? She repeatedly asked for an abortion. Do you think she wanted to ‘murder’ her unborn child? She desperately wanted to live. Was this not her right as well?.

You are grossly misinformed on this matter. She didn’t die because she couldn’t get an abortion. That is PATENTLY FALSE. She died because of incompetence in socialized medicine. The pro-abortionists jumped on this story and ran with it before the facts were known. They used her death to promote more baby killing. She did NOT die because she couldn’t get an abortion. Please educate yourself.

irishcentral.com/news/lack-of-an-abortion-did-not-cause-savita-halappanavars-death-in-galway-207343481-237589211.html

*The contention that Ireland’s “Catholic laws” caused her death were stupid and bigoted to begin with (enacted by an overwhelmingly protestant parliament in 1861, they are decidedly protestant). Since the Coroner’s report was published anyone with sense has backed away from that view.

Virulent sepsis, aggravated by a litany of mistakes - blood samples not followed up in time, management protocols not followed, poor communication between staff on call, confusion over medical notes – are the real causes of death.

As I pointed out in my last article for IrishCentral, Dr. Hema Divakar of the Indian Federation of Obstetricians believes an earlier termination could, far from helping, have led to an earlier death. But even if it had been helpful, it would, under Irish law – which permits termination if there is a “real and substantial” risk to the life of the mother – have been lawful.*

What on earth is that supposed to mean?
Yes, I agree, a popular vote does not decide the truth. Thousand years ago a popular vote would have confirmed the common belief that the sun goes round the earth, which is wrong. In the present situation we are weighing the life of a mother against the life of her unborn baby.

Funny how this comment…

There really shouldn’t be any question in that case. I guess that 98% of Catholics would agree. Strange that I seem to be alone here with >400,000 members on this forum.

Is contradicted by this comment.

And I don’t see why it’s strange that faithful Catholics would reject your pro-abortion views.

 

[PeopleB4Things]

We cannot kill the baby.

It is incumbent upon the physician to work to save both. He has two patients, not one.

#47 Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.

The intent of the Church here is to put the mother first when both the mother’s and fetus’ lives are at risk of death. I’m going to have to side with the Catholic Church on this one but I can respect your opinion.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

#47 Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.

The intent of the Church here is to put the mother first when both the mother’s and fetus’ lives are at risk of death. I’m going to have to side with the Catholic Church on this one but I can respect your opinion.

Yes, treatments and medications may be administered even if they cause death or harm to the fetus but a direct abortion is not morally permissible.

 

[Stillsosola]

wow that is terrible terrible case, not only the loss of the lives of the twins she was carrying but the abuse the poor girl suffered,

I just can’t get past how does a 9 yr old get pregnant don’t you have to menstruate to get pregnant??

And how could her mother kill her unborn grandchildren? Was the girl excommunicated as well?

\

 

[1ke]

wow that is terrible terrible case, not only the loss of the lives of the twins she was carrying but the abuse the poor girl suffered,

I just can’t get past how does a 9 yr old get pregnant don’t you have to menstruate to get pregnant??

Many girls are entering puberty this young.

And how could her mother kill her unborn grandchildren?

It’s pretty terrible.

Was the girl excommunicated as well?

Children cannot be excommunicated.

And, it is unlikely the girl knew what was going on.

 

[1ke]

#47 Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.

The intent of the Church here is to put the mother first when both the mother’s and fetus’ lives are at risk of death. I’m going to have to side with the Catholic Church on this one but I can respect your opinion.

Please see post #44, I am unsure where you have arrived at the conclusion that I am on a different “side” that the Church’s.

What I have stated is Church teaching.

 

[Hans_W]

Funny how this comment…

Is contradicted by this comment.

It’s funny how people take things out of context - copy & paste makes it so easy!

In my previous post I looked at the public opinion of people, 500 years ago, who would have agreed with the statement that the sun goes round the earth. More than 99% would have agreed, but it is false. Observation and critical thinking (science) has shown that to be wrong. The point was to show that the ‘truth’ is not always determined by the majority.

Then I looked at the percentage of people who would agree that, in exceptional cases, an abortion could be justified. The case in question is a 9-year-old-girl, 36 kg, pregnant with twins, raped, and medical doctors state that her life is in danger.

This second ‘opinion poll’ is a very different issue. It is a moral issue. It cannot be proven right or wrong through science. On a moral issue, I think, we need to listen to what people have to say. That was my point.
Two other examples would be slavery and racism. Both were perfectly acceptable, if you go back far enough in time.

The notion of ‘truth’ gets thrown around a lot, or even ‘absolute truth’.
Can’t remember who, but more than one poster stated that abortion is always murder, that this is the ‘absolute truth’.

Now, neither science nor philosophy can give us absolute truths. Only mathematics can. For example, 17 will always be a prime number.

Religions, or a religious people often claim that they have the absolute truth. Do they? We Catholics believe in the Real Presence of Christ during the Eucharist. That’s the ‘truth’ for us, or that Jesus didn’t have any siblings. A Southern Baptist doesn’t think this is true. That’s the ‘truth’ for him/her. I know … our church is ‘truer’, but can we honestly claim to have the ‘absolute truth’? (I am sure I will get blasted for doubting that).

That’s what I tried to point out. St. Augustine didn’t classify the abortion of an “unformed” fetus as murder. St. Anselm said (and I quote him again) “no human intellect accepts the view that an infant has the rational soul from the moment of conception”. He as well didn’t see abortion in the early stages as murder. Same goes for St.Thomas Aquinas. We Catholics have very high regards for these people. They obviously didn’t have the ‘absolute truth’. My question is: what makes us so sure that we have it now?

(By the way, the book by Dombrowski which I mentioned last time - I haven’t even read it. It was part of the curriculum on philosophy of religion, which I studied 10 years ago. I just vaguely remembered the shift in position of the Catholic Church on the issue of abortion).

Concerning that poor Indian woman in Ireland, two years ago (for which I got blasted as well by 1ke) - my point was that such cases give wonderful ammunition to the pro-choice crowd. I am not siding with them!!
From what I can gather, she suffered a miscarriage which led to the blood poisoning that eventually killed her. An earlier abortion would have prevented that. But because the fetus had a heartbeat, nothing could be done for her in Ireland.

I repeat again: thousands of abortions have been and are being carried out which saved the life of the mother. Only in exceptional cases do we hear about these cases.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Sorry, I am breaking my promise not to follow this thread anymore. It really intrigues me.
Not sure about how many of the original participants are still listening.

Interesting is that the original poster, devonsams, who asked the question in the first place, later so vehemently defends his/her one-sided view. What did you expect? Everybody agreeing? Why ask the question?

Just out of interest I am planning a survey in my diocese. I also asked friends of mine in Australia, Austria and Germany to do the same. They are keen to do a similar survey in their churches/dioceses. Only church-going Catholics are invited to participate.

Two simple questions:

(1) Are you anti-abortion (pro-life)
(2) Should an abortion be allowed in the following case: A 9-year old girl is pregnant with twins. The pregnancy resulted from a rape. The girl weighs 80 ponds (36 kg) and medical doctors declared that her life is in danger if she continues with her pregnancy.

Only Catholics who attend church every week are allowed to respond. No names are required, just personal opinions. Clergy is invited to participate.
I hope to get more than 1000 responses over this coming weekend. Not a scientific project, but it should give us some idea of how the general Catholic judges this case.

My guess is that more than 90% of Catholics who are pro-life will be in favor of an abortion in this particular case.

Any suggestions on how to improve the layout/questions to skew the results in your favour? I will post the results next week.

Another recent case comes to mind. An Indian woman in Ireland had to loose her life because an abortion on her was refused. She was told that she was in a Catholic country. I wonder how much damage this case has done to our Church, not to mention the anguish for her husband and family. And a great news item for the pro-choice crowd!

One more point: oldcatholicguy managed to retrieve my theoretical example of somebody having the choice of killing one person by saving five. I remembered that example from my second-year study on ethics, 10 years ago. It was supposed to illustrate that these silly abstract examples (including oldcatholicguy’s shooting policeman) don’t shed any light on the real problem: are there situations when an abortion is justified?

-I’m still waiting for you to actually show that my scenario was somehow invalid. To date all you’ve been able to do to answer it is to misapply a theoretical example, ignore my post detailing the similarities between the case you keep citing and my scenario, and ignore my correct application of your theoretical example (throwing someone in front of the trolley).
-Can I conclude that you no longer hold Father Barron as the fount of all wisdom when it comes to the issue of abortion since you are now trying to base morality on popularity?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

It’s funny how people take things out of context - copy & paste makes it so easy!

In my previous post I looked at the public opinion of people, 500 years ago, who would have agreed with the statement that the sun goes round the earth. More than 99% would have agreed, but it is false. Observation and critical thinking (science) has shown that to be wrong. The point was to show that the ‘truth’ is not always determined by the majority.

Then I looked at the percentage of people who would agree that, in exceptional cases, an abortion could be justified. The case in question is a 9-year-old-girl, 36 kg, pregnant with twins, raped, and medical doctors state that her life is in danger.

This second ‘opinion poll’ is a very different issue. It is a moral issue. It cannot be proven right or wrong through science. On a moral issue, I think, we need to listen to what people have to say. That was my point.
Two other examples would be slavery and racism. Both were perfectly acceptable, if you go back far enough in time.

The notion of ‘truth’ gets thrown around a lot, or even ‘absolute truth’.
Can’t remember who, but more than one poster stated that abortion is always murder, that this is the ‘absolute truth’.

Now, neither science nor philosophy can give us absolute truths. Only mathematics can. For example, 17 will always be a prime number.

Religions, or a religious people often claim that they have the absolute truth. Do they? We Catholics believe in the Real Presence of Christ during the Eucharist. That’s the ‘truth’ for us, or that Jesus didn’t have any siblings. A Southern Baptist doesn’t think this is true. That’s the ‘truth’ for him/her. I know … our church is ‘truer’, but can we honestly claim to have the ‘absolute truth’? (I am sure I will get blasted for doubting that).

That’s what I tried to point out. St. Augustine didn’t classify the abortion of an “unformed” fetus as murder. St. Anselm said (and I quote him again) “no human intellect accepts the view that an infant has the rational soul from the moment of conception”. He as well didn’t see abortion in the early stages as murder. Same goes for St.Thomas Aquinas. We Catholics have very high regards for these people. They obviously didn’t have the ‘absolute truth’. My question is: what makes us so sure that we have it now?

(By the way, the book by Dombrowski which I mentioned last time - I haven’t even read it. It was part of the curriculum on philosophy of religion, which I studied 10 years ago. I just vaguely remembered the shift in position of the Catholic Church on the issue of abortion).

Concerning that poor Indian woman in Ireland, two years ago (for which I got blasted as well by 1ke) - my point was that such cases give wonderful ammunition to the pro-choice crowd. I am not siding with them!!
From what I can gather, she suffered a miscarriage which led to the blood poisoning that eventually killed her. An earlier abortion would have prevented that. But because the fetus had a heartbeat, nothing could be done for her in Ireland.

I repeat again: thousands of abortions have been and are being carried out which saved the life of the mother. Only in exceptional cases do we hear about these cases.

Mathematics is, like all other knowledge, based on an assumed truth. 17 being always being a prime number being an absolute truth is only true as long as we accept the assumed truth on which mathematics is based is true.

 

[zz912]

It’s funny how people take things out of context - copy & paste makes it so easy!

They are your words. I haven’t taken them out of context. You seem upset that someone pointed out the contradiction inherent in your words.

In my previous post I looked at the public opinion of people, 500 years ago, who would have agreed with the statement that the sun goes round the earth. More than 99% would have agreed, but it is false. Observation and critical thinking (science) has shown that to be wrong. The point was to show that the ‘truth’ is not always determined by the majority.

It’s never determined by majority.

Then I looked at the percentage of people who would agree that, in exceptional cases, an abortion could be justified. The case in question is a 9-year-old-girl, 36 kg, pregnant with twins, raped, and medical doctors state that her life is in danger.

And for some reason you seem to ignore the option of the girl be closely monitored by physicians, and allow the pregnancy to develop along as far as possible and still be safe for the child, and then delivering the babies. Why is this option ignored by you? I would like to know why you reject this option which is in line with Church teaching and keeps the best interests of all parties in mind.

This second ‘opinion poll’ is a very different issue. It is a moral issue. It cannot be proven right or wrong through science. On a moral issue, I think, we need to listen to what people have to say. That was my point.

Why? This is just warm, fuzzy talk for letting the majority decide morality and truth.

Two other examples would be slavery and racism. Both were perfectly acceptable, if you go back far enough in time.

And? Abortion is the stigma of our time. And there are people on here who come up with all kinds of excuses and justifications for why it is morally acceptable. 200 years from now people will look to this time and be amazed that people could convince themselves that such abject evil is okay.

The notion of ‘truth’ gets thrown around a lot, or even ‘absolute truth’.
Can’t remember who, but more than one poster stated that abortion is always murder, that this is the ‘absolute truth’.

Now, neither science nor philosophy can give us absolute truths. Only mathematics can. For example, 17 will always be a prime number.

What a nonsensical thing for a Catholic to state. The Church teaches the revelation from God, which is absolute truth.

Religions, or a religious people often claim that they have the absolute truth. Do they? We Catholics believe in the Real Presence of Christ during the Eucharist. That’s the ‘truth’ for us, or that Jesus didn’t have any siblings. A Southern Baptist doesn’t think this is true. That’s the ‘truth’ for him/her. I know … our church is ‘truer’, but can we honestly claim to have the ‘absolute truth’? (I am sure I will get blasted for doubting that).

No, it is NOT the “truth” for us. The Real Presence IS the TRUTH, absolutely. It doesn’t matter one whit what a Southern Baptist thinks or believes about the Eucharist (and I used to be one). It doesn’t matter if he thinks it’s just bread and wine. IT ISN’T. The bread and wine have been transformed, PERIOD. The opinions or feelings of other people (or even unbelieving Catholics) does NOTHING to change the reality of the Eucharist. And YES, we CAN state unequivocally that we have the ABSOLUTE truth.

You seem to have bought into the modern culture’s belief in relativism.

That’s what I tried to point out. St. Augustine didn’t classify the abortion of an “unformed” fetus as murder. St. Anselm said (and I quote him again) “no human intellect accepts the view that an infant has the rational soul from the moment of conception”. He as well didn’t see abortion in the early stages as murder. Same goes for St.Thomas Aquinas. We Catholics have very high regards for these people. They obviously didn’t have the ‘absolute truth’. My question is: what makes us so sure that we have it now?

Augustine was unsure of when a soul is created in the person because of a lack of scientific knowledge. But even then, he was very adamant that you could not kill a fetus because it had the potential for being ensouled and a person. And he listed abortion, even to an “unformed” fetus as a grave sin (as did the Didache). You are mischaracterizing what he actually wrote. Why?

CONT…

 

[zz912]

(By the way, the book by Dombrowski which I mentioned last time - I haven’t even read it. It was part of the curriculum on philosophy of religion, which I studied 10 years ago. I just vaguely remembered the shift in position of the Catholic Church on the issue of abortion).

Please give a citation or support for this claim. I can produce the Didache, which was a first century instruction on Christian living and the sacraments, which included the absolute prohibition on abortion.

Concerning that poor Indian woman in Ireland, two years ago (for which I got blasted as well by 1ke) - my point was that such cases give wonderful ammunition to the pro-choice crowd. I am not siding with them!!
From what I can gather, she suffered a miscarriage which led to the blood poisoning that eventually killed her. An earlier abortion would have prevented that. But because the fetus had a heartbeat, nothing could be done for her in Ireland.

You gathered wrong. Very. If your understanding was correct, then somehow the woman and/or her husband knew she would get blood poisoning from her miscarriage before it happened. That would be pretty amazing to see.

I repeat again: thousands of abortions have been and are being carried out which saved the life of the mother. Only in exceptional cases do we hear about these cases.

And now we see your true pro-abortion views surface. Now, instead of just the isolated, extreme cases you’ve cited here, now it is THOUSANDS of “good” or “moral” abortions which have saved the mother’s life.

As noted above, why do you ignore the option of delivering the child if the mother is in jeopardy? Why do you hold to your abortion views which are contrary to the Christian faith, instead of supporting this option which is in line with Church teaching, AND has the best interests of all patients in mind?

 

[Rau]

It’s not an analogy, it’s the OP’s question stripped of the baggage associated with the “intentionally kill the unborn child IOT save the mother” scenario. At the core of both is- 2 innocent people (mother and child in both) at risk of dying, 1 person authorized to act IOT save them (doctor and police officer), the risk that both will die if an attempt is made to save both, the assumption that the death of one would increase the likelihood of the other surviving.

I’ve presented my above scenario and question before to other people who argue that it’s moral to intentionally cause the death of the child (odd they never seem to hold that intentionally causing the death of the mother IOT save the child is perfectly ok) and almost none of them have ever answered that it was perfectly moral for the police officer to shoot one IOT save the other.

I can only speculate on an ethical approach - perhaps one delivers the baby by caesarean (at the appropriate time) and then seek to save the baby. The baby may die of course. This seems analogous to the “classic” treatment for ectopic pregnancy.

 

[Rau]

I also love the Church. I am proud to be Catholic. But that shouldn’t prevent us from using common sense, and compassion.

Hans - can you give your opinion on why the Church that you love has - apparently - failed to use common sense and compassion?

 

[Rau]

… The unborn babies are of the same value, of course. But we have another living human being to consider: the mother. Don’t you agree? If her life is in danger, do we just ignore her and let her die?

But (I can hear you saying) it’s the doctor’s job to save them both. Yes, except that there are cases - exceptional cases - when the mother is very likely to die if the pregnancy is not terminated. Millions of mothers must have died over the ages. That shouldn’t happen today anymore.

Concern for the mother is appropriate. You correctly note that all babies are of the same value. Apparently, new mothers are of greater value? Or is it just that this innocent young girl is of more value than a nameless, faceless baby? I assume that balance (of which human is most valuable) might be altered if, instead of a young innocent girl, we were dealing with a promiscuous teenage prostitute? In that case, I assume you’d deny the abortion? Does this sound like a judgement we should be making?

 

[Hans_W]

Mathematics is, like all other knowledge, based on an assumed truth. 17 being always being a prime number being an absolute truth is only true as long as we accept the assumed truth on which mathematics is based is true.

I disagree. Mathematics is the only type of knowledge which is not based on induction. We therefore can get to ‘absolute truth’, without relying on any assumptions.
In my example, 17 is always a prime number, no matter what number system you use and wherever you are in time-space. The 17th number is only divisible by 1 and no other number smaller than 17.