Abortion and War

[Gnosis]

This is for the Catholics here who are very much against abortion, but feel that the war in Iraq is justified:

When abortion occurs, an innocent life is taken away. Yet why is felt that civillian causalties are okay in war? We act as though human life is perfectly expendable for a cause that we ourselves have labelled as just. These people do not voluntarliy give their lives up, yet we take them anyways. What does this say about the sanctity of life? Why is the innocent life of an unborn child more valuable than a civillian who never willed this war?

 

[edward_george]

The civilians who never willed this war were never killed on purpose, at least not by our side–ask the Kurds about that…that’s why Saddam’s on trial right now.

Abortion is the deliberate taking of an innocent life. Being killed by friendly fire is just as much of an accident as being struck by a car on the interstate.

-ACEGC

 

[David_Zampino]

Gnosis:

This is for the Catholics here who are very much against abortion, but feel that the war in Iraq is justified:

When abortion occurs, an innocent life is taken away. Yet why is felt that civillian causalties are okay in war? We act as though human life is perfectly expendable for a cause that we ourselves have labelled as just. These people do not voluntarliy give their lives up, yet we take them anyways. What does this say about the sanctity of life? Why is the innocent life of an unborn child more valuable than a civillian who never willed this war?

Without even getting into the question of the Iraq war, the Catechism states clearly that intentionally procured abortion is always an evil. This teaching dates back (at least) to the Didache, written in the 1st century. The Catechism also teaches on the evil of war – but recognizes that in a sinful world, sometimes war is necessary. The Catechism outlines the same positions that St. Augustine did in the early 5th century, setting forth the conditions that must be met in order for war to be justified.

Pacifism may be a particular charism given to specific individuals – but complete pacifism is not, and never has been, a principle of Christianity.

 

[PLAL]

Abortion vs. War

Fr. Frank Pavone

National Director, Priests for Life

(Click here for the Spanish version)

This column requires extra effort to explain what it is not. It is not an evaluation of the war in Iraq or of any national leaders.

It is, however, an observation, on the level of moral principle, about the relationship between abortion, war, and being pro-life. And even there, I am limiting myself to a couple of very simple and specific points, and not an exhaustive analysis.

In his historic speech to the United Nations in 1965, Pope Paul VI cried out, “War never again, war never again!” The world must heed these words. They don’t just mean, “Don’t fight!” They mean that we have to make justice and human rights so secure that the need to fight disappears.

Many ask whether one can be a good Catholic or be pro-life and support the war. The answer is yes, which is to say that Catholic and pro-life teaching do allow for circumstances in which war is justified, because sometimes war has to be waged precisely for the defense of life.

Even when war is justified, life is always lost in the process. But innocent life is never targeted, and that makes all the difference in the world. How many innocent lives, and how many children, have been deliberately targeted for destruction in the current war?

By comparison, *every *abortion deliberately targets and destroys a child; otherwise, it isn’t even an abortion.

The purpose of war is not to kill the enemy, but rather to deprive the enemy of his ability to wage war and to destroy others’ rights. There’s a big difference between targeting military/communications equipment to disrupt the operations of the enemy, and just trying to kill as many people as you can.

No doubt, some will read this column and begin arguing with me that the war in Iraq is not justified. This column is not arguing with them, but precisely pointing out that it is OK for them to come to that conclusion. It is also OK for someone else to come to the conclusion that the war is justified.

What is not OK is for someone to say, “You are not pro-life because you support the war.” In fact, one may support the war precisely because he or she is pro-life and concludes that in this case, force is the only way to protect human life, human rights, and human freedom from the hands of those who would destroy it. Others may disagree with the conclusion, which is fine – but don’t deny the other person’s right to come to the conclusion.

And do not miss the profound difference with abortion. There is no room for interpretations or evaluations of whether abortion may be justified. It cannot be, because its very essence is the deliberate targeting and destruction of a child. In war, we do not target a single child, whereas every abortion targets a child. Catholic teaching allows more than one position on war, but it does not allow more than one position on abortion.

priestsforlife.org/columns/columns2004/04-06-14abortionvswar.htm

 

[AlanFromWichita]

So we go to war, knowing innocent lives will be killed, but that’s OK because that is not our intent. The point is not to kill people, but to get rid of an annoying problem.

We go to an abortionist’s office, knowing an innocent life will be killed, but that’s not OK, even though our intent is not necessarily to kill a baby but to get rid of an annoying problem.

Potato, potahto?

Rush Limbaugh makes a good point when discussing the political correctness in the military. He says, “people forget the whole purpose of the army is to kill people and break things.”

One thing I wonder about, though. Let’s consider not the carnal lives of the unknowing (not all “innocent”) victims. Sure, the grownups are innocent of the actual conflict of war, but certainly they must have sinned throughout their lives and by killing them perhaps we have removed them from (or to be fair, given them) a chance to make a perfect contrition, thereby our decision to end their lives can seal their fate. With babies, if we consider them “innocent” then an abortionist’s butcher shop is essentially a saint pump, filling the heavens with many pure souls to increase spiritual warfare to come.

One young girl recently asked me a question: is it possible the babies who are aborted are actually fulfilling their purpose? It was a stunning question, especially considering the conservative Catholic view she has. She said Christ was, as many put it, “born to die,” so aren’t these babies in good company? I didn’t know what to say, except, “I have a feeling they are pretty close to Christ right now.” I didn’t know what else to say. I thought I was confusing and jumped sides a lot, but this was more than I was used to either dishing out or taking!

Alan

 

[Philip_P]

I think another important distinction between abortion and war is that in war it is the state which is killing people. For a democracy, such as ours, this means the state is killing people in our name. The same cannot be said for abortion.

While on the level of moral theology, the act of abortion is arguably graver (arguably, because an unjust war is not really less wrong, it’s just harder to make the moral evaluation of whether a war is just), on the level of political morality, we, the people, have a much graver moral responsibility in regards to war than abortion, at least when it comes to politics. (The same argument holds true for death penalty.)

 

[BlindSheep]

AlanFromWichita:

So we go to war, knowing innocent lives will be killed, but that’s OK because that is not our intent. The point is not to kill people, but to get rid of an annoying problem.
We go to an abortionist’s office, knowing an innocent life will be killed, but that’s not OK, even though our intent is not necessarily to kill a baby but to get rid of an annoying problem
.

I do not think that going to war to “get rid of an annoying problem” fits the definition of a just war…

One young girl recently asked me a question: is it possible the babies who are aborted are actually fulfilling their purpose? It was a stunning question, especially considering the conservative Catholic view she has. She said Christ was, as many put it, “born to die,” so aren’t these babies in good company? I didn’t know what to say, except, “I have a feeling they are pretty close to Christ right now.” I didn’t know what else to say. I thought I was confusing and jumped sides a lot, but this was more than I was used to either dishing out or taking!

Alan

To say this leaves the door open to saying “and the women who have the abortions are fulfilling their purpose”…I hope you aren’t saying that.
God brings good out of evil all the time; that doesn’t change the evil act to a good one.

 

[Gnosis]

When we deliberately go to war, regardless of whether or not we think the cause is just, we make the decision to take innocent lives. We may wish that innocent lives were not taken, we may hope they will not be, but the reality is they will be.** We make a choice that we know will indirectly lead to the death of innocent people. **

If it is a just war for example, it may be argued that these people lost their lives for a just cause (even though they had no choice in the matter), and their deaths helped to create a better world. But what then of stem cell research, it “takes a life” to help create a better world?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

BlindSheep:

I do not think that going to war to “get rid of an annoying problem” fits the definition of a just war…

I said it that way for the effect of understatement, but I think it’s an accurate statement. I will offer a restatement that the two are both done to “get rid of a problem” or even “get rid of a troubling problem.”

The degree to which the problem is troubling, and in fact should be troubling, is certainly quantitative. Nevertheless, the motives are the same. We kill people as an unintended side effect of taking care of a problem.

One place I can see my analogy does not hold, is in the argument of self-defense. One can argue that in the case of war, we are holding off an imminent threat. Then again, one could also argue that from a motivational standpoint, a mother aborting her child often perceives the child as an imminent threat – not so much physically in most cases, but a threat to lifestyle, social position, and financial integrity, just to name a few. I wouldn’t even have mentioned those exceptions, except that in the case of NFP the Church evidently considers finances a valid decision-maker over whether to have children, whereas a couple who doesn’t want kids because they simply “don’t want them” is selfish and against God’s plan. The Church has thus established a standard of moral behavior by which life issues can be determined based on financial impact. That was shocking to me at first, and I’m still trying to figure out what is the dividing line between a “threat” and an “inconvenience.”

My question is, if NFP is inherently illicit, but the financial condition of the parents may be subjectively entered into the decision, they it would seem quantative concerns over money can be the determining factor. In essence, I’m asserting that from my limited view, it seems the Church could have just as easily applied this same standard to war as to NFP, and thus been OK with the concept of, for example, “war for oil.”

To say this leaves the door open to saying “and the women who have the abortions are fulfilling their purpose”…I hope you aren’t saying that.
God brings good out of evil all the time; that doesn’t change the evil act to a good one.

No, I’m not saying that exactly, but close.

If a person does evil, that hurts the person. Others may find they are also hurt by the evil of another.

However, to think it is my personal responsibility to prevent others from committing evil, is to be like St. Peter once was. He so much didn’t want evil that he naturally jumped to protect the innocent lamb from a cruel death. What did Christ do? He did not say, “well done good and faithful servant – you have upheld good and renounced evil.” No, he said, “get behind me, satan.” He further explained this when He said, “these things must come to pass, but woe to the person through whom they come.” Thus Peter’s good intention of preventing cruelty and evil to an innocent human being, actually was judged as part of a plot to thwart God’s plan. Thus it makes one wonder what sort of do-gooding may also fall under that category.

Therefore, I suggest that maybe it is not our Sacred Duty to prevent others from doing evil. We may instruct them, etc, but once we have made our voices known to the extent we have an opportunity, we can rest in faith that God will handle the rest.

I mention all that because Peter spoke against obvious evil and Christ chastised Peter (or that would be the sin within Peter I guess) for doing so and trying to prevent it.

When we pray, “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven,” are we actually given God permission to do His own will, or are we building our own faith by accepting that what happens in this world is, in fact, God’s will – and that we can relax in peace in not accepting its guilt?

The Bible talks about the increasing evil in the end days. If one thinks it is his personal responsibility to prevent that, one will go mad. I know, because I tried myself and I did. Peter might have gone mad had Christ not relieved him of the burden of guilt and responsibility for removing the evil from prophecy.

Alan

 

[BlindSheep]

AlanFromWichita:

One place I can see my analogy does not hold, is in the argument of self-defense. One can argue that in the case of war, we are holding off an imminent threat. Then again, one could also argue that from a motivational standpoint, a mother aborting her child often perceives the child as an imminent threat – not so much physically in most cases, but a threat to lifestyle, social position, and financial integrity, just to name a few.

Seeing a child as a threat in this context is not the same thing at all as a situation where the child IS a genuine threat to her LIFE, as with ectopic pregnancy. The Catholic position on ectopic pregnancy parallels the position on just war; innocent life is not directly targeted, but is lost as a result of acting to save lives.

I wouldn’t even have mentioned those exceptions, except that in the case of NFP the Church evidently considers finances a valid decision-maker over whether to have children, whereas a couple who doesn’t want kids because they simply “don’t want them” is selfish and against God’s plan. The Church has thus established a standard of moral behavior by which life issues can be determined based on financial impact. That was shocking to me at first, and I’m still trying to figure out what is the dividing line between a “threat” and an “inconvenience.”
My question is, if NFP is inherently illicit, but the financial condition of the parents may be subjectively entered into the decision, they it would seem quantative concerns over money can be the determining factor. In essence, I’m asserting that from my limited view, it seems the Church could have just as easily applied this same standard to war as to NFP, and thus been OK with the concept of, for example, “war for oil.”

But NFP is not inherently illicit. NFP does not kill anyone, directly or indirectly. All NFP amounts to is periodic abstainence, and there is nothing immoral about abstainence. It only becomes immoral when the intent is immoral; to have one’s cake and eat it too; being married without the willingness to shoulder the burdens of raising a family. This is a rebellion against God; an attempt to avoid part of your vocation. So in the case of a couple who uses NFP for the wrong reasons, the means are still licit; it is the intent that is wrong. The reverse would be true of a couple who had good reason to avoid pregnancy, but used illicit means such as the pill to do this. Both the intent and the means have to be acceptable.

If a person does evil, that hurts the person. Others may find they are also hurt by the evil of another.

However, to think it is my personal responsibility to prevent others from committing evil, is to be like St. Peter once was. He so much didn’t want evil that he naturally jumped to protect the innocent lamb from a cruel death. What did Christ do? He did not say, “well done good and faithful servant – you have upheld good and renounced evil.” No, he said, “get behind me, satan.” He further explained this when He said, “these things must come to pass, but woe to the person through whom they come.” Thus Peter’s good intention of preventing cruelty and evil to an innocent human being, actually was judged as part of a plot to thwart God’s plan. Thus it makes one wonder what sort of do-gooding may also fall under that category.

Therefore, I suggest that maybe it is not our Sacred Duty to prevent others from doing evil. We may instruct them, etc, but once we have made our voices known to the extent we have an opportunity, we can rest in faith that God will handle the rest.

I mention all that because Peter spoke against obvious evil and Christ chastised Peter (or that would be the sin within Peter I guess) for doing so and trying to prevent it.

When we pray, “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven,” are we actually given God permission to do His own will, or are we building our own faith by accepting that what happens in this world is, in fact, God’s will – and that we can relax in peace in not accepting its guilt?

The Bible talks about the increasing evil in the end days. If one thinks it is his personal responsibility to prevent that, one will go mad. I know, because I tried myself and I did. Peter might have gone mad had Christ not relieved him of the burden of guilt and responsibility for removing the evil from prophecy.

Alan

This is a good point. However, Christ was a grown man who went willingly to his martyrdom. He could have, if he wished, saved himself. The same cannot be said for an unborn child. It may be that we do not have the ability to protect the unborn; this does not let us off putting our best effort into doing so. The unborn child is not a willing martyr; we have no excuse for standing by and failing to attempt to protect the innocent.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

BlindSheep:

Seeing a child as a threat in this context is not the same thing at all as a situation where the child IS a genuine threat to her LIFE, as with ectopic pregnancy. The Catholic position on ectopic pregnancy parallels the position on just war; innocent life is not directly targeted, but is lost as a result of acting to save lives.

In a way, the innocent civilians are also a threat to our lives, because by the tax and commerce money generated by those civilians – not to mention the ones that work in weapons factories – empowers a regime, as worldly powerflows from the people to the leaders.

Civilians are not directly targeted, but we know some will be lost. Nor is the baby targeted in aborting an ectopic pregnancy, but is an action taken to save a life. The only difference I see is that in one case, we know which person will lose life, while in the other case, the specifics of “which” innocent people will die remains a mystery until we’ve already killed them. That way we claim the damage to any particular individual is accidental and unintended, rather than necessary and unintended.

But NFP is not inherently illicit. NFP does not kill anyone, directly or indirectly. All NFP amounts to is periodic abstainence, and there is nothing immoral about abstainence. It only becomes immoral when the intent is immoral; to have one’s cake and eat it too; being married without the willingness to shoulder the burdens of raising a family. This is a rebellion against God; an attempt to avoid part of your vocation. So in the case of a couple who uses NFP for the wrong reasons, the means are still licit; it is the intent that is wrong. The reverse would be true of a couple who had good reason to avoid pregnancy, but used illicit means such as the pill to do this. Both the intent and the means have to be acceptable.

On the subject of having cake and eat it too, I agree that NFP is not morally illicit. However, financial condition alone is one of the given reasons used to determine whether it is illicit. It honestly (no sarcasm intended) astounds me that the Church would essentially says that the morality of one’s sexual behavior can be determined by money. To me, if I really believe I need to be open to God’s gifts, then using NFP due to financial bases are a subtle and devious form of prostitution. Greater thinkers than me have thought this through, so I’m hoping my understanding of this will be advanced because even with my stated issues with the Church, this particular on actually confuses me.

This is a good point. However, Christ was a grown man who went willingly to his martyrdom. He could have, if he wished, saved himself. The same cannot be said for an unborn child. It may be that we do not have the ability to protect the unborn; this does not let us off putting our best effort into doing so. The unborn child is not a willing martyr; we have no excuse for standing by and failing to attempt to protect the innocent.

We do not protect the life of the innocent by doing damage to its mother in the name of ending its life in a “just” way.

edit>> I forgot your point in deference to my own. In context of the thread topic comparison, in a war the innocent victims are not necessarily willing martyrs either. They just happen to be at the wrong time and place when something next to them blows up. That is, the admittedly strained exception above – if you can see them as willing accomplices to an evil regime because of their failure to overthrow it and/or because they support it.

Thank you for the respectful and substantive discussion on this issue. We may disagree at this point on the issues, but I like your style – the way you address my issues without copping an attitude. If we keep this up, at least one of us is likely to learn something!

Alan

 

[Steven_Merten]

Hello Gnosis,

Have you ever wondered why it is American and Vatican City pasifists in their well protected homes who condemn American use of force to protect the innocent and not the Iraqie government and Iraqie people in general? The Iraqies, through their freely elected government, have not asked us to leave. They want us there to protect them until they can get a grip on the evil wicked terrorist murderers in their land. They, other than the terrorists in their midst, have no desire to go back to a Saddam era of terror and injustice. It is the American pasifists, sitting safely in his well protected arm chair, that are asking us to leave.

After the Allies bombed France into the ground, killing many civilians, due to lack of smart bombs, the French came out and kissed and danced with advancing Allied liberators. Why? Because they, like the Iraqies, are aware that Freedom is not free. There is a cost to freedom. It is a shame that so many educated yet ignorant American pacifists blind themselves to this reality.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Steven Merten:

Hello Gnosis,

Have you ever wondered why it is American and Vatican City pasifists in their well protected homes who condemn American use of force to protect the innocent and not the Iraqie government and Iraqie people in general? The Iraqies, through their freely elected government, have not asked us to leave. They want us there to protect them until they can get a grip on the evil wicked terrorist murderers in their land. They, other than the terrorists in their midst, have no desire to go back to a Saddam era of terror and injustice. It is the American pasifists, sitting safely in his well protected arm chair, that are asking us to leave.

After the Allies bombed France into the ground, killing many civilians, due to lack of smart bombs, the French came out and kissed and danced with advancing Allied liberators. Why? Because they, like the Iraqies, are aware that Freedom is not free. There is a cost to freedom. It is a shame that so many educated yet ignorant American pacifists blind themselves to this reality.

Many people seem to have forgotten the images that even the embedded journalists couldn’t keep a secret – those of the Iraqi people dancing in the streets and cheering the soldiers as the American tanks rolled through there. Before the Internet and other communications, it would be easy to do the Orwellian thing and eventually people will forget it. Not so easy to hide the truth. Certainly, improvements in communications make it easier to spread lies, but at the same time they make it harder to hide the truth.

Alan

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

when babies in the womb start taking up arms and shooting their mother then I will worry about joining these two topics.

Ok, you come up with a more interresting bookmark

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Daniel Marsh:

when babies in the womb start taking up arms and shooting their mother then I will worry about joining these two topics.

Ok, you come up with a more interresting bookmark

Babies in the womb usually don’t do this. It is a baby in the fallopian tube that will kill its mother if it does not die first.

Alan

 

[BlindSheep]

AlanFromWichita:

In a way, the innocent civilians are also a threat to our lives, because by the tax and commerce money generated by those civilians – not to mention the ones that work in weapons factories – empowers a regime, as worldly powerflows from the people to the leaders.

Civilians are not directly targeted, but we know some will be lost. Nor is the baby targeted in aborting an ectopic pregnancy, but is an action taken to save a life. The only difference I see is that in one case, we know which person will lose life, while in the other case, the specifics of “which” innocent people will die remains a mystery until we’ve already killed them. That way we claim the damage to any particular individual is accidental and unintended, rather than necessary and unintended.

I can’t really see where we disagree here. I certainly don’t believe innocent civilians should be targeted; killing innocent civilians should be avoided as far as possible, and shouldn’t even be risked unless more lives will be lost through inaction.

On the subject of having cake and eat it too, I agree that NFP is not morally illicit. However, financial condition alone is one of the given reasons used to determine whether it is illicit. It honestly (no sarcasm intended) astounds me that the Church would essentially says that the morality of one’s sexual behavior can be determined by money. To me, if I really believe I need to be open to God’s gifts, then using NFP due to financial bases are a subtle and devious form of prostitution. Greater thinkers than me have thought this through, so I’m hoping my understanding of this will be advanced because even with my stated issues with the Church, this particular on actually confuses me.

It seems like you think that the Church would consider it licit for a married couple to avoid conception simply to have a more comfortable lifestyle; I think the financial reasons mentioned are those where the couple actually lacks the resources to care for a child.

We do not protect the life of the innocent by doing damage to its mother in the name of ending its life in a “just” way.

We don’t protect the life of that particular innocent, true. But only because we can’t. We protect the mother, and we also protect other unborn children by adhering to the rule not to directly kill. If we can directly kill one innocent person to save the life of another, we can do the same to others; which opens the door to the exploitation of the unborn for spare parts, etc.
At least, this is my best understanding of the Church’s position on ectopic pregnancy; that removing the baby directly puts us on a “slippery slope”; I may be wrong, I honestly don’t feel like I fully understand this teaching. Any surgery which directly attacks the baby is clearly wrong, but I have trouble understanding how removing the baby intact, if possible, would be wrong; seeing as how the baby is not in a location which can sustain his/her life anyway.

edit>> I forgot your point in deference to my own. In context of the thread topic comparison, in a war the innocent victims are not necessarily willing martyrs either. They just happen to be at the wrong time and place when something next to them blows up. That is, the admittedly strained exception above – if you can see them as willing accomplices to an evil regime because of their failure to overthrow it and/or because they support it.

I agree that they aren’t willing martyrs. I do believe they should be protected whenever possible (unless, like I said, more will die otherwise). I’m opposed to the Iraq war, for instance; however, I voted for Bush because more innocents are being killed by abortion than are being killed in his war.

Thank you for the respectful and substantive discussion on this issue. We may disagree at this point on the issues, but I like your style – the way you address my issues without copping an attitude. If we keep this up, at least one of us is likely to learn something!

Alan

Thank you, too.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

BlindSheep:

It seems like you think that the Church would consider it licit for a married couple to avoid conception simply to have a more comfortable lifestyle; I think the financial reasons mentioned are those where the couple actually lacks the resources to care for a child.

What I’m saying is I can hardly believe the Church would allow something as fickle as money to be a deciding factor on whether a couple should have a child. When I had my six children, I had a good paying job in engineering – we had two each while working at each of three companies. I edged over six figures in 1999, but now due to mental illness, arguably wrongful management action and other factors, I have been unemployed and living on handouts plus a little money from playing organ at two churches. I’m doing this and getting along (like I said I do get help) whereas if I was in this financial condition, the Church would have OK’d me denying God an opportunity to give me these six beautiful gifts.

What I have learned is that one way or the other, our needs will be met. When we were watching our house burn on Good Friday, a neighbor offered help. I asked him for shoes, as I stood there in the cold with socks on, one half burned off. He gave me his shoes off his feet, and his coat. Two neighbors put six of us up for the night; the oldest two boys found friends to stay with; from that time we have survived.

Christ said not to worry about “what shall we eat, what shall we wear?” These things will truly be given to us; even the bankrupt and unemployed.

In the world, many people think we have been irresponsible at having so many kids, but now that they are grown up some (6 kids, grades 2 through soph in college) and people got to know them, nobody complains anymore.

That doesn’t do anything to fix the financial situation, but in my opinion if you want a slippery slope this is it. NFP is precariously too close to contraception already in many people’s views in that so many people do not understand the subtle but substantive distinctions it is morally equivalent in their minds. If we start saying it’s OK to decide on future children based on today’s money projections for then, we are denying the faith. There is nothing stopping us from considering the financial impact of other life decisions. I think we cannot conclude anything else from Christ’s teachings that such worries are not significant enough to be a critical factor in such important decisions.

The issue is that one cannot establish objective criteria for this, so IMO it can lead couples into confusion – being tempted to interpret “wants” as “needs” or denying oneself the freedom to exercise the law when it applies for fear they are being selfish. It is like they are convicted either way.

(continued)

 

[AlanFromWichita]

(continued)

BlindSheep:

We don’t protect the life of that particular innocent, true. But only because we can’t

…

seeing as how the baby is not in a location which can sustain his/her life anyway.

You seem to understand my point, though I see you are reluctant to buy into it. That’s OK, because I think this brings us pretty close to the end of the line in this discovery.

I honestly believe we are letting our “rules” get in the way of the substance. If we listen with our hearts, which is what Christ did, I believe the rules will speak to us in a different way that target the substance of the reality of what is being done – transcending such obstacles which arise primarily due to trying to make the letter of the law fit this particular extreme situation.

That’s why I think Christ got into trouble. Many interpreted the law to believe a hungry person could not pick grain and eat it on the sabbath, or that one should not heal on the sabbath. Christ saw through the narrow, literalistic reading.

In my heart here is what I believe is happening. Two women, with two beautiful but doomed babies, and two doctors go into their respective rooms. In each room, the woman and doctor come out alive and the baby does not. In one of the rooms, the mother also comes out having also been a victim of “unwanted but necessary” mutilation surgery.

To me the second woman/doctor is doing the greater harm. If she was only sterile on that side, then we have sterilized her because we cannot reconcile that words do not signify intent.

Yes, we are killing the baby but it is truly a threat, it is truly in self-defense, and in any matter we are no less killing the baby than in the situation we mutilate the mother to do so. We are taking away her fertility.

Here’s another question – in the case of ectopic pregnancy, if a couple does not have the finances to pay for mutilation surgery, must they let the mother die because they could not morally go in and kill the child? What about before the surgery was available?

I’m asking Catholics to listen to their hearts on this, and then see if we can find a way to apply the rules such that they do not give us this obvious incongruence between doing greater harm and satisfying a written rule.

Also, I maintain that in the case of the abortion, one is not deliberately going in to kill the baby any more than with the surgery; the procedure is being done to save a life – absolutely not to take one.

To me it is valid to use extreme cases to test our ideas, because if the philosophies don’t work in extreme cases, then they are not absolutes.

I agree that they aren’t willing martyrs. I do believe they should be protected whenever possible (unless, like I said, more will die otherwise). I’m opposed to the Iraq war, for instance; however, I voted for Bush because more innocents are being killed by abortion than are being killed in his war.

I actually voted for Bush for other reasons, but these days I am less interested in politics than I used to be so I haven’t been following the news. I’m not so much interested in what’s going on at the leadership levels because I’ve moved on to looking how people communicate with each other, especially on heated topics – so political debate is more like a line item for me than a major cause like it was in the recent past.

Alan