The difference between murder and homicide is intent and circumstances. A priori classifying abortion as murder means that circumstances are ignored. It’s an exercise in circular reasoning. Abortion is an intrinsic evil because it cannot be licit in any circumstances; it cannot be licit, because it is an intrinsic evil.
However, this is irrelevant, because Catholic Church does not view abortion as murder/homicide. As per CCC 2271 it is a crime separate from homicide, and, contrary to homicide, cannot be excused under any circumstances – which exempts it from the double effect.
Buhwha? Where do you get the idea that the Church classifies abortion as something separate from homicide/murder? I read that section of the CCC and the one after, and while abortion is called out as a distinct issue (no doubt because there is social debate over whether it is wrong at all), the reason the Church opposes it is precisely because it is homicide (the taking of human life) and indeed murder (deliberate and unjust homicide).
Not true. You are allowed to use a deadly force against a mentally unstable (and thus innocent) person. You are also allowed to use a deadly force against an enemy soldier in combat (although he was forcibly drafted and really has nothing against you).
Attacker’s culpability does not enter the equation, it’s whether he is a threat or not.
Are you referring to legal standards or Catholic moral theology? If the latter, I admit I would like to see the Church’s reasoning, since that does seem to contradict the reasons for which abortion is said never to be justifiable.
Staw man. The bombing of Hiroshima was immoral because the people of Hiroshima didn’t pose an immediate threat to US forces. It would have been however perfectly permissible to nuke Japanese troops.
My apologies, I intended no straw man. I was merely presenting an example of a case that is often defended as having saved more lives than it took, and pointing out that the Catholic Church does not acknowledge that defense as proper justification.
The operative word being “chose”. As Savita’s case demonstrates, once someone legislates the Catholic position, you have doctors refusing to carry out life-saving abortion out of fear that they would be prosecuted. Evoking St. Gianna here is the ultimate hypocrisy, as those invoking her want to force martyrdom on the women in similar situation.
I invoked St. Gianna as an example of a woman who did die in favor of her own child, to emphasize that even in that case she could not simply kill herself or be killed (as might be implied by the charge that a fetal life is more valued than its mother’s).
I do sometimes think of St. Gianna as an appropriate patron for both the pro-life and pro-choice causes, properly understood. To still the horrified cries of my fellow pro-lifers, let me state that I of course do not associate St. Gianna with approval of the choice to kill one’s child (exactly the opposite), but rather associate her with a free personal choice made in spite of the fact that both doctors and the Church were encouraging her to choose differently.
I am leery of legislation like Ireland’s (as I understand it) because I don’t think anyone can or should be commanded to die if life is an option, any more than I think St. Gianna should have been compelled to sacrifice her daughter’s life to better her own chances.
Certainly not, if the woman can be saved by any morally licit means.
In general, this is how I think things should go:
If medical treatment could save both mother and child, provide that treatment to both, even if the chances of one could be made better by sacrificing the other. (Mom is sapient and so can choose to delay her own treatment if she wishes, but she must never be expected/forced to do so. St. Gianna demonstrated heroic virtue, not the everyday expected behavior.)
If mom is going to die by remaining pregnant, then if child is viable and can be delivered alive with at least a slim chance of survival, deliver child.
If child is already dead and its presence is killing mom, remove the kid either intact or otherwise as necessary (it’s not using the body any more).
If child is irretrievably going to die but mom will die waiting for that to happen … well, that’s the sticky wicket we’re all talking about. I think the moral principle is clear – you do not do evil even that good may come of it – but as I said before, I am leery of passing laws that require someone to die. Of course, I conversely don’t think a doctor should be prosecuted for refusing to kill the fetus in such a case, since both lives are equally valuable. It’s a horrible situation and a terrible choice either way. Mostly my issue is with people who think it’s a slam-dunk because the fetus is definitely of lesser (or even no) value. Acknowledging that either way a life is lost goes a long way in my book, even if someone makes the “wrong” choice in the heat of the moment.
Usagi
