Abortion in the case of rape AND the life of the mother

[CatholicSoxFan]

First, I agree the violinist thought experiment is profoundly dumb and even question-begging. Because of course we, as Catholics, would argue that dependency creates obligation, so unplugging him would be justifiable only on the utilitarian grounds we already reject and which the experiment was supposed to prove.

The problem with the scenario you outline is that abortion is not morally the equivalent of letting go of Tom in order to save one’s own life. In that case, one does not intend Tom’s death as an end it itself. But abortion does, in fact, intend the death of the fetus. Hence abortion is morally the equivalent of pushing Tom off a balcony.

So I guess you could still use the Steve and Tom thought experiment to disprove the violinist argument even better because it’s so weak.

 

[runningdude]

How is the thought experiment disanalogous to a pregnancy? Also if the thought experiment in the OP is disanalogous, how else would you respond to the violinist thought experiment?

Because their is a natural duty to carry a child to term, but no natural duty to place oneself in danger to rescue another. The analogy simply does not work, because “Steve” does not need to save the falling individual. That is not to say that Steve wouldn’t feel tremendous guilt letting go, but it would be his prerogative to do so.

Warning, slightly graphic response:

It is perhaps the principle of double effect at work. It is not immoral to release your grip, even when releasing your grip has the foreseeable consequence of hastening Tom’s death. It is, however, immoral to ingest a “medicine” that would poison and kill a child, or to insert a knife into women that would dismember and kill a child. *

The first does not kill “Tom”; Tom’s death is the natural, though unfortunate consequence of falling. The second however, through the actions of the “doctor” and the mother who consents, does indeed directly kill the child.

I do not wish to be needlessly graphic, but I want to emphasize that abortion is the destruction of a child. Killing innocent children is wrong. Always wrong.

** For all victims who met this faith: “Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now, and at the our of our death. Amen.” *

 

[on_the_hill]

the child has an absolute natural right to be in its mother’s womb.

This is a thought provoking statement.

Not only is it a natural right, there is nowhere else that the child could be. It is an essential right. The child’s location and existence are inextricably connected.

Tom and Steve could be anywhere and can choose to be anywhere. The child exists in one and only one place.

Metaphysically speaking, it’s existentially claustrophobic and freaking me out, man.

 

[on_the_hill]

Hence abortion is morally the equivalent of pushing Tom off a balcony.

Good point. Along those lines, there are more than a few examples one can think of:

What if Steve wanted to take a picture of the sunset from the balcony, and Tom were in the way? Would it be o.k. to push Tom off the balcony?

What if Steve were hosting a party, and Tom showed up uninvited? If the apartment comfortably holds 23 guests, and Tom makes 24, would it be o.k. to push Tom off the balcony so as to make for a successful party?

 

[runningdude]

… Hence abortion is morally the equivalent of pushing Tom off a balcony.

Not quite; there could exist a moral, or at least morally neutral reason to push “Tom” off the balcony; self defense if attacked by Tom for instance.

There could not possibly exist a moral reason to destroy a child in its mother’s womb. Abortion is unique in how inherently immoral it is; any analogy will fail at some point to convey its gravity.

 

[sw85]

Not quite; there could exist a moral, or at least morally neutral reason to push “Tom” off the balcony; self defense if attacked by Tom for instance.

There could not possibly exist a moral reason to destroy a child in its mother’s womb. Abortion is unique in how inherently immoral it is; any analogy will fail at some point to convey its gravity.

OK, so let’s recalibrate and say it’s the moral equivalent of pushing Tom off the balcony without provocation or absolute necessity.

 

[minkymurph]

To introduce some facts into the debate -

On average 85 000 women are raped in England and Wales each year.

It is standard procedure to offer victims of the crime of rape the morning after pill.

Just sayin’.

 

[maryjk]

To introduce some facts into the debate -

On average 85 000 women are raped in England and Wales each year.

It is standard procedure to offer victims of the crime of rape the morning after pill.

Just sayin’.

Just saying what?

 

[minkymurph]

Just saying what?

Just sayin’ it’s a fact - a fact people are reluctant to address.

 

[davidv]

Just sayin’ it’s a fact - a fact people are reluctant to address.

What reluctance? This very thread is about the rampant dehumanization of children and rationalization of same with contrived thought experiments. No amount of utility can justify the killing of a child in the womb.

 

[minkymurph]

What reluctance? This very thread is about the rampant dehumanization of children and rationalization of same with contrived thought experiments. No amount of utility can justify the killing of a child in the womb.

I don’t think the fact that 85 000 victims of rape each year in England and Wales alone can be described as a ‘thought experiment.’

Neither do I think how this very real issue should be addressed can be described as a ‘thought experiment.’

 

[davidv]

I don’t think the fact that 85 000 victims of rape each year in England and Wales alone can be described as a ‘thought experiment.’

Nor does this number contribute to understanding the morality involved.

Neither do I think how this very real issue should be addressed can be described as a ‘thought experiment.’

The OP is a thought experiment. The statistic you presented is a red herring.

 

[minkymurph]

Nor does this number contribute to understanding the morality involved.

The OP is a thought experiment. The statistic you presented is a red herring.

That what I mean by being reluctant to discuss it. You’ve just dismissed the fact 85 000 women raped each year in England and Wales by describing it as a ‘red herring.’

 

[davidv]

That what I mean by being reluctant to discuss it. You’ve just dismissed the fact 85 000 women raped each year in England and Wales by describing it as a ‘red herring.’

This is a subject for another thread.

Please kindly not put words in my mouth. I never dismissed those rapes.

 

[minkymurph]

This is a subject for another thread.

Please kindly not put words in my mouth. I never dismissed those rapes.

You did not dismiss rape as nothing, that is true, but I did not say you did. What I said is you are avoiding a very significant issue.

The OP said, ‘I don’t see too many apologists addressing the scenario of abortion in the case of both rape and the mother’s life being in danger.’ That is what the thread is about - rape and the mother’s life being in danger. That being the case, the subject of rape has everything to do with this thread. I may not be discussing it in the way you want me to, but I cannot see for the life of me how you can say the number of rapes committed each year is irrelevant to this thread and a subject for another thread. Could you explain that?

Can you also explain why you think the fact it is standard practice to offer women who are raped the morning after pill is irrelevant to this thread? Does the Church not teach the morning after pill is abortifacient? That being the case, why do you think the fact 85 000 women potentially being offered the morning after pill is irrelevant to the topic of this thread?

Pretend I am stupid and spell it out.

 

[LoganBice]

less of half then 1% of abortions are rape victims and according to Ron Paul out of his 20+ of being a Doctor he said not once was a women’s life in danger when pregnant under his care. My point being is this is usually the last ditch effort to defend abortion by Pro Choicers. 99% of abortions are just because they are “inconvenient” for the mother at the time. People are desperate to try and justify murder.

 

[Hawkiz]

Ok, I will bite here because I am REALLY confused.

Take this scenario.

Mother at 34 weeks with preeclampsia or toxemia. BP sky high, meds not working. Patient starts seizing. MD must deliver baby immediately to save them both. = viable fetus, probably a good outcome.

Same mother at 15 weeks= death of fetus.

In this case the only Treatment is an abortion correct?

My confusion is this… Is it the intent (to kill the baby) that makes the difference? I see the issue as a glass half full/glass half empty issue in that it is a very FINE line that separates the two.

I’m having trouble explaining myself today so please bear with me. But The way I see it… sugar coating an action or putting a "positive " spin on it is just word play for the same action and effect.

Intent- to save the mother, but not to kill the baby, this was an unfortunate effect- OK? Right?

So then wouldn’t most deliveries of preterm infants for the purpose of saving the mothers life AS LONG as the mother didn’t intend for the baby to die (even though she knew survival was impossible?) be permissible?

help?

I’ll bite back

If in such a case (and my oldest two were almost the exact scenario you described) there were truly ‘NO’ options left, an alternate approach would be to induce labor…instead of abortion. At this point in time, science isn’t able to maintain life outside of the womb at 15 weeks, so the result would likely be death for the baby. But, in this hypothetical, what if science COULD do so? Would pro-choicers still push for abortion? It was not all that long ago that 28 weeks was considered the threshold for science. Today it is 24 and pushing 23 weeks! Which begs the question of ‘When do we get a soul?’ And the answer stands ‘At conception’.
And YES, intent matters. Abortion is a very deliberate act. In your scenario, the resulting death would be considered a miscarriage, provided that the intent of mother, father and doctor was to fight to save the baby.
personal opinion alert. If one can say in full good conscience that EVERYTHING was done to preserve the baby’s life, and the life of the mother, which also has value, but not ‘greater value’, then fault can not be found. Abortion does not fit the bill of trying everything…it is giving up on the baby for the sake of choice. Speaking from personal experience, abortion doesn’t hold as even a ‘last resort’. Inducing labor and birthing the baby, even at 15 weeks can be done and while currently it may mean certain death for the baby, it allows for God’s miracles and fits with His plan. This is then similar to any other miscarriage scenario, which are painful to endure, but are not a deliberate act…

I don’t have all the hypothetical answers here, but abortion is deliberate, premeditated murder of an innocent.

Peace in Christ and Go Blackhawks!

 

[minkymurph]

less of half then 1% of abortions are rape victims and according to Ron Paul out of his 20+ of being a Doctor he said not once was a women’s life in danger when pregnant under his care. My point being is this is usually the last ditch effort to defend abortion by Pro Choicers. 99% of abortions are just because they are “inconvenient” for the mother at the time. People are desperate to try and justify murder.

So does that mean the 85 000 women in England and Wales who are raped each year either fortunately don’t get pregnant, or choose to have the baby? Alternatively, how many women who are victims of rape and receive the morning after pill are included in the number of rape victims that opt for abortion?

Does the Church not teach the morning after pill is abortifacient? It may be the case 85 000 is a very small percentage of the number of women in England and Wales (I have no statistics outside England and Wales) who seek an abortion, but I don’t think a figure of 85 000 is insignificant enough to discounted irrespective of what percentage of total abortions if makes up.

Of course it can be argued taking the morning after pill is not an abortion. If that is true there is justification for not including 85 000 women who are raped each year in abortion statistics.

 

[LoganBice]

So does that mean the 85 000 women in England and Wales who are raped each year either fortunately don’t get pregnant, or choose to have the baby? Alternatively, how many women who are victims of rape and receive the morning after pill are included in the number of rape victims that opt for abortion?

Does the Church not teach the morning after pill is abortifacient? It may be the case 85 000 is a very small percentage of the number of women in England and Wales (I have no statistics outside England and Wales) who seek an abortion, but I don’t think a figure of 85 000 is insignificant enough to discounted irrespective of what percentage of total abortions if makes up.

Of course it can be argued taking the morning after pill is not an abortion. If that is true there is justification for not including 85 000 women who are raped each year in abortion statistics.

Well first that statistic is America. Not UK. I can’t go into detail because I heard it on Catholic Answers so I can’t speak about it indepth. All I know is that in America rape causes a small percent of abortion compared to the massive amount or other abortions on demand. It’s all besides the point though, which is the evil crime of abortion.

 

[minkymurph]

Well first that statistic is America. Not UK. I can’t go into detail because I heard it on Catholic Answers so I can’t speak about it indepth. All I know is that in America rape causes a small percent of abortion compared to the massive amount or other abortions on demand. It’s all besides the point though, which is the evil crime of abortion.

Rape can be divorced from abortion. The average number of rape cases in the US per annum is 89 000. Were all those women lucky enough not to get pregnant, or did they decide to proceed with the pregnancy? The reason rape causes a small percent of abortion is women who report rape are offered the morning after pill which is not considered as an abortion. Or - did they not get pregnant because they chose to avail of taking the morning after pill?

Should that be counted as an abortion or not? Many would say no. Would they be right?