Alas, Abortion

[Marc_Anthony]

Salve all,

In another thread we were discussing the recent case of Sister Mcbride (I believe that’s the name, right?). She was excommunicated for performing an abortion.

The apparent circumstances were that both mother and child had a 99% chance of dying if the abortion, and only an abortion, not a c-section, was not performed. The abortion WAS unfortunately performed by Sister Mcbride. The Mother survived.

Here’s the obvious question: Let’s assume that this scenario is accurate as presented, the Mother and baby dying if the baby isn’t killed. How can the Church justify letting two people die as opposed to one? I know the official teaching and I understand that we must follow it, I just want a satisfactory explanation here. What should be done in these situations? You should let both die? Because that seems to defy logic.

Again, I fully accept Church teaching and don’t wish to challenge it. I merely want to understand HOW this makes sense.

Thanks to all who post and God bless!

 

[catharina]

Salve all,

In another thread we were discussing the recent case of Sister Mcbride (I believe that’s the name, right?). She was excommunicated for performing an abortion.

The apparent circumstances were that both mother and child had a 99% chance of dying if the abortion, and only an abortion, not a c-section, was not performed. The abortion WAS unfortunately performed by Sister Mcbride. The Mother survived.

Here’s the obvious question: Let’s assume that this scenario is accurate as presented, the Mother and baby dying if the baby isn’t killed. How can the Church justify letting two people die as opposed to one? I know the official teaching and I understand that we must follow it, I just want a satisfactory explanation here. What should be done in these situations? You should let both die? Because that seems to defy logic.

Again, I fully accept Church teaching and don’t wish to challenge it. I merely want to understand HOW this makes sense.

Thanks to all who post and God bless!

A few corrections, marc.

Sister M. McBride approved the use of an abortion in a Catholic hospital.
The abortion was preformed by medical staff. The “nun” in authority gave her OK.
In theory, the abortion was performed to “save” the mother.

As the Catholics in the two threads (Catholic News and Secular News)
have stated repeatedly, such an action is against the law of God,
it being God Who has decreed “thou shalt not kill.”

The Church has never allowed direct intended abortion. It never will do so…
To allow, support, provide abortion is contrary to the law of God Himslef.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Thank you for the corrections.

It seems to me like here religion is contradicting reason. Instead of saving one person, we should let both die? I accept the Church teaching, but I do not understand it. How does it make sense to allow two people to die instead of saving one? You need to kill one of them unfortunately, true. But then, it’s really a choice between one dying or two dying. I don’t see how you can conclude that it’s okay to allow two people to die instead of killing one (who was already about to die) and saving one who would’ve died. You’re not choosing one over the other, you’re choosing one over none.

I accept what the Church teaches but it still seems contradictory to logic. It just doesn’t add up.

 

[catharina]

Thank you for the corrections.

It seems to me like here religion is contradicting reason. Instead of saving one person, we should let both die? I accept the Church teaching, but I do not understand it. How does it make sense to allow two people to die instead of saving one? You need to kill one of them unfortunately, true. But then, it’s really a choice between one dying or two dying. I don’t see how you can conclude that it’s okay to allow two people to die instead of killing one (who was already about to die) and saving one who would’ve died. You’re not choosing one over the other, you’re choosing one over none.

I accept what the Church teaches but it still seems contradictory to logic. It just doesn’t add up.

It can only seem contradictory to logic if your notion of logic allows for murder.
Is deliberate killing something that you find allowable? If yes, then your “logic” says OK.
That doesn’t ever make it OK. On the contrary, killing is forbidden.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

My notion of logic sees two people here. Both will die VERY shortly. We’re talking minutes, at most hours.

Both would be saved IF AT ALL POSSIBLE. But it’s impossible.

However, if the baby is killed, the Mother survives. So should the baby be killed?

This is a moral dilemma only because the baby is going to die anyway. So the question becomes, lose both, or save one?

At any rate, I personally would not want to be responsible for my child’s death. However, can we really force people through the legal system to sacrifice themselves to save…nobody? Can we force medical people to let two people die when one can be saved? How is it fair to force this decision on people?

Once again, I fully accept what the Church teaches on this matter-abortion is intrinsically evil. It is ALWAYS wrong. But I’m not getting the reasoning behind it.

 

[catharina]

My notion of logic sees two people here. Both will die VERY shortly. We’re talking minutes, at most hours.

Both would be saved IF AT ALL POSSIBLE. But it’s impossible.

However, if the baby is killed, the Mother survives. So should the baby be killed?

This is a moral dilemma only because the baby is going to die anyway. So the question becomes, lose both, or save one?

At any rate, I personally would not want to be responsible for my child’s death. However, can we really force people through the legal system to sacrifice themselves to save…nobody? Can we force medical people to let two people die when one can be saved? How is it fair to force this decision on people?

Once again, I fully accept what the Church teaches on this matter-abortion is intrinsically evil. It is ALWAYS wrong. But I’m not getting the reasoning behind it.

The reasoning behind it is the law of God Almighty.
I clearly remember the nation when all abortion was against the law for any reason.
Changing notions of personal entitlement do not make for “acceptable” moral changes.

Only 70+ yrs ago, birth control was forbidden by all Christian religions.
Hard to believe that? Nonetheless, it’s the truth. As humanity seeks ease
and convenience, morality is vanquished. So the nation becomes immoral.

Is that a good? Never.
There is NO moral dilemma.
There is only morality and immorality.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Indeed. I accept the Church’s teaching. But this doesn’t have to with entitlement. It’s a basic question. Why are we letting two people die when one can be saved?

 

[VetA]

Salve all,

In another thread we were discussing the recent case of Sister Mcbride (I believe that’s the name, right?). She was excommunicated for performing an abortion.

The apparent circumstances were that both mother and child had a 99% chance of dying if the abortion, and only an abortion, not a c-section, was not performed. The abortion WAS unfortunately performed by Sister Mcbride. The Mother survived.

Here’s the obvious question: Let’s assume that this scenario is accurate as presented, the Mother and baby dying if the baby isn’t killed. How can the Church justify letting two people die as opposed to one? I know the official teaching and I understand that we must follow it, I just want a satisfactory explanation here. What should be done in these situations? You should let both die? Because that seems to defy logic.

Again, I fully accept Church teaching and don’t wish to challenge it. I merely want to understand HOW this makes sense.

Thanks to all who post and God bless!

think about it like this: a guy has a gun to your daughter and your son’s heads he tells you to choose one. its the same in God’s eyes, and how would you choose, kill your son who mows the lawn for you and is a star football player but gets ds and fs on his report card, or kill your daughter who is dating the guy you dont want her to date and is drinking on the weekends but has a perfect 4.0 and is in key club. how do you choose then, if you did you would be saying that one of your children is of less value than than the other, and if you preform the abortion you are saying the mother is worth more than the child.

 

[catharina]

Indeed. I accept the Church’s teaching. But this doesn’t have to with entitlement. It’s a basic question. Why are we letting two people die when one can be saved?

WHY? Because we are not allowed to kill. We are not barbarians, marc.

 

[catharina]

think about it like this: a guy has a gun to your daughter and your son’s heads he tells you to choose one. its the same in God’s eyes, and how would you choose, kill your son who mows the lawn for you and is a star football player but gets ds and fs on his report card, or kill your daughter who is dating the guy you dont want her to date and is drinking on the weekends but has a perfect 4.0 and is in key club. how do you choose then, if you did you would be saying that one of your children is of less value than than the other, and if you preform the abortion you are saying the mother is worth more than the child.

Beautiful. Thank you, VetA.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

No you’re not. Because we can’t pick between the Mother and child. The child will certainly die either way; the Mother will not. The Mother will only die if the baby isn’t killed.

Let’s take the gun scenario and make it this: The same son and daughter have a gun to their heads. The assasin says that if you say nothing both will die but if you give him permission to kill the son the daughter will be spared. It is a terrible decision, but ultimately it’s a choice between saving one or killing both, isn’t it?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I just don’t get it. How is it barbaric to prevent one person’s death? Both were going to die anyway. Now one is being saved.

 

[catharina]

No you’re not. Because we can’t pick between the Mother and child. The child will certainly die either way; the Mother will not. The Mother will only die if the baby isn’t killed.

Let’s take the gun scenario and make it this: The same son and daughter have a gun to their heads. The assasin says that if you say nothing both will die but if you give him permission to kill the son the daughter will be spared. It is a terrible decision, but ultimately it’s a choice between saving one or killing both, isn’t it?

We have NO permission to kill one
and we can give NO permission to kill one.

 

[catharina]

I just don’t get it. How is it barbaric to prevent one person’s death? Both were going to die anyway. Now one is being saved.

The barbarism is the murder.
It is unlawful, regardless of the outcome for the other life.

We have NO AUTHORITY to kill.
This is really old “Ten Commandments” stuff, marc.
It is NOT some new-fangled notion!

 

[Marc_Anthony]

So you’re saying it’s better for both to die…

This seems to contradict reason. I accept it, but I just don’t get it.

 

[catharina]

So you’re saying it’s better for both to die…

This seems to contradict reason. I accept it, but I just don’t get it.

It is clearly better for both to die if that is the will of God.
Shall you, young marc, claim to know better than God?
Shall you, or anyone, allow unto himself the power of God?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I’ll look at it in it’s most basic form, the gun to the head scenario. I simply do not understand how it is okay to let two people die when one can be saved. Now, one can be saved by killing the other. But you’re killing somebody who is going to die extremely soon anyway, in order to prevent somebody from dying for hopefully a good long time.

It doesn’t add up to me. The Church says that abortion is always evil in every situation, so I am bound to agree and I do. I just don’t get HOW it makes sense.

EDIT: This seems to me to be pretty horrible-we CAN save one. By killing another? Yes, but this person is dying in a VERY short time anyway.

EDIT 2: I’ll get back to you after praying a bit on this one. There is obviously a disconnect here. I desire to understand what my Church teaches in the light of reason, but I can’t. This is my fault, not the Church’s. She is infallible. So I must not be looking at this properly.

Pray for me too, please, if you would be so kind.

 

[VetA]

No you’re not. Because we can’t pick between the Mother and child. The child will certainly die either way; the Mother will not. The Mother will only die if the baby isn’t killed.

Let’s take the gun scenario and make it this: The same son and daughter have a gun to their heads. The assasin says that if you say nothing both will die but if you give him permission to kill the son the daughter will be spared. It is a terrible decision, but ultimately it’s a choice between saving one or killing both, isn’t it?

its still pure evil to choose to kill one to save another. you value both children equally, God values both of His children equally, we must leave it in His hands, He has His reasons for letting certain things come to pass. who are we to judge the decisions of the Dvine?

 

[catharina]

I’ll look at it in it’s most basic form, the gun to the head scenario. I simply do not understand how it is okay to let two people die when one can be saved. Now, one can be saved by killing the other. But you’re killing somebody who is going to die extremely soon anyway, in order to prevent somebody from dying for hopefully a good long time.

Killing that weaker one is an example of relativism, a very grave error
that opposes the overall absolute nature of God and His law.
Relativism has Western culture by its throat.

It doesn’t add up to me. The Church says that abortion is always evil in every situation, so I am bound to agree and I do. I just don’t get HOW it makes sense.

EDIT: This seems to me to be pretty horrible-we CAN save one. By killing another? Yes, but this person is dying in a VERY short time anyway.

EDIT 2: I’ll get back to you after praying a bit on this one. There is obviously a disconnect here. I desire to understand what my Church teaches in the light of reason, but I can’t. This is my fault, not the Church’s. She is infallible. So I must not be looking at this properly.

Pray for me too, please, if you would be so kind.

Yes, I’ll pray for you.
Today it is still Pentecost in California, my current home.
Pray to the Holy Spirit for enlightenment!

 

[tjm190]

WHY? Because we are not allowed to kill. We are not barbarians, marc.

Train track scenario (don’t you love these?)- We’ve got a train traveling at 100 miles per hour with one person on it, and 500 pounds of C4 set to go off in 2 minutes. On the train’s current path it will run over a second person. You can redirect the train into a brick wall, killing the first person and saving the second. I believe, by your logic, we are obligated to do nothing.