Alas, Abortion

[mchale]

A few analogies have been thrown out in this thread, and none of them, I believe completely recreates the moral question at hand. Here is my take on it.

You have two sick individuals. Both are in advanced stage organ failure (Though different organs in each case). One case is terminal, beyond the ability of science to stop the individual from dying, but they have several days of life left. In the second case, the individual might be saved with a transplant of the heart from the first individual, but the transplant needs to be done in the next several days (before the first individual’s natural death) In other words, the only way to save one patient is to kill the other patient. Ethically, I am pretty sure that this is a big no no… Morally, I am sure that the Catholic Church would object.

Thus in the real world example under discussion, the abortion can only be considered ethical if society inherently devalues the life of the unborn child to make it seem less than human.

–
Bill

 

[jmcrae]

Then we’re going to have to agree to disagree- even if I thought it was wrong, I’d ‘slash my wrists’ before I let my conscience get a few thousand people killed.

It’s not you getting them killed - it’s the terrorists. You wouldn’t be responsible for anyone’s death, except for the deaths that you yourself directly cause.

 

[Ponyguy]

I’m simply glad that I’m not in the position of having to make those decisions. I have plenty of trouble enough with the decisions I need to make already.

 

[crazzeto]

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?

It is the churches teaching that when someone under goes a direct abortion for any reason at all, they are playing with hell fire. If you think it is tragic for a person to die due to complications due pregnacy, how much more so for them to die under the abortionists knife? With quite possibly the most terrible personal guilt on their soul? Eternally damned, because they accepted a lie propegated by a culture of death?

 

[tjm190]

It’s not you getting them killed - it’s the terrorists. You wouldn’t be responsible for anyone’s death, except for the deaths that you yourself directly cause.

So failing to stop a death that it was clearly within your power and responsibility to protect, either as a member of the government or a doctor, due to your own moral quibbles is just fine?

 

[tjm190]

Thus in the real world example under discussion, the abortion can only be considered ethical if society inherently devalues the life of the unborn child to make it seem less than human.

–
Bill

Or devalues life that is sure to end in the next few days with respect to life that may continue on for years to come.

 

[jmcrae]

So failing to stop a death that it was clearly within your power and responsibility to protect, either as a member of the government or a doctor, due to your own moral quibbles is just fine?

It can never be moral to kill one person to save another. All human beings are of equal value to God, and ultimately, His is the only opinion that counts.

 

[LilyM]

What the issue boils down to for me is that doctors, however knowledgeable and good at their job they may be, are not God, and are often woefully mistaken when it comes to evaluating chances of survival.

Doctors by nature are very cautious and trained (and motivated, for example, by the threat of malpractice suits) to overfocus on risk and negatives. I have a family full of doctors, and know whereof I speak. We see this sort of miscalculation and overnegativity all the time, for example, with cancer patients who live a much longer time than their physicians predict, or people with injuries who heal much faster and better than predicted.

Trust me, the world (and these threads) are FULL of women who were told, by their doctors, as the poor pregnant woman in this situation was told, that they and their babies would certainly or almost certainly die if they proceeded with pregnancy, who nonetheless proceeded and successfully both gave birth and themselves survived.

 

[jmcrae]

Trust me, the world (and these threads) are FULL of women who were told, by their doctors, as the poor pregnant woman in this situation was told, that they and their babies would certainly or almost certainly die if they proceeded with pregnancy, who nonetheless proceeded and successfully both gave birth and themselves survived.

That’s so true - and what about that poor kid who was aborted a couple of weeks ago because supposedly he was disabled? He came out of the womb alive, and survived for two days - pretty tough, healthy kid, if you ask me - and there was nothing the matter with him, apart from the fact that he’d been induced prematurely. Of course I’m sure his mother was told that he was “just a blob of tissue.”

 

[tjm190]

It can never be moral to kill one person to save another.

I’m very glad you don’t play a role in our national security. I mean, that scenario could be expanded- if you’ve ever seen the movie Fail-Safe it was determined necessary to shoot down US bomber pilots who believed they had received orders to nuke moscow. Killing those innocents would have saved millions, but again would have constituted murder.

All human beings are of equal value to God, and ultimately, His is the only opinion that counts.

And should the sky open up and God declare His opinion on the matter, then that would be a prudent thing to do.

 

[jmcrae]

I’m very glad you don’t play a role in our national security.

If your national security people started blowing up airplanes full of innocent civilians every time they suspected that maybe there was a terrorist on board, you’d see quite a backlash against your government.

And should the sky open up and God declare His opinion on the matter, then that would be a prudent thing to do.

That has already happened - read the Book of Exodus.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Well, I’ll have to defend the Church here. She is divinely inspired. Her making an absolute ruling on an issue is tantamount to God making an absolute ruling on an issue.

You will find me in better spirits today. After deep prayer and deep thought (thanks for all who prayed for me!), I have come to terms with the teaching.

You know what convinced me? I was thinking deeply about this after prayer and a lightbulb went on. It suddenly occurred to me that nobody asked the baby.

What I mean is, the baby is probably going to die anyway, true. But nobody asked the bay whether he or she is okay with being killed so the Mother could survive. Of course, it would be a meritorious thing to do. But we cannot assume that the baby would assent to being killed. Nobody asked the baby’s opinion on the issue, asked whether or not the baby was okay with people killing him. And that’s what the pro-life movement is all about, speaking up for those without a voice. Without the baby consenting, his or her death, even for the most meritorious of reasons, is his or her murder. And obviously the baby cann’t give his or her consent, so it is immoral to kill the baby.

Thanks to all who have posted on this thread, I have now definitely come to terms with this Church teaching. God bless.

 

[tjm190]

If your national security people started blowing up airplanes full of innocent civilians every time they suspected that maybe there was a terrorist on board, you’d see quite a backlash against your government.

Right, there wasn’t justification to shoot down one of those planes. I’m sure they were just looking for a tour of the city.

That has already happened - read the Book of Exodus.

So after a great deal of convincing, God won’t kill a city over one innocent. Apples and oranges- no lives would have been lost if God had not blown up the city.

 

[jmcrae]

Right, there wasn’t justification to shoot down one of those planes. I’m sure they were just looking for a tour of the city.

There are terrorists on airplanes every day - normally, they are subdued by the police and taken away peacefully, without anybody having to be blown up. If your security people were blowing up every plane in the sky that might have a terrorist on it, they would be doing the work of the enemy for them.

So after a great deal of convincing, God won’t kill a city over one innocent. Apples and oranges- no lives would have been lost if God had not blown up the city.

I was referring to God coming down from Heaven and giving Moses the Ten Commandments (you know - “thou shalt not kill,” and all that … )

 

[tjm190]

There are terrorists on airplanes every day - normally, they are subdued by the police and taken away peacefully, without anybody having to be blown up. If your security people were blowing up every plane in the sky that might have a terrorist on it, they would be doing the work of the enemy for them.

Terrorists don’t often seize control of a plane, and when they do they don’t often redirect that plane towards a population center.

I was referring to God coming down from Heaven and giving Moses the Ten Commandments (you know - “thou shalt not kill,” and all that … )

Oh, I thought you were talking about Sodom- although that wasn’t in exodus ><. And by the logic, killing in self defense would be wrong cause guess what? It’s still killing.

 

[jmcrae]

And by the logic, killing in self defense would be wrong cause guess what? It’s still killing.

By definition, if the person was attacking you and the only way you could escape was by killing him, he would not be classified as “an innocent bystander.”

 

[tjm190]

By definition, if the person was attacking you and the only way you could escape was by killing him, he would not be classified as “an innocent bystander.”

Regardless- you claimed we can’t kill because God said 'Thou shalt not kill"

There is no exception for self defense in that statement. You invoked it, not me.

The claim that shooting down a plane known to be heading towards a building full of people is beyond extreme.

 

[jmcrae]

Regardless- you claimed we can’t kill because God said 'Thou shalt not kill"

There is no exception for self defense in that statement. You invoked it, not me.

Self-defense is hardly the premeditated murder of an innocent person. If you kill someone in self-defense, it’s because injuring them did nothing to slow them down - which shows how determined they were to kill you (an innocent person).

The claim that shooting down a plane known to be heading towards a building full of people is beyond extreme.

The people on the plane are just as innocent as the people in the building.

 

[tjm190]

Self-defense is hardly the premeditated murder of an innocent person. If you kill someone in self-defense, it’s because injuring them did nothing to slow them down - which shows how determined they were to kill you (an innocent person).

So though shalt not kill is not a hard and fast rule, as you applied before? There can be mitigating factors?

The people on the plane are just as innocent as the people in the building.

yes. We aren’t choosing some to live and some to die, we’re minimizing the number of innocent lives lost. It seems like we have a responsibility to do so.

 

[jmcrae]

So though shalt not kill is not a hard and fast rule, as you applied before? There can be mitigating factors?

None of which include the killing of innocent bystanders.

We aren’t choosing some to live and some to die, we’re minimizing the number of innocent lives lost. It seems like we have a responsibility to do so.

Who is this “we”?

I am not aware of any government that has authorized the direct killing of innocent people, in order to save the lives of other innocent people. If they ever did, believe me, there would be rioting in the streets.