Alas, Abortion

[Marc_Anthony]

I would agree. Even if I would’ve done it (and I’m human, I might’ve) I would be ashamed and know it was sinful. It’s the abortion arguement again-this guy knows he could sacrifice himself to save me, and it’s not even really a sacrifice because he would die anyway. But he doesn’t want to. I don’t have the right to make him.

 

[Jordan9]

In 1990, a young couple were told that their son would probably die during birth, or at least shortly after. “Don’t bother buying baby clothes,” is essentially what they said, “You might get a few minutes with him, but most likely not even that.” After the boy lived for weeks, then months, the doctors still urged caution to the young couple, predicting that their son might die at age 1 or 2.

The child had a fairly severe case of heterotaxy, a rare congenital disease that effects most of the internal organs in the torso; stomach, liver, heart, sometimes lungs. The child in question had two large holes in his heart, asplenia (a spleen never formed), and other complications. But the most severe were the cardiovascular problems.

Surprise! That child was me, and my 20th birthday is this July. In my family’s case, there was admittedly little to no dilemma between my mom’s life vs. my own. But at the same time, I would advocate taking a doctor’s prediction with a grain of salt, and never underestimate the power of prayer.

 

[catharina]

In 1990, a young couple were told that their son would probably die during birth, or at least shortly after. “Don’t bother buying baby clothes,” is essentially what they said, “You might get a few minutes with him, but most likely not even that.” After the boy lived for weeks, then months, the doctors still urged caution to the young couple, predicting that their son might die at age 1 or 2.

The child had a fairly severe case of heterotaxy, a rare congenital disease that effects most of the internal organs in the torso; stomach, liver, heart, sometimes lungs. The child in question had two large holes in his heart, asplenia (a spleen never formed), and other complications. But the most severe were the cardiovascular problems.

Surprise! That child was me, and my 20th birthday is this July. In my family’s case, there was admittedly little to no dilemma between my mom’s life vs. my own. But at the same time, I would advocate taking a doctor’s prediction with a grain of salt, and never underestimate the power of prayer.

Lovely. Thanks for telling your story. Welcome to CA site.

Now, about your cold feet?
Wear double pairs of socks and (maybe) join an RCIA group at your local Catholic parish.
Want to have warm feet while you learn ALL through Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults.

 

[Jordan9]

Lovely. Thanks for telling your story. Welcome to CA site.

Now, about your cold feet?
Wear double pairs of socks and (maybe) join an RCIA group at your local Catholic parish.
Want to have warm feet while you learn ALL through Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults.

Haha, thank you, thank you! I would consider myself Catholic in heart, mind, and will. I’m just nervous because of what my family would think; in particular my grandmother who is ill and on her death-bed. Her stalwart, humble, Baptist faith was a huge inspiration for me and played a major role in me coming to Christianity… But she also doesn’t know a lot about the Catholic Church, and thinks, erroneously, that we’re all committing grave sins.

I don’t want her last few months on Earth to be spent thinking that her grandson is going to Hell or something.

 

[catharina]

Haha, thank you, thank you! I would consider myself Catholic in heart, mind, and will. I’m just nervous because of what my family would think; in particular my grandmother who is ill and on her death-bed. Her stalwart, humble, Baptist faith was a huge inspiration for me and played a major role in me coming to Christianity… But she also doesn’t know a lot about the Catholic Church, and thinks, erroneously, that we’re all committing grave sins.

I don’t want her last few months on Earth to be spent thinking that her grandson is going to Hell or something.

Prayers for you and for lasting peace for your grandmother.

 

[Jordan9]

Prayers for you and for lasting peace for your grandmother.

Thank you so much! :thankyou:

 

[elts1956]

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 is a hard situation to accept, but how can we, with faulty reasoning, begin to understand what God teaches through His Church?

 

[elts1956]

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.

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.

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.

You could try to stop the train.

 

[tjm190]

You could try to stop the train.

You’re on an airplane. This is all happening electronically.

 

[elts1956]

So had the US government had the opportunity to shoot down one of the planes on 9/11 prior to it striking it’s target (killing the innocents on board), you would have recommended they not do so?

By the way my aforementioned post does not in any way shape or form apply to the act of abortion.

Only in times of war or when one’s life is directly threatened.

Rob.

I think everyone should understand what you meant. Self defense is not a permissable logic when in the context of abortion. In the context of the 9/11 attack it would be permissable to shoot one of the planes down even though innocent people were on board as it would have been an act of self defense. But then maybe not, as we didn’t know it would be an act of self defense.

 

[tjm190]

I think everyone should understand what you meant. Self defense is not a permissable logic when in the context of abortion. In the context of the 9/11 attack it would be permissable to shoot one of the planes down even though innocent people were on board as it would have been an act of self defense. But then maybe not, as we didn’t know it would be an act of self defense.

So we can some innocents to save others?

 

[elts1956]

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.

At the time of 9/11 no one knew what was going on. The incidents of the two planes flying into the towers happened so fast, everyone was in shock. I don’t know what could have been done. I think I have changed my mind. Unless it was “known” there was a terrorist aboard and in that case there would have been time to arm planes and get them in the air to take the renegade planes in tow, it would have been immoral to shoot one of the planes down.

 

[LilyM]

So we can some innocents to save others?

But 9/11 wasn’t a case of killing innocents to save other innocents. The planes contained the hijackers (the guilty) - and certainly it’s OK to kill the guilty, even if in the process you unavoidably, regrettably, and only as an ABSOLUTE last resort, end up with innocents dying also.

I suppose you’ll come up with some far-fetched example involving remote-controlled planes or the like - in such situations, of course, the thing is to find and, if necessary, kill the GUILTY. The ones remotely controlling the plane who aren’t passengers. Because you don’t know that they don’t have more than one plane headed at the target. You don’t know that the plane isn’t a decoy to distract the military while whatever real bomb is brougth to the target by some other means. In short, you don’t know that shooting that plane down will save a single person.

So tell me, out of interest, who is the guilty party morally equivalent to those hijackers who deserves to be killed when a woman has a problem pregnancy?

 

[tjm190]

But 9/11 wasn’t a case of killing innocents to save other innocents. The planes contained the hijackers (the guilty) - and certainly it’s OK to kill the guilty, even if in the process you unavoidably, regrettably, and only as an ABSOLUTE last resort, end up with innocents dying also.

I suppose you’ll come up with some far-fetched example involving remote-controlled planes or the like - in such situations, of course, the thing is to find and, if necessary, kill the GUILTY. The ones remotely controlling the plane who aren’t passengers. Because you don’t know that they don’t have more than one plane headed at the target. You don’t know that the plane isn’t a decoy to distract the military while whatever real bomb is brougth to the target by some other means. In short, you don’t know that shooting that plane down will save a single person.

So tell me, out of interest, who is the guilty party morally equivalent to those hijackers who deserves to be killed when a woman has a problem pregnancy?

I was actually going to say that the pilot and copilot are dead, the plane is going to steer itself into the empire state building. Now you have to shoot down a plane full of innocents or let a bunch of people die, those innocents included. There is no guilty party.

 

[tjm190]

At the time of 9/11 no one knew what was going on. The incidents of the two planes flying into the towers happened so fast, everyone was in shock. I don’t know what could have been done. I think I have changed my mind. Unless it was “known” there was a terrorist aboard and in that case there would have been time to arm planes and get them in the air to take the renegade planes in tow, it would have been immoral to shoot one of the planes down.

Standard procedure nowadays is to send jets to ‘escort’ the rogue plane down. Had the first plane hit a building, I assume they would have mulled shooting down the other two as they approached their targets.

 

[Jordan9]

Some of these hypothetical situations remind me of Joan Baez’s dialogue on pacifism.

salsa.net/peace/conv/8weekconv7-4.html

 

[mchale]

I was actually going to say that the pilot and copilot are dead, the plane is going to steer itself into the empire state building. Now you have to shoot down a plane full of innocents or let a bunch of people die, those innocents included. There is no guilty party.

If the plane was so close to the Empire State Building that we knew it was going to hit it even though no one is at the controls we can draw two simple conclusions.

1. Lots of people are going to die regardless of the scenario since shooting a plane down anywhere over Manhattan will result in thousands of deaths.
2. You are not going to have time to do it anyway.

–
Bill

 

[mchale]

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.

So what you are suggesting here is that if a doctor decides you only have a week to live, they can happily kill you to harvest your organs? After all, they will add years to the life of multiple people and you only had a few days left anyway.

The problem with your position is that almost any means, no matter how morally objectionable can be justified if a net benefit can be derived.

–
Bill

 

[estesbob]

I would like to nominate this as one of the most off topic threads ever!

 

[catharina]

I would like to nominate this as one of the most off topic threads ever!

Second.