Can a medical purpose justify an act?

[Bookcat]

Well I think you would agree that terminating a pregnancy because a woman does not want a baby is direct abortion and is done by medical people and is legal and accepted medical practice. So that is one example.

 

[Bookcat]

Another example would be IVF.

etc

 

[seekerz]

Well I think you would agree that terminating a pregnancy because a woman does not want a baby is direct abortion and is done by medical people and is legal and accepted medical practice. So that is one example.

The act would be abortion, but there is no single procedure for abortion therefore how can direct abortion be an intrinsically evil ‘procedure’? In other words, there are several ways to achieve a single goal but while achieving that goal may be immoral, the means of doing so are not necessarily immoral unless they have no other uses. So, tubal ligation, to my knowledge has no other goal but sterilization, whereas a D&C has other legitimate uses as does a suction procedure. The latter two procedures then, are not intrinsically evil.

 

[Bookcat]

The act would be abortion, but there is no single procedure for abortion therefore how can direct abortion be an intrinsically evil ‘procedure’? In other words, there are several ways to achieve a single goal but while achieving that goal may be immoral, the means of doing so are not necessarily immoral unless they have no other uses. So, tubal ligation, to my knowledge has no other goal but sterilization, whereas a D&C has other legitimate uses as does a suction procedure. The latter two procedures then, are not intrinsically evil.

Abortion that is “direct abortion” is what it is always and everywhere. And it is intrinsically evil always and everywhere. No matter the means used.

PS: one can “ligate” the tube for another reason by the way…to remove a blockage for example and insert the remaining part back in place.

This is a moral theology section.

Intrinsically evil is a term of Moral Theology …to be applied to moral objects.

We are simply arguing terms here…

 

[seekerz]

Abortion that is “direct abortion” is what it is always and everywhere. And it is intrinsically evil always and everywhere. No matter the means used.

PS: one can “ligate” the tube for another reason by the way…to remove a blockage for example and insert the remaining part back in place.

This is a moral theology section.

Intrinsically evil is a term of Moral Theology …to be applied to moral objects.

We are simply arguing terms here…

No we are not. Ligation of the tube is done only for abortion, other procedures on the tubes have different names. I am simply seeking to differentiate the actual procedures from the reasons for doing them. The former are generally morally neutral (with exceptions as noted above), the latter can be licit or illicit. So, no, it is not simply a matter of terminology.

 

[fix]

The act would be abortion, but there is no single procedure for abortion therefore how can direct abortion be an intrinsically evil ‘procedure’?

Not sure I am following you here. Are you stating that the name of a procedure or insurance code cannot be evil because the same code could be used for different things?

I would say that the nomenclature is not the real issue we are talking about. Some acts are always evil. Those acts can be done in the name of medicine.

In other words, there are several ways to achieve a single goal but while achieving that goal may be immoral, the means of doing so are not necessarily immoral unless they have no other uses. So, tubal ligation, to my knowledge has no other goal but sterilization, whereas a D&C has other legitimate uses as does a suction procedure. The latter two procedures then, are not intrinsically evil.

Well I do not think we are talking about a particular name used to define some medical treatement. We are talking about so called medical treatment that is immoral.

 

[Bookcat]

No we are not. Ligation of the tube is done only for abortion, other procedures on the tubes have different names. I am simply seeking to differentiate the actual procedures from the reasons for doing them. The former are generally morally neutral (with exceptions as noted above), the latter can be licit or illicit. So, no, it is not simply a matter of terminology.

You mean sterilzation…there…

---

The “matter of terminology” was referring more to the mixing of moral and medical terms.

In Moral Theology an abortion or a sterilzation is a particular thing --as meant in that science.

When we are discussing* intrinsically evil actions* we are discussing moral objects not medical terms.

 

[seekerz]

At this point, I think we are simply talking past each other because I seem to be just repeating myself. Abortion describes the delivery of a pre-viable child and has moral connotations but it is not a procedure; the procedures by which abortion are achieved, include D&C, suction etc which are morally neutral procedures also used for other reasons (e.g. bleeding in non-pregnant women or after a miscarriage).

 

[seekerz]

You mean sterilzation…there…

---

The “matter of terminology” was referring more to the mixing of moral and medical terms.

In Moral Theology an abortion or a sterilzation is a particular thing --as meant in that science.

When we are discussing* intrinsically evil actions* we are discussing moral objects not medical terms.

Sorry, oops! My bad - yes, I do mean sterilization.

 

[Bookcat]

At this point, I think we are simply talking past each other because I seem to be just repeating myself. Abortion describes the delivery of a pre-viable child and has moral connotations but it is not a procedure; the procedures by which abortion are achieved, include D&C, suction etc which are morally neutral procedures also used for other reasons (e.g. bleeding in non-pregnant women or after a miscarriage).

This section of the forum. Is the Moral Theology section.

Therefore a discussion here would be a discussion of Moral Theology-not medical terminology.

The Church (and Moral Theology) in speaking of* intrinsically evil* actions that can never be done for any reason…such is referring to the* “moral object”*. Thus direct abortion can never be done for any reason.

Direct Abortion is the murder of an unborn child.

It is besides the point to say that various medical procedures can be called abortion in the medical field.

So you do not feel alone in repeating yourself:

*moral objects *not medical terms.

 

[seekerz]

This section of the forum. Is the Moral Theology section.

Therefore a discussion here would be a discussion of Moral Theology-not medical terminology.

The Church (and Moral Theology) in speaking of* intrinsically evil* actions that can never be done for any reason…such is referring to the* “moral object”*. Thus direct abortion can never be done for any reason.

Direct Abortion is the murder of an unborn child.

It is besides the point to say that various medical procedures can be called abortion in the medical field.

So you do not feel alone in repeating yourself:

*moral objects *not medical terms.

I understand your point but I’m afraid you don’t get mine. Terminology is crucial because one is presented in real life with actual procedures as choices - no one EVER gets asked “do you consent to a direct abortion?” It’s also important from a moral theology perspective because I get the impression from these discussions that there are some who see individual treatments (many of which are morally neutral) as bad in themselves.

 

[Bookcat]

I understand your point but I’m afraid you don’t get mine. Terminology is crucial because one is presented in real life with actual procedures as choices - no one EVER gets asked “do you consent to a direct abortion?” It’s also important from a moral theology perspective because I get the impression from these discussions that there are some who see individual treatments (many of which are morally neutral) as bad in themselves.

Well certainly one has to understand what the proposed procedure is …and evaluate it morally.

 

[fix]

I understand your point but I’m afraid you don’t get mine. Terminology is crucial because one is presented in real life with actual procedures as choices - no one EVER gets asked “do you consent to a direct abortion?” It’s also important from a moral theology perspective because I get the impression from these discussions that there are some who see individual treatments (many of which are morally neutral) as bad in themselves.

I would say that some procedures, whatever terms used, are always wrong.

The procedure, by any name, has an object that is chosen. If that object is evil then the procedure is evil. If the procedure, by any name, has a good object then the procedure is fine.

 

[seekerz]

I would say that some procedures, whatever terms used, are always wrong.

The procedure, by any name, has an object that is chosen. If that object is evil then the procedure is evil. If the procedure, by any name, has a good object then the procedure is fine.

What of the procedure which has more than one object? For example, a D&C can be used for abortion or for several medical conditions unrelated to abortion or pregnancy. Other than the two examples we discussed above, I can’t think of any other procedure which is immoral in itself and not simply in its usage.

 

[fix]

What of the procedure which has more than one object? For example, a D&C can be used for abortion or for several medical conditions unrelated to abortion or pregnancy. Other than the two examples we discussed above, I can’t think of any other procedure which is immoral in itself and not simply in its usage.

Well if it is used to kill an unborn baby it is evil. It is used to treat a pathologic condition it is not evil.

So, when I hear someone say a procedure is evil I would ask why it was done.

 

[seekerz]

Well if it is used to kill an unborn baby it is evil. It is used to treat a pathologic condition it is not evil.

So, when I hear someone say a procedure is evil I would ask why it was done.

Agreed.

 

[Bookcat]

What of the procedure which has more than one object? For example, a D&C can be used for abortion or for several medical conditions unrelated to abortion or pregnancy. Other than the two examples we discussed above, I can’t think of any other procedure which is immoral in itself and not simply in its usage.

“object” does not mean here per se: “intention”

Moral objects are such things as:

Abortion, fornication, adultery, theft, murder, almsgiving, adoration, etc

Some moral objects are intrinsically evil: such as abortion, murder etc (them be always bad…one can never do them for any reason)

Others are good such as almsgiving or prayer…but sin can enter in via the intention (the object, intention and circumstance need to be all good) like to give alms out of vanity.

 

[seekerz]

“object” does not mean here per se: “intention”

Moral objects are such things as:

Abortion, fornication, adultery, theft, murder, almsgiving, adoration, etc

Some moral objects are intrinsically evil: such as abortion, murder etc (them be always bad…one can never do them for any reason)

Others are good such as almsgiving or prayer…but sin can enter in via the intention (the object, intention and circumstance need to be all good) like to give alms out of vanity.

I don’t disagree. The same medical procedure can have the object of destroying life i.e. abortion or the object of relieving suffering.

 

[Bookcat]

I don’t disagree. The same medical procedure can have the object of destroying life or the object of relieving suffering.

Again it seems your making it an “intention”

Moral object
Intention
Circumstance

Medical terminology is one thing. Moral Theology is another.

So when it is said that something is intrinsically evil and can never be done–such is referring to the moral object.

A doctor can perform an abortion with the intention of “relieving suffering” of the woman who is suffering cause she is pregnant. Such is still the moral object of abortion. Still intrinsically evil. One can never do an intrinsically evil action for any good purpose. The end does not justify the means.

 

[Jaaanosik]

“object” does not mean here per se: “intention”

Moral objects are such things as:

Abortion, fornication, adultery, theft, murder, almsgiving, adoration, etc

Some moral objects are intrinsically evil: such as abortion, murder etc (them be always bad…one can never do them for any reason)

Others are good such as almsgiving or prayer…but sin can enter in via the intention (the object, intention and circumstance need to be all good) like to give alms out of vanity.

You are mixing names of acts with moral objects.
Moral object is goal/end what you want to reach.