Can a medical purpose justify an act?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ron_Conte
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jaaanosik said:
You are mixing names of acts with moral objects.
Moral object is goal/end what you want to reach.
Click to expand...
II. GOOD ACTS AND EVIL ACTS
Click to expand...
1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).
Click to expand...
The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.
Click to expand...
 
There is of course a “kind of intention” embedded as it were in the moral object itself. I do not deny that…

…but when the Church says abortion is an intrinsically evil act – that can never be done for any reason --She is using the language of moral theology -of the moral object -“abortion” and not necessarily the “medical term” --so it would be in correct to the start mixing terms and say “but a spontanious miscarriage is an abortion” etc etc (fill in your other kinds of medical procedures that can have immoral incarnations and moral).
 
CCC:

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:
  • the object chosen;
  • the end in view or the intention;
  • the circumstances of the action.
The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

…

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together…

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.
 
Bookcat said:
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.
Click to expand...
But that’s just it, you are oversimplifying. If a woman is “suffering” sufficiently to put her life at risk, the Church does not regard as illicit, a treatment that might result in delivery of a previable fetus (i.e. abortion as an unintended side-effect). Abortion is not a procedure, it is an outcome.

However, in that post you are responding to, I was referring to relieving suffering in the context of diseases unrelated to pregnancy.
 
seekerz said:
But that’s just it, you are oversimplifying. If a woman is “suffering” sufficiently to put her life at risk, the Church does not regard as illicit, a treatment that might result in delivery of a previable fetus (i.e. abortion as an unintended side-effect). Abortion is not a procedure, it is an outcome.

However, in that post you are responding to, I was referring to relieving suffering in the context of diseases unrelated to pregnancy.
Click to expand...
The definition of what the Church means by abortion is the same as murder.
2261 Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: "Do not slay the innocent and the righteous."61 The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. The law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere.
Click to expand...
 
Bookcat said:
There is of course a “kind of intention” embedded as it were in the moral object itself. I do not deny that…

…but when the Church says abortion is an intrinsically evil act – that can never be done for any reason --She is using the language of moral theology -of the moral object -“abortion” and not necessarily the “medical term” --so it would be in correct to the start mixing terms and say “but a spontanious miscarriage is an abortion” etc etc (fill in your other kinds of medical procedures that can have immoral incarnations and moral).
Click to expand...
Spontaneous abortion is not a procedure, it is an event that happens naturally. I think you are confusing procedures (planned, deliberate processes carried out in a standard, defined way for a variety of definite purposes) with some related theological concept.
 
seekerz said:
But that’s just it, you are oversimplifying. If a woman is “suffering” sufficiently to put her life at risk, the Church does not regard as illicit, a treatment that might result in delivery of a previable fetus (i.e. abortion as an unintended side-effect). Abortion is not a procedure, it is an outcome.

However, in that post you are responding to, I was referring to relieving suffering in the context of diseases unrelated to pregnancy.
Click to expand...
Abortion is just a type of murder. The Church talks of abortions as just the murder of an unborn child. The procedure used to achieve this is irrelevant in terms of whether its murder or not. Either its murder or its not.
2268 The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.69
Click to expand...
 
seekerz said:
Spontaneous abortion is not a procedure, it is an event that happens naturally. I think you are confusing procedures (planned, deliberate processes carried out in a standard, defined way for a variety of definite purposes) with some related theological concept.
Click to expand...
put anything you want in the blank…I just used that cause it is a medical term that used the word abortion which is a word used in moral theology for something different.
 
seekerz said:
But that’s just it, you are oversimplifying. If a woman is “suffering” sufficiently to put her life at risk, the Church does not regard as illicit, a treatment that might result in delivery of a previable fetus (i.e. abortion as an unintended side-effect). Abortion is not a procedure, it is an outcome.
Click to expand...
Nope I am not.

And one cannot abort a child. Period.

That would not be an unintended side effect but the means.
 
Can a medical purpose justify doing something *intrinsically evil *?:

no.

🙂
 
Can a good intention justify doing something that is* intrinsically evil*?

no

Can circumstance justify doing something that is intrinsically evil?

no.
 
Nate13 said:
Abortion is just a type of murder. The Church talks of abortions as just the murder of an unborn child. The procedure used to achieve this is irrelevant in terms of whether its murder or not. Either its murder or its not.
Click to expand...
I don’t think anyone here is arguing that direct abortion is not murder.
 
seekerz said:
I don’t think anyone here is arguing that direct abortion is not murder.
Click to expand...
My point was that in Catholic moral theology if you call an act an abortion you are saying its intrinsically evil and always wrong no matter the intent or outcome. If we are talking about a procedure that indirectly leads to the death of a child in the womb, we are not talking about an abortion or a murder. Your in the moral theology section and it only makes sense to define abortion as the Church defines it for the purposes of this discussion.
 
Nate13 said:
My point was that in Catholic moral theology if you call an act an abortion you are saying its intrinsically evil and always wrong no matter the intent or outcome. If we are talking about a procedure that indirectly leads to the death of a child in the womb, we are not talking about an abortion or a murder. Your in the moral theology section and it only makes sense to define abortion as the Church defines it for the purposes of this discussion.
Click to expand...
My point too.
 
Bookcat said:
CCC:

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:
  • the object chosen;
  • the end in view or the intention;
  • the circumstances of the action.
The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

…

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together…

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.
Click to expand...
Moral object - what you want to achieve (goal/end) - exists outside of the person
Intent - why you want to achieve it - comes from inside of the person
Circumstances - surrounding conditions

Adultery is not a moral object, it’s a name for an act.
One of possible breakdowns:
Moral object - to have sex
Intent - to satisfy sexual needs
Circumstances - outside of marriage
The circumstance will never render this act as moral.
 
Jaaanosik said:
Moral object - what you want to achieve (goal/end) - exists outside of the person
Intent - why you want to achieve it - comes from inside of the person
Circumstances - surrounding conditions

Adultery is not a moral object, it’s a name for an act.
One of possible breakdowns:
Moral object - to have sex
Intent - to satisfy sexual needs
Circumstances - outside of marriage
The circumstance will never render this act as moral.
Click to expand...
I’ll repost since you may have missed it…
II. GOOD ACTS AND EVIL ACTS
Click to expand...
1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).
Click to expand...
The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.
Click to expand...
vitiate - Destroy or impair the legal validity of.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top