Can abortion be justified as self-defense?

  • Thread starter Thread starter UKcatholicGuy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
U

UKcatholicGuy

Guest
please help! this situation/question concerning abortion was posed to me by someone last week, and it’s been bothering me ever since. i just don’t know how to respond. here it is:

the Catholic Church teaches that one can defend himself against an agressor with lethal force, if nesessary. in other words, if someone is threatening your life, you have the right to kill that person if that is indeed the ONLY thing that will keep you from being killed. In fact, Catechism #2264 quotes St. Thomas Aquinas, "Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s." Using this, the person asked me if abortion, in the case of a life-threatening situation to the mother, would be considered self-defense? He says if we have the right to place more worth on our own life than another’s, why is abortion wrong if the woman’s life is in danger? Isn’t she just defending herself against death?

Needless to say, this question is REALLY BOTHERING ME! I looked up CC #2264 and it does say what I quoted above. Personally, that quotes bothers me, but I don’t know what to make of it.

Can somebody help me refute this argument? Thank you, and God bless this wonderful community!
 
40.png
UKcatholicGuy:
please help! this situation/question concerning abortion was posed to me by someone last week, and it’s been bothering me ever since. i just don’t know how to respond. here it is:

the Catholic Church teaches that one can defend himself against an agressor with lethal force, if nesessary. in other words, if someone is threatening your life, you have the right to kill that person if that is indeed the ONLY thing that will keep you from being killed. In fact, Catechism #2264 quotes St. Thomas Aquinas, "Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s." Using this, the person asked me if abortion, in the case of a life-threatening situation to the mother, would be considered self-defense? He says if we have the right to place more worth on our own life than another’s, why is abortion wrong if the woman’s life is in danger? Isn’t she just defending herself against death?

Needless to say, this question is REALLY BOTHERING ME! I looked up CC #2264 and it does say what I quoted above. Personally, that quotes bothers me, but I don’t know what to make of it.

Can somebody help me refute this argument? Thank you, and God bless this wonderful community!
Click to expand...
The baby is an innocent, not an agressor. I don’t think it is ever ok to kill one innocent person just to save another.
 
Unborn children are certainly not agressors. The persons participating in the abortion are the agressors. Unborn children are completely innocent, helpless and vulnerable; therefore, to deliberately kill them is evil.

It is never okay.

Shannin
 
I think in the case of where a baby is endangering a woman’s life, and the only way to save her life has a side affect of loosing the baby is okay. I’m thinking of an example, such as an ectopic pregnancy, where the babies life just cannot continue and the mother’s life is in danger. I don’t think Church teaching is against this.

However, mother’s life has to be truly in danger, and the baby’s life has to be sustained as much as possible. I don’t think these situations are considered “Abortions” since the inent of an abortion is simply to end the life of a baby.

Whether the “sefl dfense” argument is how this is justified, I’m not so sure.
 
The usual argument against self-defense is that the baby is innocent and isn’t aggressor. I never quite understood this. Why can’t a baby can be an aggressor and be innocent at the same? If someone were threatening your life unintentionally, wouldn’t you be justified in protecting yourself, even if that meant harm to the person threatening your life unintentionally?
 
Even is a life threatening pregnancy, it isn’t the baby who is acting against the life of the mother. The baby isn’t even an “unintentional agressor”. It is the reactions of the woman’s own body that make the pregnancy life-threatening. A direct abortion kills one human being who is not an agressor to protect the life of another. That is morally wrong.

BTW, even in an ectopic pregnancy, the licit treatment isn’t a direct abortion. It is removal of all or a portion of the fallopian tube which indirectly causes that death of the baby (if he/she is not already dead). Treatment for ectopic pregnance that involves directly killing the baby (often with drugs) is just as morraly wrong as any other direct abortion.
 
kmktexas, nice signature. BTW, it’s Archbishop Chaput not Bishop. In another thread I mentioned a link to a Chaput response to that civic meating.
 
40.png
Benedictus:
The usual argument against self-defense is that the baby is innocent and isn’t aggressor. I never quite understood this. Why can’t a baby can be an aggressor and be innocent at the same? If someone were threatening your life unintentionally, wouldn’t you be justified in protecting yourself, even if that meant harm to the person threatening your life unintentionally?
Click to expand...
I still don’t think the baby is an aggressor. I think by definition an aggressor has some sort of intent. Here is hyperdictionary.com’s definition of aggressor:

Definition:

  1. *][n] a confident assertive person who acts as instigator
    *][n] someone who attacks

    I don’t think an unborn child fits this description.

    I was trying to think of a situation where an innocent person would kill you and you would have to kill them as your only option in self defense, but I couldn’t think of one.
 
40.png
Benedictus:
The usual argument against self-defense is that the baby is innocent and isn’t aggressor. I never quite understood this. Why can’t a baby can be an aggressor and be innocent at the same? If someone were threatening your life unintentionally, wouldn’t you be justified in protecting yourself, even if that meant harm to the person threatening your life unintentionally?
Click to expand...
How can a fetus be an aggressor? the pro-aborts don’t even acknowledge he is a person, so he cannot possible be taking an action, intentional or otherwise, that results in a threat to someone else. An aggressor is someone who deliberately threatens bodily harm to another person, so your question does not make sense. If an innocent person is unwittingly posing a threat to my safety, there is nothing that would justify my taking his life to remove the threat.

How did that innocent fetus get in the position to pose a threat? Not by any action of its own, but by the action of its parents, one of whom is now carrying him in her womb. If I give a child a loaded gun, who then unknowing the danger points it at me, I have created the dangerous situation, and nothing justifies me killing the child to save my own life.
 
40.png
Benedictus:
The usual argument against self-defense is that the baby is innocent and isn’t aggressor. I never quite understood this. Why can’t a baby can be an aggressor and be innocent at the same?
Click to expand...
Can a person be innocent and guilty at the same time? An agressor is a guilty person, one who attacks you without cause.
40.png
Benedictus:
If someone were threatening your life unintentionally, wouldn’t you be justified in protecting yourself, even if that meant harm to the person threatening your life unintentionally?
Click to expand...
The circumstances in which a baby is “threatening” the mother’s life are very rare. One example is an ectopic pregnancy, where the ovum is fertilized in the fallopian tube, and develops there. Eventually, the fallopian tube bursts and both mother and child die.

Given the current state of medicine, the only possible remedy is to remove the developing child – which dies. The mother, however, is saved.

The Church accepts this as acting to save a life, even though both cannot be saved. The Church does NOT accept that the baby is an aggressor, or is guilty of attacking the mother.
 
The usual argument against self-defense is that the baby is innocent and isn’t aggressor. I never quite understood this. Why can’t a baby can be an aggressor and be innocent at the same? If someone were threatening your life unintentionally, wouldn’t you be justified in protecting yourself, even if that meant harm to the person threatening your life unintentionally?
Click to expand...
Actually, I had heard of the “innocent aggressor” idea before. A priest I know teaches a class about just war theory. The example he uses about what he calls an “innocent attacker” is a fat man falling/pushed off of a cliff. If he lands on you, you will die and he will live. If you move, he will die and you will live. Are you justified in moving out of the way?
I agree that with the typical definition of “aggressor” it does not make sense that an unborn child would be the aggressor, but if you define “aggressor” as merely an individual who is causing a threat to another, whether intentionally or not, it is possible for an innocent person to be an aggressor.
 
Grace and Glory:
Actually, I had heard of the “innocent aggressor” idea before. A priest I know teaches a class about just war theory. The example he uses about what he calls an “innocent attacker” is a fat man falling/pushed off of a cliff. If he lands on you, you will die and he will live. If you move, he will die and you will live. Are you justified in moving out of the way?
I agree that with the typical definition of “aggressor” it does not make sense that an unborn child would be the aggressor, but if you define “aggressor” as merely an individual who is causing a threat to another, whether intentionally or not, it is possible for an innocent person to be an aggressor.
Click to expand...
The man falling off the cliff is like the ectopic pregnancy. The problem is when the choice is between when the baby will live and the mother will die or abort the baby and the mother will live. In the ectopic pregnancy it may be ok to remove the baby, but I doubt it’s ok to choose the mother’s life over the baby’s if that’s not going to be the natural outcome.
 
40.png
Rascal:
kmktexas, nice signature. BTW, it’s Archbishop Chaput not Bishop. In another thread I mentioned a link to a Chaput response to that civic meating.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I fixed it. I have been using that quote since Oct. and you are the first to catch it. 🙂
 
Others are correct about ectopic pregnancies - the “treatment” of removal of the tube which is about to burst, with the indirect effect of ending the baby’s life- is morally acceptable. Also the baby would never survive if left in the tube, and the only thing that can happen is danger to the mother in addition to the baby’s certain death.

Now- there are other situations, later in pregnancy where a woman’s life can come into immediate danger, such as ecclampsia, and HELP syndrome. In both cases, the baby can be delivered early, and Dr.s can do all that they can to save the baby.

The simple fact is that the poisoning with saline, or dismemberment of a baby in utero is never needed to save a mother’s life. Early delivery is sometimes needed, but never a direct intentional killing of the unborn child. Does that help?

PS- people will always have some obscure moral dilemma surrounding such things to try to “reason” making things like abortion legal, it is good that you work so hard to come up with the answers to shoot them down. These questions can only make your stance stronger. 👍
 
40.png
jess7396:
Others are correct about ectopic pregnancies - the “treatment” of removal of the tube which is about to burst, with the indirect effect of ending the baby’s life- is morally acceptable. Also the baby would never survive if left in the tube, and the only thing that can happen is danger to the mother in addition to the baby’s certain death.

Now- there are other situations, later in pregnancy where a woman’s life can come into immediate danger, such as ecclampsia, and HELP syndrome. In both cases, the baby can be delivered early, and Dr.s can do all that they can to save the baby.

The simple fact is that the poisoning with saline, or dismemberment of a baby in utero is never needed to save a mother’s life. Early delivery is sometimes needed, but never a direct intentional killing of the unborn child. Does that help?

PS- people will always have some obscure moral dilemma surrounding such things to try to “reason” making things like abortion legal, it is good that you work so hard to come up with the answers to shoot them down. These questions can only make your stance stronger. 👍
Click to expand...
I never cease to be amazed at the lengths people will go to justify killing a perfectly innocent human being – for mere convenience sake.

They are aided and abetted by those who support pro-abortion politicians for reasons of “social justice.”
 
40.png
Genesis315:
The man falling off the cliff is like the ectopic pregnancy.
Click to expand...
To build on the analogy, moving out of the way would be acceptable, blasting him out of the sky with a rocket launcher would not, just as “the mother’s life is in danger, so let’s jam scissors into baby’s brain” is not acceptable.

Scott
 
Scott Waddell:
To build on the analogy, moving out of the way would be acceptable, blasting him out of the sky with a rocket launcher would not, just as “the mother’s life is in danger, so let’s jam scissors into baby’s brain” is not acceptable.

Scott
Click to expand...
There are VERY few cases where killing the baby is the answer. In some cases, there may be a risk to the mother that can be averted, but we ought to carry out any such medical treatments with the aim of saving BOTH mother and baby.
 
vern humphrey:
There are VERY few cases where killing the baby is the answer. In some cases, there may be a risk to the mother that can be averted, but we ought to carry out any such medical treatments with the aim of saving BOTH mother and baby.
Click to expand...
Yes, we agree. Did you think we didn’t?

Scott
 
Scott Waddell:
Yes, we agree. Did you think we didn’t?

Scott
Click to expand...
No, I was just summing up the argument – cutting through the fog some have raised here.
 
Given the current state of medicine, the only possible remedy is to remove the developing child – which dies. The mother, however, is saved.
Click to expand...
There are common treatments with medication only. It is not always medically necessary to cut out the tube. It can be preseved in some cases, perhaps even some involving surgury. Also, it is possible for the pregnancy to end without intervention.

If the baby/placenta is lodged in the abdominal cavity, you can’t save the mom by removal of the tube. Does anyone know what the standard Catholic treatment is then? I’d guess wait until child is viable and then have surgury and hope mom and baby are still alive by then?

What if you are stuck somewhere, away from most medical care for a few months?. Then it seems your only options are to hope the problem resolves before you die or to take the methotrexate (the drug they use). I assume the only allowable Catholic option is to do nothing and hope you don’t die.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top