Catholic Position Extreme Case of Abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fidem
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
HomeschoolDad said:
This is a horrible scenario to have to consider.
Click to expand...
Yes, the moral choice – do nothing – leads to the expectation of the death of both.

In a different but similar context one may consider the modified lifeboat dilemma. A lifeboat for one has two aboard and the overload is sinking the craft. One of them is terminally ill and weak. May the other throw the weak one overboard? No.
 
FiveLinden said:
40.png
Dovekin:
An abortion ban that does not allow an exception for the life of the mother is unconstitutional
Click to expand...
Not all Catholics live in the United States. Not all countries have constitutions.
Click to expand...
My apologies. I was indeed speaking of the USA.

My guess is that most countries have similar policies. In the US, it is not something that is clearly in the Constitution; rather it has been identified as part of the Constitution by a court process.
Rau said:
The unborn are the most innocent of all, yet it is only they among all innocents who you’d allow to be directly killed?
Click to expand...
My comment was about how legislation is created, and has little or nothing to do with what I’d allow. Legislators routinely consider what the courts will allow when they write laws.
 
o_mlly said:
40.png
HomeschoolDad:
If the means are not intrinsically evil, then they do not have to be justified.
Click to expand...
No. For the human act to be morally justified, not only the object must be good but also the intention and circumstances. Goodness in all three fonts are required.
CCC#1760 A morally good act requires the goodness of its object, of its end, and of its circumstances together.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
o_mlly said:
40.png
HomeschoolDad:
The act itself is morally neutral, though removing an internal bodily organ cannot be done “just because” — there has to be a reason to do so.
Click to expand...
No human act in the concrete is neutral. The moral object of the act, i.e., the inherent ordering of the act itself toward its moral object constitutes the moral species of the chosen act.
Click to expand...
So are you saying that — to take a look at what I’m doing right now — drinking a cup of coffee, sitting in a chair, and putting my feet on the floor — are all three either “good acts” or “bad acts”? And that they are “good because they are not bad”? “Bad because they are not good” doesn’t make sense.
 
Fidem said:
What is the Catholic position regarding a hypothetical situation where a pregnant woman is certain to die if her pregnancy goes on and, at the same time, is 100% certain that the baby will not develops either way, even if she does nothing.
Click to expand...
That is generally never the case in actual medical practice. On paper, it works as a good thought experiment to help us suss out what our moral stances are, but you’ll never find that kind of certainty in real life.

The moral stance is pretty clear, though (and very different from the ‘consequentialism’ and ‘utilitarianism’ that you find widely accepted in contemporary western culture): it is not morally acceptable to kill an innocent, regardless of circumstances.

On the other hand, you might appeal to “double effect”, but that takes more analysis than “she’ll die otherwise.”
Fidem said:
This question are also in line with the moral question if it is ok to actively kill a innocent life if it will result in saving, let’s say, one million people.
Click to expand...
Right: the “trolley problem”, writ large.

The answer is still ‘no’. “The end does not justify the means.”
 
HomeschoolDad said:
So are you saying that — to take a look at what I’m doing right now — drinking a cup of coffee, sitting in a chair, and putting my feet on the floor — are all three either “good acts” or “bad acts”? And that they are “good because they are not bad”? “Bad because they are not good” doesn’t make sense.
Click to expand...
Identify the moral end that the act inherently directs itself toward (independently of any particular actor) and you have your answer. All human acts (actus humanus) involve rational knowledge and free will. Autonomous acts (actus hominis) do not involve knowledge or intention and are non-moral.

See Veritatis Splendor p 78 " … “By the object of a given moral act, then, one cannot mean a process or an event of the merely physical order, to be assessed on the basis of its ability to bring about a given state of affairs in the outside world. Rather, that object is the proximate end of a deliberate decision which determines the act of willing on the part of the acting person.”

Moderate drinking (coffee) to sustain fluids and invigorate one’s self is healthy and inherently good.
Inordinate drinking (coffee, e.g., to stave off needed sleep) is inherently evil.
 
Do you disagree with the Church on the principle of double effect, then?
 
Intent is one of the sources of morality.
These procedures do not have the direct taking of human life as their intent. The intent it to save the life of the mother. The death of the child is not “necessary” as directly intended. What is necessary is to remove the tube etc…thus “principle of double effect”.
It is an excruciating moral evaluation, but it has to be made.
 
Last edited:
When you lose sight of the good object in a moral evaluation, you lose the ability to evaluate.
 
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
Do you disagree with the Church on the principle of double effect, then?
Click to expand...
No, not at all. What makes you suspect so?
TheLittleLady said:
40.png
o_mlly:
Inordinate drinking (coffee, e.g., to stave off needed sleep) is inherently evil.
Click to expand...
Feel like a echo, but, I must ask, where does the Magisterium teach this?
Click to expand...
On the morality of specifically drinking coffee? Nowhere. On the morality of choosing to misuse creatures. Yes. The willful misuse (inordinate, disordered) of creature is evil. See Augustine and Aquinas on the causes of evil. Substitute “alcohol” for “coffee”
CCC# 2290 The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess : the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others’ safety on the road, at sea, or in the air.
Click to expand...
OKComputer said:
40.png
o_mlly:
Inordinate drinking (coffee, e.g., to stave off needed sleep) is inherently evil.
Click to expand...
Yikes, every long haul trucker is in serious trouble than!
Click to expand...
Yes. “Inordinate” means the disordered use of God’s creatures that were made good in themselves.
Sleep deprivation is to blame for almost 100,000 motor vehicle accidents and 1,550 fatalities per year in the United States, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). … According to one study, long-haul truck drivers average little more than five hours of sleep per night.
Click to expand...
 
o_mlly said:
According to one study, long-haul truck drivers average little more than five hours of sleep per night.
Click to expand...
:: snickers :: Even the threat of Hell won’t be enough to get truckers to stop drinking coffee, but I wish you the best of luck.
 
I’m going to say if the Magisterium meant “coffee” they would have said so. We’re not Latter Day Saints, we can drink a whole pot of coffee.
 
o_mlly said:
No, not at all. What makes you suspect so?
Click to expand...
I may have misunderstood you, then, because I thought you were saying it’s not moral to extract a fallopian tube if there’s an ectopic pregnancy.
 
Caffeine is a drug, a drug which has real effects, just as powerful as nicotine or THC. I don’t see how we can morally differentiate between cigarettes and a cup of coffee. Excess is excess.
 
You can hold.that opinion, however, the Church does not say either cigarettes or coffee are sinful.
 
Catechism of the Catholic Church:
[2290] The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess : the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others’ safety on the road, at sea, or in the air.

2291 The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.
Click to expand...
The Catechism has already been quoted to you in this section, but you obviously haven’t read it, because you claim the Church doesn’t say anything about cigarettes or coffee. Guess what? Nicotine is a drug, caffeine is a drug, coffee is food. Excess in these categories is sinful intemperance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top