Could God ever condone an abortion?

[Rau]

The above may be true only if the potential offender have other choices to choose. In cases where offenders are in desperate situation, illegality may not stop an offence from happening.

Illegality wont dissuade an addict from buying drugs, starved & broke person from stealing food.

Not every case of abortion, or even the majority, is comparable to a person at risk of starving to death. You are aware that abortions are also procured in large numbers as a matter of convenience?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_double_effect

Please read Question 64 article 7
newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm

The PDE does not address favoring the mother over the child. The reference to the Summa is similar - you’ll need to show how it makes the case that the mother is the first priority when both child and mother are at risk.

 

[francisca]

Not every case of abortion, or even the majority, is comparable to a person at risk of starving to death. You are aware that abortions are also procured in large numbers as a matter of convenience?

Making policy that impoverished people to the point they do not have food on their table will harvest crime.

In the same logic,

making policy that legalize sex business is comparable to legalize businesses to enslave people (to make $), but then they also criminalize the inevitable outcome (the victims) of such businesses.

The PDE does not address favoring the mother over the child. The reference to the Summa is similar - you’ll need to show how it makes the case that the mother is the first priority when both child and mother are at risk.

Specific to hard choices whether saving the mother or the child:

The mother is the patient of the doctor. The patient-doctor relationship give the positive right to the mother of the child. The unborn child has a natural right but has no positive right as a patient.

The doctors duty is to save the mother because of the positive right, but inevitably kill the child, then it is moral according to Thomas Aquinas, because the intent is to save the mother, and killing the child is not intentional.

please read also question 57 article 2 about positive right vs natural right.
newadvent.org/summa/3057.htm

I should also add the fact: that fetus under certain age will have very low possibility to survive should the mother doesn’t survive.

 

[Rau]

Making policy that impoverished people to the point they do not have food on their table will harvest crime.

In the same logic,

making policy that legalize sex business is comparable to legalize businesses to enslave people (to make $), but then they also criminalize the inevitable outcome (the victims) of such businesses.

This seems to have nothing to do with the point in debate - which was that were abortion to be illegal, there would be less abortions.

Specific to hard choices whether saving the mother or the child:

The mother is the patient of the doctor. The patient-doctor relationship give the positive right to the mother of the child. The unborn child has a natural right but has no positive right as a patient.

The doctors duty is to save the mother because of the positive right, but inevitably kill the child, then it is moral according to Thomas Aquinas, because the intent is to save the mother, and killing the child is not intentional.

please read also question 57 article 2 about positive right vs natural right.
newadvent.org/summa/3057.htm

I should also add the fact: that fetus under certain age will have very low possibility to survive should the mother doesn’t survive.

This is a kind of secular argument that denies the humanity of the child. As to the Summa - please make explicit how you see that section having relevance to the matter in debate.

Your initial point that the Catholic Church requires that the mother be saved first, then the child, is yet to find any support in the references you have provided.

The position of the Catholic Church is that there are two persons, both of whom deserve the best available medical care, and further that neither one may be murdered for any reason.

 

[francisca]

Summa, Second Part of The Second Part, Q64
Article 7. Whether it is lawful to kill a man in self-defense?

I answer that, nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. Now moral acts take their species according to what is intended, and not according to what is beside the intention, since this is accidental……

newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm#article7

 

[francisca]

This seems to have nothing to do with the point in debate - which was that were abortion to be illegal, there would be less abortions.

I have answered this question before:
Illegality wont dissuade an addict from buying drugs, starved & broke person from stealing food.

Not every case of abortion, or even the majority, is comparable to a person at risk of starving to death. You are aware that abortions are also procured in large numbers as a matter of convenience?

Let me re-answer this one:
Nobody get abortion surgery for convenience. Nobody get abortion simply because it is legal.
If it is procured in “bulk” (is this what you mean by “procured in large number”?) it must be by a pimp or something like sex business… I won’t know the answer to that.

This is a kind of secular argument that denies the humanity of the child. As to the Summa - please make explicit how you see that section having relevance to the matter in debate.

Your initial point that the Catholic Church requires that the mother be saved first, then the child, is yet to find any support in the references you have provided.

The position of the Catholic Church is that there are two persons, both of whom deserve the best available medical care, and further that neither one may be murdered for any reason.

Summa, Second Part of The Second Part Q64
Article 7. Whether it is lawful to kill a man in self-defense?
I answer that, Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. Now moral acts take their species according to what is intended, and not according to what is beside the intention, since this is accidental… …
newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm#article7

Regarding why the mother? I have answered that too. Because the doctor’s duty is his patiient.

Summa, Second Part of the Second Part Q57
Article 2. Whether right is fittingly divided into natural right and positive right?
I answer that, As stated above (Article 1) the “right” or the “just” is a work that is adjusted to another person according to some kind of equality. Now a thing can be adjusted to a man in two ways: first by its very nature, as when a man gives so much that he may receive equal value in return, and this is called “natural right.” On another way a thing is adjusted or commensurated to another person, by agreement, or by common consent, when, to wit, a man deems himself satisfied, if he receive so much. This can be done in two ways: first by private agreement, as that which is confirmed by an agreement between private individuals; secondly, by public agreement, as when the whole community agrees that something should be deemed as though it were adjusted and commensurated to another person, or when this is decreed by the prince who is placed over the people, and acts in its stead, and this is called “positive right.”
newadvent.org/summa/3057.htm#article2

 

[Rau]

I have answered this question before:
Illegality wont dissuade an addict from buying drugs, starved & broke person from stealing food.

Yes, and I pointed out the ineffectiveness of that response - not all abortions are pursued under a drive akin to that of an addict, or the desperation of a starving person. You appear to want to view ALL those who seek an abortion as “desperate”. I readily agree that many are - but it is simply not the case that all are acting out of genuine desperation.

You can readily google studies into the reasons for abortion. Here is just one result:
johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

Nobody get abortion surgery for convenience.

I’m afraid some people do. Look at the proportion of people who gave as their primary reason for abortion “unready” or “has all the children she wanted” in the AGI Survey (2004) - the results are 25% and 19% respectively.

Summa, Second Part of The Second Part Q64
Article 7. Whether it is lawful to kill a man in self-defense?
I answer that, Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. Now moral acts take their species according to what is intended, and not according to what is beside the intention, since this is accidental… …
newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm#article7

The Church rejects the idea that abortion is ever justified as an act of self-defence:

*“As for the ‘medical and therapeutic indication,’ We have already said, Venerable Brethren, how deeply We feel for the mother whose fulfillment of her natural duty involves her in grave danger to health and even to life itself. But can any reason ever avail to excuse the direct killing of the innocent? For this is what is at stake. The infliction of death whether upon mother or upon child is against the commandment of God and the voice of nature: “Thou shalt not kill!” The lives of both are equally sacred and no-one, not even public authority, can ever have the right to destroy them. It is absurd to invoke against innocent human beings the right of the State to inflict capital punishment, for this is valid only against the guilty. Nor is there any question here of the right of self-defense, even to the shedding of blood, against an unjust assailant, for none could describe as an unjust assailant, an innocent child. Nor, finally, does there exist any so-called right of extreme necessity which could extend to the direct killing of an innocent human being. **Honourable and skillful doctors are therefore worthy of all praise when they make every effort to protect and preserve the life of both mother and child. ** On the contrary, those who encompass the death of the one or the other, whether on the plea of medical treatment or from a motive of misguided compassion, act in a manner unworthy of the high repute of the medical profession,” *

Pius XI, Encyclical Casti Connubii, Dec. 31, 1930.(18)

Regarding why the mother? I have answered that too. Because the doctor’s duty is his patiient.

But you claimed (wrongly) that the Church says the mother must be first saved. It does not. It points to the duty to save both mother and baby. See above quote from Pius XI. What you give here is a secular argument. I assume you believe the baby has no entitlement to medical care at all, for the baby is not capable of hiring a doctor.

Summa, Second Part of the Second Part Q57
Article 2. Whether right is fittingly divided into natural right and positive right?
I answer that, As stated above (Article 1) the “right” or the “just” is a work that is adjusted to another person according to some kind of equality. Now a thing can be adjusted to a man in two ways: first by its very nature, as when a man gives so much that he may receive equal value in return, and this is called “natural right.” On another way a thing is adjusted or commensurated to another person, by agreement, or by common consent, when, to wit, a man deems himself satisfied, if he receive so much. This can be done in two ways: first by private agreement, as that which is confirmed by an agreement between private individuals; secondly, by public agreement, as when the whole community agrees that something should be deemed as though it were adjusted and commensurated to another person, or when this is decreed by the prince who is placed over the people, and acts in its stead, and this is called “positive right.”
newadvent.org/summa/3057.htm#article2

How does this bear on abortion?

 

[francisca]

Ofcourse if both mother and child can be saved, doctor have duty to save them both. No issue there.

The issue is if you have to choose one of them. The key words are “have to”

Q57art 2 is to show you that Doctor’s priority is to save the patient (the mother) because the mother has a positive right from doctor-patient relation. This relation between doctor-patient must be reliable, and not questionable. What if your doctor suddenly think that another person is more important than you despite you’re on his surgery table?

 

[Bahman]

Though it appears to be appropriate.

Do you think that you have the right to judge people without knowing what is inside their mind?

I’ve patiently explained that Consequentialism, an approach to judging the morality of human acts, has nothing to do with choosing God over Satan. Two things not the same can’t be required to be the same!

You didn’t provide any argument why choosing God over Satan is not based on Consequentialism? You just claimed it. It is very simple, you prefer love over hate and happiness over suffering.

 

[Rau]

Ofcourse if both mother and child can be saved, doctor have duty to save them both. No issue there.

The issue is if you have to choose one of them. The key words are “have to”

Q57art 2 is to show you that Doctor’s priority is to save the patient (the mother) because the mother has a positive right from doctor-patient relation. This relation between doctor-patient must be reliable, and not questionable. What if your doctor suddenly think that another person is more important than you despite you’re on his surgery table?

The baby is on the table too!

The point is that a right to be cared for does not extend to a right to kill another innocent.

 

[Rau]

Do you think that you have the right to judge people without knowing what is inside their mind?

You didn’t provide any argument why choosing God over Satan is not based on Consequentialism? You just claimed it. It is very simple, you prefer love over hate and happiness over suffering.

“Choosing God over Satan” is not a human act which can be analyzed according to a moral theology. It is not the scope to which the philosophy of Consequentialism can be applied. You persist in a wordplay, be that intentionally or unknowingly.

 

[Bahman]

“Choosing God over Satan” is not a human act which can be analyzed according to a moral theology.

So how you could explain why you choose God over Satan? Are you trying to evade the situation? It is very simple, we experience things and prefer things over other based on the fact that whether things are pleasurable to us or not. This is basically Consequentialism. Can you please provide another theory which explain how human possibly human being can have another ability to do otherwise!?

It is not the scope to which the philosophy of Consequentialism can be applied. You persist in a wordplay, be that intentionally or unknowingly.

You are not providing any argument!

 

[Rau]

So how you could explain why you choose God over Satan? Are you trying to evade the situation? It is very simple, we experience things and prefer things over other based on the fact that whether things are pleasurable to us or not. This is basically Consequentialism. Can you please provide another theory which explain how human possibly human being can have another ability to do otherwise!?

You are not providing any argument!

We’re we discussing modern medicine, would I need to provide an argument to justify that witchcraft is not part of science? The meaning of things in discussion needs to be commonly understood or there is no prospect of rational discussion.

 

[Bahman]

We’re we discussing modern medicine, would I need to provide an argument to justify that witchcraft is not part of science?

I have no idea what do you mean?

The meaning of things in discussion needs to be commonly understood or there is no prospect of rational discussion.

I think that is you who do not keep any respect for a rational discussion since you don’t first provide any argument and second you don’t accept that there is an error in your system of thinking.

I am asking a very simple question: Have you ever wonder why you choose God over Satan?

 

[Rau]

I have no idea what do you mean? I think that is you who do not keep any respect for a rational discussion since you don’t first provide any argument and second you don’t accept that there is an error in your system of thinking.

Right, not agreeing with you must be the problem! LOL…

I am asking a very simple question: Have you ever wonder why you choose God over Satan?

No, you’ve not asked that, you’ve asserted that a concern for consequences is the answer, and then by virtue of word similarity, you assert this is Consequentialism.

This thread appears to be at an end.