Does the Church place the unborn at a higher value of protection than the born? (EDITED TITLE)

[sidious]

It seems to my limited knowledge that Catholic teaching places the unborn at a higher value of protection and value than the born.

First example is the Catholic teaching that under no circumstances can direct abortion be ever permitted. Of course abortion can only be done to the unborn. However, one can kill another person (born) if in pursuit of self defence or even perceived self defence. Why is that?

Also, some Catholics who take an active role in getting an unborn baby aborted, can be excommunicated (punishment). However, if those same Catholics were to murder a born person, there would be no excommunication. How is this so?

 

[judechild]

I’m sure you know that the Church teaches that murder is murder; born or unborn, but the reason the unborn need more protection is because they are the most vulnerable. If a person were to kill in a true act of self-defence, the other person wasn’t too vulnerable, was he? As for excommunication, all mortal sin really constitutes an excommunication of sorts; the Church is only pounding home that abortion **is **murder.

 

[Victorious]

It seems to my limited knowledge that Catholic teaching places the unborn at a higher value of protection and value than the born.

First example is the Catholic teaching that under no circumstances can direct abortion be ever permitted. Of course abortion can only be done to the unborn. However, one can kill another person (born) if in pursuit of self defence or even perceived self defence. Why is that?

The more vulnerable and innocent an individual is, the more protection he needs. None of the circumstances that might justify taking the life of an adult (e.g., self-defense, punishment for a capital offense of which the person has been duly convicted) can apply in the case of an unborn child. An unborn baby is the quintessence of vulnerability: he is utterly dependent on his mother for survival. He is also the quintessence of innocence, at least from the point of view of guilt of actual sin (everyone except the Blessed Mother is conceived in original sin).

An unborn baby is not capable of committing a crime that would justify executing him. An unborn baby is also not an aggressor in any sense of the word, such that anyone can be justified in killing him in self-defense. This is true even if the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother. A baby, by his mere existence, does not aggress against anyone. No person aggresses merely by existing; otherwise, we would be justified in killing anyone at any stage of life whose existence is an inconvenience to us. While we have the right to use deadly force in defense of ourselves and others, we are justified in using deadly force only to the extent we or others are threatened with deadly force. In other words, the force we use to defend ourselves or others must be proportionate to that with which we or others are threatened. An unborn baby does not threaten anyone with deadly force; therefore, he cannot be killed in self-defense.

In short, there are no circumstances in which the killing of the unborn can be justified.

 

[hawkeye]

It seems to my limited knowledge that Catholic teaching places the unborn at a higher value of protection and value than the born.

First example is the Catholic teaching that under no circumstances can direct abortion be ever permitted. Of course abortion can only be done to the unborn. However, one can kill another person (born) if in pursuit of self defence or even perceived self defence. Why is that?

Asuming that you have children, if say you had five children and some maniaic broke into you home with the intention to kill, would you ask this same question" ?

Also, some Catholics who take an active role in getting an unborn baby aborted, can be excommunicated (punishment). However, if those same Catholics were to murder a born person, there would be no excommunication. How is this so?

As above…Moses and Saint Paul come to mind, it’s all about intention and knowlede, there are three crirteria for mortal sin.

Did Moses know, did Saint Paul know, you know it’s a mortal sin to murder children, so no excuses.

 

[Lancer]

It seems to my limited knowledge that Catholic teaching places the unborn at a higher value of protection and value than the born.

First example is the Catholic teaching that under no circumstances can direct abortion be ever permitted. Of course abortion can only be done to the unborn. However, one can** kill another person** (born) if** in** pursuit of self defence or even perceived self defence. Why is that?

Also, some Catholics who take an active role in getting an unborn baby aborted, can be excommunicated (punishment). However, if those same Catholics were to murder a born person, there would be no excommunication. How is this so?

The most vulnerable and most defenseless…definitely do get…the Church’s “higher” priority/nod for advocacy/protection…just like the Church’s priority for the poor…the least among us…the poor,…etc.,…(seems like I read that somewhere?).

As far as automatic excommunication…abortion is always murder of the innocent and defenseless…the living unborn…and is always and everywhere intrinsically evil…but sometimes murder of the living – “the already born” – is/can be a justifiable killing based on legitimate self-defense or legitimate protection of the innocent (the justifiable common good prevails over the individual’s rights…even the right to life if the person is a lethal threat to others…and can’t be stopped or controlled)…thus, a murder has to be adjudicated to determine if it is a murder or a killing. Not so with any/all abortions!

As far as your view that “…excommunicated (punishment)…” – look at the following excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopaedia:

General notions and historical summary

Excommunication (Latin ex, out of, and communio or communicatio, communion – exclusion from the communion), the principal and severest censure, is** a medicinal, spiritual penalty** that deprives the guilty Christian of all participation in the common blessings of ecclesiastical society. Being a penalty, it supposes guilt; and being the most serious penalty that the Church can inflict, it naturally supposes a very grave offence. It is also a medicinal rather than a vindictive penalty, being intended, not so much to punish the culprit, as to correct him and bring him back to the path of righteousness. It necessarily, therefore, contemplates the future, either to prevent the recurrence of certain culpable acts that have grievous external consequences, or, more especially, to induce the delinquent to satisfy the obligations incurred by his offence. Its object and its effect are loss of communion, i.e. of the spiritual benefits shared by all the members of Christian society; hence, it can affect only those who by baptismsociet have been admitted to that society.

newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm
The really good news: you and I have a Pope and Magisterium that will not err when it comes to teachings on all faith and all moral issues…so even if we can’t unravel the moral/canon law dilemma in our own mind/conscience…we can confidently rely/form our conscience in communion with The Church to safely guide us…that is what She…like all good mothers…is there to do for us:

John 16: 13 (RSV-CE)

When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
Luke 10: 16 (RSV-CE)

"He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

If I really believe that Our Lord Jesus said these things…and wasn’t just “pontificating” as most of us “blowholes” do…or tossing out “throw-away” sayings…like “have a nice day”…then…I personally believe that this is not an issue…a great topic to “chew” on…but not a dilemma/issue!

Simply…my take/opinion!

Pax Christi

 

[Victorious]

…but sometimes murder of the living – “the already born” – is/can be a justifiable killing based on legitimate self-defense or legitimate protection of the innocent (the justifiable common good prevails over the individual’s rights…even the right to life if the person is a lethal threat to others…and can’t be stopped or controlled)…thus, a murder has to be adjudicated to determine if it is a murder or a killing.

Just one clarification. All murders are killings, but not all killings are murder. “Murder” is by definition always unjustifiable. I think you know that, but just wanted to make sure it’s clear.

 

[Sonny1954]

At this particular moment in the life of the Church, I’d say YES, the Hierarchy, at least, is much more concerned about the pre-born than the born.

 

[livi]

The unborn need more protection because they are more vulnerable. They can’t speak for or defend themselves, and it is legal to murder them. In response to the comments about killing in self defense, if it really is a case of self defense then the person who is killed was posing a serious threat to the life of the person who killed them. An unborn baby can’t deliberately threaten someone’s life. And if the life of the mother is threatened due to the pregnancy, it is not an excuse to kill an innocent baby who has no control over what is going on.

 

[remjsmom76]

You have answered your own question. So to speak. An unborn child is an inoccent being that CAN NOT defend itself. Unlike you and I we can defend ourselves. Now we can not murder just because we feel like that person needs to die, or for whatever reasons any person who kills feels they need to murders. Its not like an itch you need to scratch. When your life is in danger and ONLY WHEN YOUR LIFE is in danger are you allowed to kill the other person. You are protecting your life a life no one has the right to take away. If by all means you can defend yourself without taking the others life, then do so, I have always said go for the legs and arms, dont take their lives.

All life is precious and abortion can mean in any point in life. Abortion, as Im sure you know, means to stop, to cease. A person who is elderly or someone with terminal illnesses can be “aborted” just as much as a baby in the womb.

 

[kbrigan]

If I understand “Sidious” correctly, s/he is asking here:

“First example is the Catholic teaching that under no circumstances can direct abortion be ever permitted. Of course abortion can only be done to the unborn. However, one can kill another person (born) if in pursuit of self defence or even perceived self defence. Why is that?”

about whether a procedure that indirectly results in miscarriage can be performed on a woman whose life is in danger. The answer to that is yes – the procedure, i.e. say, removing a cancerous ovary, is being done to save a woman’s life. That it results in miscarriage is an unfortunate, coincident event. At no time, does the Church require a woman avoid clearly, obviously life-saving procedures. See the 2260s in the Catechism – “Unintentional killing is not morally imputable.” (Few situations are that clear cut, however, and some women, such as St. Giana Molla, may choose to take a chance and carry a pregnancy to term even if their life is at risk; this is not required, but is obviously heroic.)

“Perceived self-defence”, however, is another matter; fetuses, by definition, don’t go around threatening people (give or take a few bladder kicks). There are some fuzzy issues, i.e. toxemia or diabetes, where simply being pregnant could be life-threatening, but the answer in those cases is better monitoring and medical care, not assuming an abortion is the only or best option. Some people even try to “work the system” and define “self-defence” to include “stress” as a justification for abortion, even though abortion is at least as stressful as pregnancy, and even though killing a person is not justified as a sollution to anyone else’s “stress” under any other circumstances.

 

[BiologyBrain]

At no time, does the Church require a woman avoid clearly, obviously life-saving procedures. See the 2260s in the Catechism – “Unintentional killing is not morally imputable.” (Few situations are that clear cut, however, and some women, such as St. Giana Molla, may choose to take a chance and carry a pregnancy to term even if their life is at risk; this is not required, but is obviously heroic.)

There is a thought in the theological/philosophical community that all other avenues must be pursued before resorting to something that will definitely kill the unborn (or even born). In other words, you don’t use a chainsaw when you could use a steak knife.

I agree w/ the rest of your analysis except perhaps your reference to the removal of the baby & ovary as a miscarriage. I’m not entirely sure what the correct term would be, but a miscarriage is generally assumed to be a natural and/or spontaneous loss of the baby through no direct action. The medical term for a miscarriage is ‘spontaneous abortion’.

 

[ryecroft]

I can’t help but say (because I’ve been in this situation) that if the church allows one to defend his/herself against a born person, that the same woman should be able to defend herself against a fetus that will cause her death if she continues the pregnancy. So I must agree with the original poster that it does seem that more protection is given to the unborn versus the already born. I wouldn’t be alive now if I hadn’t made the decision to end a pregnancy and while sad, I don’t feel guilty about it. I would have prefered to let the fetus finish gestation and deliver a baby but at barely 4 months the doctors could do nothing else unless I chose to allow my life to end - which in turn would have left both the fetus and myself dead. The Church needs to take these situations - albeit rare situations into consideration. There is no point of having two deaths when one can be saved.
God Bless
Rye

 

[kage_ar]

I can’t help but say (because I’ve been in this situation) that if the church allows one to defend his/herself against a born person, that the same woman should be able to defend herself against a fetus that will cause her death if she continues the pregnancy. So I must agree with the original poster that it does seem that more protection is given to the unborn versus the already born. I wouldn’t be alive now if I hadn’t made the decision to end a pregnancy and while sad, I don’t feel guilty about it. I would have prefered to let the fetus finish gestation and deliver a baby but at barely 4 months the doctors could do nothing else unless I chose to allow my life to end - which in turn would have left both the fetus and myself dead. The Church needs to take these situations - albeit rare situations into consideration. There is no point of having two deaths when one can be saved.
God Bless
Rye

Ryecroft -

You have shared your story before, and as I recall, your child was not going to cause your death. The cause of your physical trauma was bleeding and something do do with your kidneys. The doctor told you that aborting was the only way they could treat what was wrong with you.

 

[ryecroft]

Ryecroft -

You have shared your story before, and as I recall, your child was not going to cause your death. The cause of your physical trauma was bleeding and something do do with your kidneys. The doctor told you that aborting was the only way they could treat what was wrong with you.
Kage Er

Either I said something wrong or you don’t remember correctly - because yes, had I continued with the pregnancy, I would not have lived. And yes, I’ve shared it before - I would have stayed pregnant if my life had not been in danger and yes it had to do with bleeding - keeping the pregnancy would have caused me to hemmorage more that’s why that was the only decision we could make and keep me alive. I’ve been quite specific about it and gone into great detail -if you want to say that the doctor said it was the only way to treat me, that’s partially true but you need to add in the part that this was the only way he could treat me AND keep me alive at the time. So there was only one choice to be made where I lived - I know that some on here believe that this is never ever the case, but I’m here to tell you that it is the case and there was more than one doctor concurring on what was best to be done in the short time we had. As I said, I would have kept the pregnancy if I could have but this was the only choice that could be made - it would be pointless to have the fetus and myself die.

 

[catharina]

Ryecroft -

You have shared your story before, and as I recall, your child was not going to cause your death. The cause of your physical trauma was bleeding and something do do with your kidneys. The doctor told you that aborting was the only way they could treat what was wrong with you.
Kage Er

Either I said something wrong or you don’t remember correctly - because yes, had I continued with the pregnancy, I would not have lived. And yes, I’ve shared it before - I would have stayed pregnant if my life had not been in danger and yes it had to do with bleeding - keeping the pregnancy would have caused me to hemmorage more that’s why that was the only decision we could make and keep me alive. I’ve been quite specific about it and gone into great detail -if you want to say that the doctor said it was the only way to treat me, that’s partially true but you need to add in the part that this was the only way he could treat me AND keep me alive at the time. So there was only one choice to be made where I lived - I know that some on here believe that this is never ever the case, but I’m here to tell you that it is the case and there was more than one doctor concurring on what was best to be done in the short time we had. As I said, I would have kept the pregnancy if I could have but this was the only choice that could be made - it would be pointless to have the fetus and myself die.

I scanned many of your earlier posts and I can offer sympathy for your many troubles and your confusion, nonetheless whether one doctor or 100 doctors said that (in their opinion) you would die during the pregnancy, they offered their OPINION. You chose to decide life/death in place of allowing God to act in that regard. Your CHOICE was to kill your child and “save” yourself. You acted in the place of God’s action. That’s the entire story. I hope you are able to return to faithfulness to the teaching of the Church ASAP.

 

[ryecroft]

I scanned many of your earlier posts and I can offer sympathy for your many troubles and your confusion, nonetheless whether one doctor or 100 doctors said that (in their opinion) you would die during the pregnancy, they offered their OPINION. You chose to decide life/death in place of allowing God to act in that regard. Your CHOICE was to kill your child and “save” yourself. You acted in the place of God’s action. That’s the entire story. I hope you are able to return to faithfulness to the teaching of the Church ASAP.

First of all, I’ve never LEFT the church -yes I spoke with a priest about it and was told I made the only decision I could- and don’t go and tell me that the priest was wrong- when I was told that prior and spoke to a second priest I was again told the exact same thing - so please those of you that want to say the priest was wrong - get off your high horses thinking you know better than a priest would for this situation- secondly, I went up until the last moment I could and almost lost my life trying to keep a 4 month pregnancy - this was not a doctor’s opinion-it was fact, I was hemmoraging as well as having some other problems (going into kidney failure)- it isn’t an opinion - had we not had the doctors take action, I would not be here - period - it is not fair to say that the life of a fetus is more important than that of the mother (especially one that can’t survive outside the mother which at just 15 week 5-7 days could not happen). God gave my doctors the ability to help women like me in this situation - we tried to continue the pregnancy as long as possible but there was no other choice to make except for there to be not just a fetal death but also my death. There is only one person on here that has talked to me about being in a slightly similar situation - I too was told that the pregnancy could kill me early on, but I chose to continue the pregnancy-but when the bleeding led to hemmoraging and my bp tanked the doctors saved my life and I"m greatful to them. Again, until you have been in that situation, you don’t know what you would do - you might think you do - and my decision might have been different had the pregnancy gone on longer-delivery or c-section would have killed me and a just 15 week 5-7 day fetus would not have survived. They allowed me to continue my life and I’m glad I’ll be trying to have more children when the doctors tell me it’s safe- I will never feel guilt for what had to happen for anyone to live because I know the only other alternative was to have two deaths. I chose life.

 

[catharina]

First of all, I’ve never LEFT the church -yes I spoke with a priest about it and was told I made the only decision I could- and don’t go and tell me that the priest was wrong- when I was told that prior and spoke to a second priest I was again told the exact same thing - so please those of you that want to say the priest was wrong - get off your high horses thinking you know better than a priest would for this situation- secondly, I went up until the last moment I could and almost lost my life trying to keep a 4 month pregnancy - this was not a doctor’s opinion-it was fact, I was hemmoraging as well as having some other problems (going into kidney failure)- it isn’t an opinion - had we not had the doctors take action, I would not be here - period - it is not fair to say that the life of a fetus is more important than that of the mother (especially one that can’t survive outside the mother which at just 15 week 5-7 days could not happen). God gave my doctors the ability to help women like me in this situation - we tried to continue the pregnancy as long as possible but there was no other choice to make except for there to be not just a fetal death but also my death. There is only one person on here that has talked to me about being in a slightly similar situation - I too was told that the pregnancy could kill me early on, but I chose to continue the pregnancy-but when the bleeding led to hemmoraging and my bp tanked the doctors saved my life and I"m greatful to them. Again, until you have been in that situation, you don’t know what you would do - you might think you do - and my decision might have been different had the pregnancy gone on longer-delivery or c-section would have killed me and a just 15 week 5-7 day fetus would not have survived. They allowed me to continue my life and I’m glad I’ll be trying to have more children when the doctors tell me it’s safe- I will never feel guilt for what had to happen for anyone to live because I know the only other alternative was to have two deaths. I chose life.

If you insisted that 100 priests commended you for making the “only decision” you could, I’d easily tell you that those 100 priests were in error. You claim that two priests have told you that you made “the only decision” you “could” and that means those priests are claiming YOU (and they) know much better than God. Therefore, I doubt your story about the “support” from priests. Regarding the “doctors” also, they have no right to step in to act on behalf of God when their action involves the death of your child. Your choice was to imagine you know better than God on matters of life and death. Your choice was to destroy your child with the understanding that death might spare your life. NOT ok.

If the priests acted in support of your abortion, then they have automatically incurred an excommunication just as you (and your husband?) did. As in any other situation regarding abortion, you chose death for a baby. Nothing else matters.

ALL LIFE IS SACRED, the mother’s and the child’s. We are not allowed to kill either.

 

[Elizabeth502]

If you insisted that 100 priests commended you for making the “only decision” you could, I’d easily tell you that those 100 priests were in error. You claim that two priests have told you that you made “the only decision” you “could” and that means those priests are claiming YOU (and they) know much better than God.

And I would say that those priests are better trained in discernments of moral theological questions than you are. That’s for starters.

God does not require any woman to martyr herself when she knows (is told by physicians with superior medical knowledge than herself) that her very survival is threatened by the birth. St. Gianna chose to martyr herself, but neither God nor the Church asks anyone to do this. Ryecroft did not excommunicate herself because any act to qualify as grave sin (including excommunicating matter) must be accompanied by full knowledge, and the decision to act cannot be clouded by desperation, heightened confusion, the sincere perception of emergency, etc. This is classic moral theology. All sin (including excommunicating sin) must meet certain criteria.

you chose death for a baby. Nothing else matters.

She chose life: the only life that she was told at that point was survivable.

ALL LIFE IS SACRED, the mother’s and the child’s. We are not allowed to kill either.

All she knew in her extremity was that the mother’s life would be killed as well as the child’s IF she did not save her own.

 

[Middleman]

It seems to my limited knowledge that Catholic teaching places the unborn at a higher value of protection and value than the born.

First example is the Catholic teaching that under no circumstances can direct abortion be ever permitted. Of course abortion can only be done to the unborn. However, one can kill another person (born) if in pursuit of self defence or even perceived self defence. Why is that?

Also, some Catholics who take an active role in getting an unborn baby aborted, can be excommunicated (punishment). However, if those same Catholics were to murder a born person, there would be no excommunication. How is this so?

You present some valid questions. I’ve wondered the same myself.

 

[catharina]

You present some valid questions. I’ve wondered the same myself.

Killing an unborn child is an act taken against one who is utterly defenseless.
The gravity of doing so speaks for itself.
Despite the “reasoning” of some “Catholics,” it is fact that the Church allows no abortion.