Help in replying to a pro-abortion "classmate"

[sprout]

Sprout, please do not make the same mistake as Vern and engage me in a debate I have not even broached.

I can talk, with some good knowledge, about the science. And I can report, with some good knowledge what the Church has actually written and done. But I cannot answer for the debates of others.

Please, with a Christian heart, reread what I posted. I am worried about the scientific defintion of conciousness because it does not go far enough. Stepping away from abortion, let’s look at end of life. Medical science can determine with considerable accuracy a perm. veg. state. But even if a person’s brain has deteriorated to the point where concious thought will never again occur, I agree with Pope John Paul II’s moving speech on the subject. I cannot, as a good Catholic, remove simple hydration and nutrients.

As far as Rev. Pacholczyk, I have a problem with some of his work because of a high reliance on observational measurements. This is simply a normal concern about repeatability and scientific method, nothing more. The Fr.'s work is also primarily of concern with regards to ‘convincing’ secular society. Again, I have no need. I accept the Church’s arguments. Pain, and even the presence of a mortal soul, are of no relevance.

Best Regards

I agree with Seekerz:

SoCalRC, despite some of the responses you have heard here, let me assure you that your solid contribution to this discussion is finding appreciation

.

I am not trying to engage you in a debate about consciousness, as I too, find it irrelevant and as Seekerz has pointed out can even be a dangerous road to go down when debating life issues. I have been reading what you have posted with a Christian heart and with much appreciation. This is why I began my post to you by saying I have learned much from your contribution.

I just wanted to clarify some issues I had with some specific statements you made.

I agree with Fr. Tad Pacholczyk’s argument that human life begins at conception for the simple fact that once the egg is fertilized it is a “human being” egg the same as an American Eagle’s egg is an American Eagle, and that human being should be no less protected than the American Eagle’s egg is protected.

Furthermore, with regards to ensoulment, it’s irrelevant when ensoulment occurs. It’s sufficient for me to know that only human beings are endowed by God with a soul. Since the embryo IS a human being at it’s earliest stage of development then it matters not at which stage of it’s human development this occurs. This is God’s doing and impossilbe for us to measure or debate.

As far as scientific instruments to measure fetal pain, well, I’m not as firm a believer in what Doctor’s can and do know or measure with their instruments. Besides, I thought “observation” was scientific.

 

[Linda_Marie]

Personhood as a legal concept was around before Roe vs Wade and has been applied to both corporations which is Property being granted Personhood and to slavery, where persons are considered Property. Since a slave was Property and not a Person under the law, it was permissible to do anything you wanted with them, just as you would with your wagon or your horse. Since a slave, even though they were undeniably a living human being, was not a Person under the law, it was not legally murder to kill them. (re: the Dred Scott Decision)

Embryos,zygotes and fetuses are not considered Persons under the law, they have no rights, so it is not legally murder to kill them.

IMO, we need to have this legal Personhood status extended to babies in the womb, so that legally, we are Persons from conception to natural death and therefore entitled to the full protection of the law to the right to Life. (here is a link to personhood.net/ where people are trying to get this law on the books in Georgia)

“In the Roe v. Wade decision, Justice Harry Blackmun wrote that, ‘(If the) suggestion of personhood [of the preborn] is established, the [abortion rights] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.’” Becker concludes, “Thus, the personhood of the preborn child is the single point on which the entire debate turns.”

For more:

Abortion, Bioethics and Personhood: A Philosophical Reflection
by Francis J. Beckwith

cbhd.org/resources/bioethics/beckwith_2001-11-19.htm

Here in Australia, there are some new laws to charge drug-addict/alcoholic pregnant mothers with child abuse of their unborn babies. It has raised some outcries from the pro-abortion crowd who quite rightly see this as a step to declaring that the unborn have a right to life, as well as not to be abused with drugs or alcohol in the womb. How can it be illegal to harm your child with drugs in utero, but not illegal to kill your child in utero?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Personhood as a legal concept was around before Roe vs Wade and has been applied to both corporations which is Property being granted Personhood and to slavery, where persons are considered Property.

Neither argument is on point.

That a corporation (which is an assembly of people, not property, pre se) may be granted rights, or a slave may be deprived of them does not address the point. Prior to Roe v. Wade, a “person” was not consdered superior to a “human.”

 

[seekerz]

Neither argument is on point.

That a corporation (which is an assembly of people, not property, pre se) may be granted rights, or a slave may be deprived of them does not address the point. Prior to Roe v. Wade, a “person” was not consdered superior to a “human.”

Vern, sorry but using these examples, she has just showed you that a person was indeed considered superior to a human being because a slave, though considered human, was not allowed the rights of a “person”.

If a slave could be mistreated because he was considered not a person, the logical conclusion is that being human and not a person was considered inferior to being a human and a person. Since being human is the common factor, it stands to reason that a person was considered superior to a human.

It would be nice to comfort ourselves by believing the Roe v. Wade was the start of the abortion nightmare and reversing it would be the end, but the facts of history prove otherwise.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern, sorry but using these examples, she has just showed you that a person was indeed considered superior to a human being because a slave, though considered human, was not allowed the rights of a “person”.

Sorry, Seekrz, but she didn’t. There was no meaning to “person” meaning “superior to a human.”

Since no on can seem to give me a cite for the “person superior to human” defintion, let me give you one to refute that nonsense. From the Consitution, Article 1, Section 2:

Clause 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Note the bolded text – slaves were persons.

If your argument were correct, it would read:

three fifths of all other Humans

And reserve the term “persons” to non-slaves.

 

[seekerz]

Sorry, Seekrz, but she didn’t. There was no meaning to “person” meaning “superior to a human.”

Since no on can seem to give me a cite for the “person superior to human” defintion, let me give you one to refute that nonsense. From the Consitution, Article 1, Section 2:

Note the bolded text – slaves were persons.

If your argument were correct, it would read:

And reserve the term “persons” to non-slaves.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but this seems to indicate that slaves were to be counted as 3/5 of a person (the comparison being to a free person). In that case, you are proving that there was a distinction…

 

[vern_humphrey]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but this seems to indicate that slaves were to be counted as 3/5 of a person (the comparison being to a free person). In that case, you are proving that there was a distinction…

The distinction is between “slave” and “free,” not between “human” and “person.”

You cannot find a pre-Roe v. Wade useage that distingushes between a “person” (who has rights) and a mere “human” (who has none.)

 

[SoCalRC]

What are you doing down there among the weeds? Have you lost sight of the discussion?

No, the problem is that I cannot lose sight of being a Catholic. In this instance you were persistantly asserting that teaching had the authority of the Magisterium when it does not.

I am a Roman Catholic, so I take this very seriously in of itself. I know that many Catholics, particularly in the US, are seemingly quite comfortable with disagreeing with “the Pope” on even major issues, like capital punishement or war. But, to me, such attitudes would seem to contradict a true belief in an apostolic Church and the Gift of Authority. Consider the following:

“If anyone should say that the Roman Pontiff has merely the function of inspection or direction but not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not only in matters pertaining to faith and morals, but also in matters pertaining to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the entire world, or that he has only the principal share, but not the full plenitutde of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate over all Churches and over each individual Church, over all shepherds and all the faithful, and over each individual one of these: let him be anathema” -Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ, #3

When you invoke the Magesterium, or even just instructions of the Pope, you are referring to an authority that Catholics are called on to defer to and obey. So it is always of grave concern to me when someone attempts to utilize such power falsely.

Again, as a Catholic, I found this particular instance particularly grave. For Catholics, abortion is absolutely prohibited. This is now an infallible teaching. Procurring an abortion is one of just a handful of sins that incurs a “latae sententiae excommunication” (Canon 1398).

In the instance we are discussing (ectopic pregnancy) the Church has expressly stated that there are no exceptions, even in this tragic case. Now, the treatments we are discussing are viewed by secular society as ‘abortions of medical necessity’. So, asserting that such procedures have express Church approval when they, in fact, do not, could potentially put other Catholics in grave moral peril.

For example, say a Catholic woman has procurred one of these procedures, but has lingering doubts. So she comes here to seek the advice of other Catholics. To me, the answer would be simple. 1, I am truly sorry you have had to face such terrible choices 2, For Catholics the ending of fetal life is always a grave matter, so it is understandable you are concerned and 3, If you have even a suspician that you have procurred a successful abortion you should discuss the matter with your Pastor and seek reconcilliation - God has infinite love and forgiveness, but we have to start by taking responsibility for our actions and asking for it.

On the other hand, telling her that the Church has expressly approved of her decision, when it has not, might be leading her away from salvation. A grave sin in it’s own right.

As for the ORIGINAL topic, I think that our interchanges do contain several relevant lessons. I also think that they reaffirm some of Seekerz’s points.

Best Wishes

 

[SoCalRC]

Seekerz: I would quite agree with many of your points. Further, I think that in desperate attempts to ‘win’ an unwinnable argument we sometimes compound the matter by abandoning the moral high ground.

Sprout: I should have been more clear. We always make ‘observations’ in science. But some observations are more subjective and easily repeatable than others. Some studies are highly dependant on the perceptions of the researchers.

For example, take “JFK assassination researchers”. Some look at a B&W photo and see gunsmoke or people, others see nothing. Both perceptions are heartfelt, but not very objective. Similiarly, some researchers can look at in vitro video and see ‘awareness and self volition’ others can look at the same video and see ‘random spasms in the developing nervous system’. Again, both perceptions are heartfelt, but also highly subjective. This is why some medical sciences, like psychology, are considered ‘soft’. ‘Hard’ science usually involves measurements and observations that even skeptics of your findings can reproduce.

I like the Eagle analogy very much. I think it sums up very nicely the fairly complicated argument in DONUM VITAE (1987).

Best Regards

 

[vern_humphrey]

Seekerz: I would quite agree with many of your points. Further, I think that in desperate attempts to ‘win’ an unwinnable argument we sometimes compound the matter by abandoning the moral high ground.

To win this one, I merely need to debate with someone who knows how to parse a sentence in English.

The Constitution clearly refers to slaves as “persons.”

Clause 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

It does not call them non-persons. The distinction between “human” – with no rights – and “person” – with rights is quite modern.

 

[DanB]

Here’s is a section of “This Rock” magazine; Sep06, written by:
Matthew Newsome.

A Tragic—but Moral—Choice

But what if the hypothetical patient is pregnant? Her pregnancy is only a few weeks along, but her uterine cancer is extremely progressed. She needs to be treated as soon as possible if she is to have any chance of survival.

As the doctor, you now have two patients—the mother and her unborn child. Your duty and desire is to preserve the life and health of each of them. What do you do? If you do not remove the mother’s cancer, she will die very soon. At this stage in the baby’s development, it is entirely dependent upon the mother for life. If the mother is not treated and dies, the baby will die, too. You will lose both patients. But the only way to save her life is to remove her uterus, home to a developing person who will die as a result of the operation.

This is a tragic situation to which a moral solution must be found. If the doctor believes that the mother can survive long enough to carry the baby until it is viable—that is, until it can live on its own outside the womb with medical assistance—then the mother may choose to risk her own life to save the life of her child. Even though it may mean decreasing her chances of survival, she may choose to postpone treatment of her cancer.

If the progression of the cancer will not allow for that option, and the mother needs surgery immediately if she is going to live, you, as her doctor, have only two choices: You can allow both patients to die or you can save one and lose the other. The moral choice is to save the mother.

The principle of double effect applies: (1) Your intention is to perform a good—to save the mother’s life by removing her cancerous uterus. The evil effect of causing the death of the baby is not desired. It is a very sad and unfortunate result of the good act. (2) The evil effect does not cause the good result. You are removing a diseased organ that is killing the mother, not performing an abortion. The baby will die during or shortly after the operation, but the purpose of the operation is not to kill the child. (3) Two very grave matters must be weighed against each other. Saving one person is better than allowing both to die through inaction, even though it means the death of one.

 

[SoCalRC]

Saving one person is better than allowing both to die through inaction, even though it means the death of one.

First of all, you seem to be missing my main point. Yes, Double Effect is applied by Catholics and their health care professionals. But the Church has declined to state, expressly, its opinion on the morality of these acts. Notice that in this article the author asserts it is the moral choice, but does not cite anything from Rome to confirm it.

Second, cancer treatment is not an identical moral dilemna to ectopic pregnancy. Remember, in an ectopic pregnancy, the fetus is the threat to the mother’s health. All treatment paths lead to its destruction. Further, the treatments are generally made well before the mother is in any immediate peril. So, more moralists, looking at “The evil effect does not cause the good result”, object to the application of Double Effect in that case.

Finally, there are some strong objections to its application even in the tragic situation you raise. To understand why, let’s look at what the Church, via Tribunal of the Holy Office, specifically prohibited in 1889:

“[A]ny surgical operation which is directly destructive of the life of the fetus or the mother.”

Thinking that there might be a moral ‘work around’, the question was posed as to rather certain techniques to remove the fetus from the mother’s body unharmed but, of course, unviable. The answer was:

“No; according to the decree of 4 May, 1898; according to which, as far as possible, earnest and opportune provision is to be made to safeguard the life of the child and of the mother. As to the time, let the questioner remember that no acceleration of birth is licit unless it be done at a time, and in ways in which, according to the usual course of things, the life of the mother and the child be provided for”.

The Catholic Encyclopedia elaborates thus:

“It is [clear] that extracting the living fetus before it is viable, is destroying its life as directly as it would be killing a grown man directly to plunge him into a medium in which he cannot live, and hold him there till he expires.”

Since removal of a cancerous uterious is a surgical procedure, will most assuredly extract the living fetus, and has a foreseen consequence of the prematurely terminating the fetus’ life, you can probably see why some moralists disagree with the application of ‘double effect’.

Understand, ‘Double Effect’ is a theological proposal that goes back about 3 centuries, but it’s application has changed. Originally, it meant an unforeseen event. Ex. An EMT rushes to the aid of a woman in cardiac arrest. As a result of the exteme measures, she has a miscarriage…

Later, it evolved to undesired and uncertain. You give strong drugs to a woman with cancer. You intend no harm to the fetus and, although you know that there are some additional risks, harm to the fetus is far from certain…

Now, it seems to be indirect and unwanted. Just because you know your actions will kill the fetus does not invalide the application…

We won’t find an entry on Double Effect in the Catholic Encyclopedia. However, we can find four conditions (attributed to moralists, not the Church) that are believed to be absolutely required to even consider one of these situations moral:

"That we do not wish the evil effects, but make all reasonable efforts to avoid them;

That the immediate effect be good in itself;

That the evil is not made a means to obtain the good effect; for this would be to do evil that good might come of it – a procedure never allowed;

That the good effect be as important at least as the evil effect."

Notice that, even in citing moralists, these are subtly different than the conditions laid out in the article. Treatments for ectopic pregnancies are sometimes argued to meet none of these conditions. In the case of uterine cancer, most objections focus just on two, the first and last. The concerns are that no efforts are made to avoid the ill effects to the fetus and, perhaps more convincingly, the procedure will, with near certainty, terminate the fetus’ life but will only provide a possibility of extending the mother’s.

To contrast the sentance I quoted above, consider the simple answer to the question of why we do not allow abortions to save the life of the mother: “Two deaths are better than one murder”.

Again, I am not stating what people should do. I am just saying that it is important to distinguish between what, precisely, the Church teaches and what, at present, it permits.

Best Wishes

 

[SoCalRC]

To win this one, I merely need to debate with someone who knows how to parse a sentence in English.

You are ‘smiling’ but everyone knows that your intent is not humor.

As I have stated, I do not believe we are having a ‘debate’ or discussion. I also feel no sense of competition with you.

What I do feel is pity. Right or wrong it seems a great shame to me that your need to ‘win’ against faceless people on an internet forum is so intense.

Ultimately, it seems to me that such ‘victories’, sought at any cost, are, at best, meaningless. At worst, well, I suppose that depends on how one interprets words like “Love”, “enemy”, and “neighbor” in the New Testament.

Best Wishes

 

[Amolibri]

You are ‘smiling’ but everyone knows that your intent is not humor.

As I have stated, I do not believe we are having a ‘debate’ or discussion. I also feel no sense of competition with you.

What I do feel is pity. Right or wrong it seems a great shame to me that your need to ‘win’ against faceless people on an internet forum is so intense.

Ultimately, it seems to me that such ‘victories’, sought at any cost, are, at best, meaningless. At worst, well, I suppose that depends on how one interprets words like “Love”, “enemy”, and “neighbor” in the New Testament.

Best Wishes

Bravo, SoCal. I have learned a great deal from your posts, and I commend you on this last one.

 

[fix]

Some people try to justify abortion by claiming that the result of conception, at least up to a certain number of days, cannot yet be considered a personal human life. But in fact, “from the time that the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already. This has always been clear, and … modern genetic science offers clear confirmation. It has demonstrated that from the first instant there is established the programme of what this living being will be: a person, this individual person with his characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization the adventure of a human life begins, and each of its capacities requires time-a rather lengthy time-to find its place and to be in a position to act”.57 Even if the presence of a spiritual soul cannot be ascertained by empirical data, the results themselves of scientific research on the human embryo provide “a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of the first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person?”. 58

Furthermore, what is at stake is so important that, from the standpoint of moral obligation, the mere probability that a human person is involved would suffice to justify an absolutely clear prohibition of any intervention aimed at killing a human embryo. Precisely for this reason, over and above all scientific debates and those philosophical affirmations to which the Magisterium has not expressly committed itself, the Church has always taught and continues to teach that the result of human procreation, from the first moment of its existence, must be guaranteed that unconditional respect which is morally due to the human being in his or her totality and unity as body and spirit: “The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life”.59

Evangelium vitae

Certainly no experimental datum can be in itself sufficient to bring us to the recognition of a spiritual soul; nevertheless, the conclusions of science regarding the human embryo provide a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of this first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person? The Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature, but it constantly reaffirms the moral condemnation of any kind of procured abortion. This teaching has not been changed and is unchangeable.(26)

Thus the fruit of human generation, from the first moment of its existence, that is to say from the moment the zygote has formed, demands the unconditional respect that is morally due to the human being in his bodily and spiritual totality. The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life.

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

 

[vern_humphrey]

You are ‘smiling’ but everyone knows that your intent is not humor.

Do me the courtesy of putting on your turban and gazing into your crystal ball when you pretend to read my mind.

As I have stated, I do not believe we are having a ‘debate’ or discussion. I also feel no sense of competition with you.

What I do feel is pity. Right or wrong it seems a great shame to me that your need to ‘win’ against faceless people on an internet forum is so intense.

Once again, put on the turban and pull out the old crystal ball. If I have to put up with this carinval act, I’m entitled to the full monty

Ultimately, it seems to me that such ‘victories’, sought at any cost, are, at best, meaningless. At worst, well, I suppose that depends on how one interprets words like “Love”, “enemy”, and “neighbor” in the New Testament.

Best Wishes

Then why do you keep seeking such “victories?”

 

[fix]

Pope Pius XII, “Th Attempt on Innocent Human Life” (Nov. 26, 1951), in * Sources * … (note 2), p. 103: "…Deliberately, we have always used the expression “direct attempt on the life of an innocent person,”, “direct killing”. Because if, for example, the saving of the life of the future mother, independently of her pregnant condition, should urgently require a surgical act or other therapeutic treatment which would have an accessory consequence, in no way desired nor intended, but inevitable, the death of the fetus, such a act could no longer be called a direct attempt on an innocent life. Under these conditions the operation can be lawful, like other similar medical interventions - granted always that a good of high worth is concerned, such as life, and that it is not posible to postpone the operation until after birth of the child, nor to have recourse to other efficacious remedies.
lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_08natlaw.html

“If the abortion follows as a foreseen but not intended or willed but merely tolerated consequence of a therapeutic act essential for the mother’s health, this is morally legitimate. The abortion in this case is the indirect result of an act which is not in itself abortive” (from Pius XII, * To “Face of the Family” and the “Associations of Large Families” * Nov. 27, 1951, in AAS 43 (1951)p. 859).

lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_08natlaw.html

I think it is reasonable to say Rome has approved of indirect abortion, but how that is applied in each case will vary as is true of all moral decisions.

 

[vern_humphrey]

lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_08natlaw.html

I think it is reasonable to say Rome has approved of indirect abortion, but how that is applied in each case will vary as is true of all moral decisions.

And both examples – especially that by Pius XII – are textbook examples of the Principle of Double Effect in action.

 

[SoCalRC]

%between%
I think it is reasonable to say Rome has approved of indirect abortion, but how that is applied in each case will vary as is true of all moral decisions.

I would probably phrase it that Rome has stated that there are situations where fetal death is not a direct abortion and moral. But, has, at least at present, to weigh in on specific applications of this principle, but yes, the concept is Church doctrine.

For some examples of why it is so difficult to know where, exactly, the lines are, look at the article you cited. In refuting a particular application of “Natural Law”, the article quoted the Church’s DECLARATION ON PROCURRED ABORTION (1974):

“But the life of the child takes precedence over all opinions. One cannot invoke freedom of thought to destroy this life.” (emphasis in the article, not in the original)

The Church has made some incredibly strong statements about fetal life, particularly since Roe v. Wade. This is understandable because it is nearly innocent (original sin), defenseless, human life in our eyes. Also, the Church has expressly stated that the mother’s life is equal, neither more or less important.

For another example, look at the explanation of Double Effect. The four criteria are slightly different from what you will find in the Catholic Encyclopedia. For example, the fourth criteria is stated as:

“There must be a resonably grave reason for permitting the evil effect.”

But the Encyclopedia phrases it as:

“That the good effect be as important at least as the evil effect.”

In the case of fetal death, this seemingly sets the bar at different places. Which is right? The article cites a book whose author, in turn, interpretted a number of moralists. The Catholic Encyclopedia does not source its interpretion. If you actually dig through the history of the concept, you can find citations to support either. In the case of conflicting tradition, we normally look to the Magesterium but the Encyclopedia does not carry the weight of a decree, encyclical, or papal bull.

My point remains that these are grave situations and the people involved must follow their concience. But given the wide variation of interpretations one can receive from different Catholic organizations (but not the Church), I would strongly encourage seeking the direct council of one’s pastor. And, should any doubts remain, I would strongly encourage seeking reconcilliation.

Best Regards

 

[SoCalRC]

And both examples – especially that by Pius XII – are textbook examples of the Principle of Double Effect in action.

But neither specifically addresses applications.

There is no ‘textbook’ example of Double Effect. So far, we have quoted three sources about the principle, two articles and the Catholic Encyclopedia. All three set different basic criteria for even applying the principle.

When something is so vague that it is impossible to even derive consistant basic principles, it’s application in a life and death situation should not be taken likely. Unless, of course, one rejects the Church’s teaching about the importance of fetal life in the first place.

But even if we select any of the definitions at random, there are moralists who would strenuously argue that the treatments for ectopic pregnancies do not qualify because a) such pregnancies are not always fatal for the mother and b) the pregnancy itself is the health threat and all treatments lead to fetal death.