Help Me With This Pro-Abortion Argument!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
kmarie08 said:
i may be repeating something that everyone has said but i wanted to lay down clearly the 4 necessary components for the principle of double effect to be legitimate. i am in my senior year of catholic high school and i have a great religion teacher. double effect is extremely clarifying and useful for many situations.

ACT- removal of fallopian tube
GOOD EFFECT- preservation of the mother’s life
BAD EFFECT- the death of the baby in the fallopian tube

(1.) the ACT must be morally good or neutral (the removal of the fallopian tube is a surgical procedure that is not inherently evil or inherently good- it is morally neutral)

(2.) the GOOD EFFECT (the saving of the mother’s life) is equal to the BAD EFFECT (the death of the unborn baby). The mother’s and baby’s lives are of equal value, therefore the effects are equal.

(3.) the BAD EFFECT may be foreseen, but not intended. the fallopian tube is not being removed to abort the baby, but to save the mother’s life. it is not a direct attack on the life of the baby, but the baby’s death is a sad and unwanted side effect.

(4.) the GOOD EFFECT must come from the ACT, not as a result of the BAD EFFECT. the preservation of the mother’s life comes from the removal of the fallopian tube, not from the baby’s death.

IF THE BABY IN THE FALLOPIAN TUBE IS KILLED BY ANYTHING BESIDES THE REMOVAL OF THE FALLOPIAN TUBE, IT IS A DIRECT ABORTION AND IT IS NOT OK. double effect DOES NOT work in that situation. if you inject something into the womb that will kill the baby, it is getting rid of the baby instead of getting rid of the problem.

This is the same thing for women who find out they have cancer while they are pregnant- it is legitimate for them to begin chemo to attack the cancer, although the side effect may be the death of their unborn baby.

does that all make sense? i feel like it needed some clarification.
Click to expand...
What if you inject something to stop the growth of the primitive placenta (its growth is actually what leads to tube damage and risk of death), and the baby is affected as a result, are the requirements of double effect met?

If your dogmatic statement is actually a clear cut representation of the situation, why hasn’t the Church officially spoken directly to the issue of Methotrexate use? Nobody here seems to be able to answer the question: is destruction of the placenta with concurrent death of the baby, essentially different from cutting off the baby’s oxygen and food supply with concurrent death of the baby, all intents being equal (i.e. to save mother rather than to kill baby)?

I maintain that the freedom given by the Church to decide along established principles of respect for life, on a case by case basis, based on a woman’s medical situation and her doctor’s advice, does not allow us to condemn a particular person’s choice of treatment.
 
i’m sorry but i don’t know the details about the injection you’re talking about. can you clarify a little bit? what exactly does the injection do? and is it in a case of an ectopic pregnancy or a “possible ectopic pregnancy”?

the priniciple of double effect is essentially a formula- you can “plug in” each specific situation to see if it meets the standards.

i didn’t mean to sound uncaring or condescending when i was supposedly “condemning a particular person’s choice of treatment”. love the sinner and hate the sin, but unfortunately the fact remains that sometimes the “choice of treatment” is murder and is not ok. i believe that it is better to know than to stand by and let women make morally uneducated choices.
 
also…
as to why the Church hasn’t spoken directly about the use of Methotrexate, i don’t know. But i do know that the Church cannot and does not make statements immediately when moral questions arise. first they have to make a THOROUGH review of the situation, and also humanly speaking, the Church also can’t get to everything right away.
the reason may be that the situation probably fits into the category of explanation by double effect, and they may not have to make a statement on it.
 
kmarie08 said:
you’re welcome!

oh, so basically to the person who asked the original question:

removal of the fallopian tube is homicide, not murder. we know that the baby is a human life, but there is no intention of killing or any aggressive act directly against the baby. this is the difference between homicide and murder.

for anyone who does not know: homicide is a morally neutral act. if anyone needs catechism references i can find them for you.

however, you may let the person you were having this discussion with know that burning the baby with saline solution or vacuuming out its tiny body parts IS an act of aggression with the intent to kill, making it murder of an innocent. (so just make sure she knows abortion is still wrong 🙂 )
Click to expand...
Killing of another human being is a morally neutral act? Please explain. Yes, there are justifications such as self-defense or in time of a just war, but as a blanket statement?
 
Homicide is obviously a morally neutral act. The Catholic Church does not deem anything that is inherently evil permissible. As homicide is permissible without moral culpability in situations of self-defense, defense of the innocent, just war, we know it is morally neutral.
The direct, willed, and intentional killing of an innocent is murder, not just homicide. This is obviously wrong in all situations.
However, as in the situation that we have been discussing and using the principle of double effect with, the homicide is not direct, willed, or intentional. It is indirect, unwanted, and foreseen but not intentional.
 
jean8 said:
First, I want to say any attemp to remove a “BABY” from the ‘womb’ is killing the child. You can use all of the medical terms and Latin words you want, but clear and simple, It;s alive and it’s a baby! God put the baby there. See Ps.139:13-16
Re: ectopic preganacy? it’s something a doctor must decide, often to save the mother’s life.
Abortion is murder. Tell her that!

jean8
Click to expand...
Someone with medical expertise, please correct me if i’m wrong…but In a tubal pregnancy, the baby is going to die, anyway. They can’t grow to term and be delivered if they’re stuck in the fallopian tube. Removing the tube (and, unfortunately, the baby along with it) would save the mother.
 
lwest said:
Someone with medical expertise, please correct me if i’m wrong…but In a tubal pregnancy, the baby is going to die, anyway. They can’t grow to term and be delivered if they’re stuck in the fallopian tube. Removing the tube (and, unfortunately, the baby along with it) would save the mother.
Click to expand...
Something like that…the real argument is whether other methods of treating an ectopic pregnancy are also moral according to Catholic doctrine.

Most theologians apparently feel that if intervention is needed to save the mother, only surgical removal of the tube is moral when the baby is still alive.

We get into the principle of “double effect” and “direct killing” and “intent” and then everyone’s eyes get bleary just from trying to sort it all out.

Personally, I think no one without the details of a particular case should attribute intent to the woman and her doctor but if we choose to do so we should charitably ascribe the best intent: that of saving the only life that can be saved.
 
seekerz said:
Personally, I think no one without the details of a particular case should attribute intent to the woman and her doctor but if we choose to do so we should charitably ascribe the best intent: that of saving the only life that can be saved.
Click to expand...
This might be the main issue with your premise. Research on successfully removing the human from the fallopian tube and implanting the human into the uterus are ongoing and improving.

Also, with the progress of American medicine, ectopic pregnancies are determined at an earlier gestational age and doctors encourage the woman to act quickly and terminate the human. This leads to a question…how many of those pregnancies might have ended normally with the human moving down the fallopian tube? Scientists already know this has happened in a statistical amount of ectopic pregnancies.
 
hasikelee said:
This might be the main issue with your premise. Research on successfully removing the human from the fallopian tube and implanting the human into the uterus are ongoing and improving.

Also, with the progress of American medicine, ectopic pregnancies are determined at an earlier gestational age and doctors encourage the woman to act quickly and terminate the human. This leads to a question…how many of those pregnancies might have ended normally with the human moving down the fallopian tube? Scientists already know this has happened in a statistical amount of ectopic pregnancies.
Click to expand...
Such research is truly welcome and if it were to bear fruit might end up making this a clear cut decision for Catholics. Right now however, it is just still research and no doctor is justified in using experimental procedures ***routinely ***on patients.

The standard treatments remain in place: wait and watch if it’s early and if all other factors (accessibility to close monitoring, proximity to 24/7 emergency facilties, absence of other compromising health conditions etc) are favorable; prompt intervention otherwise.

For an individual woman with ectopic pregnancy, you and I are not likely to be privy to all the considerations that go into making the decisions regarding her care. Which is why the opinions of those of us looking in from the outside, are likely to be faulty.
 
Holly3278 said:
Hi everyone. I could use some help and fast! This person on another forum is arguing that abortion is not murder during the case of the removal of an infected fallopian tube due to an ectopic pregnancy because the aim is to remove the fetus and not the tube. Technically she is correct. If they can remove the fetus and save the tube, they will do so so therefore the aim of the operation is to remove the fetus and is thereby a direct abortion. I told her that all direct abortions are murders but I didn’t know what else to say. What do I say? :confused:
Click to expand...
Okay, your post was a little difficult to understand, but I will answer to the best of my ability.

Simply: It’s okay to remove or treat a diseased part of the reproductive system, as long as measures are taken to protect any embryo, fetus, or infant that resides there.
If protective measures are taken, and the embryo, fetus, or infant dies as a result of the treatment, it’s sad, but not sinful.
So, if there is any intention to dispose of the tiny human life inside, it is abortion and it is sinful.
 
EVERYBODY MUST MUST SEE GLENN BECK TONIGHT (MAY 8) on CNN HEADLINE NEWS!!!

There is a doctor on who believes that LIFE does not begin until AGE 2!!! And that it should be legal to kill your handicapped, physically deformed or ill child prior to that age!!!

It is what I have been saying for years, the ABORTION MENTALITY will ultimately lead to a general disrespect for life.

I read an article (in Utne Reader I think) where a guy said that a fetus is not protected by the Right to Life because it doesn’t have a birth certificate. Hence, a new-born child left in a dumpster isn’t a protected human either!!!

Now someone proposes to raise the age of “real life” to 2 YEARS!!!

Watch and learn!
 
As the parent of a handicapped child, I find this particularly ominous. I’m so afraid that history is going to repeat itself. Today, the handicapped, tomorrow, the Jews, Cathoics or whoever else is perceived to be a threat. Lord Jesus, help us!
 
Drlit said:
EVERYBODY MUST MUST SEE GLENN BECK TONIGHT (MAY 8) on CNN HEADLINE NEWS!!!

There is a doctor on who believes that LIFE does not begin until AGE 2!!! And that it should be legal to kill your handicapped, physically deformed or ill child prior to that age!!!
Click to expand...
:eek: WHAT?!?

That has to be some form of insanity. I have a son who is not yet one year old, and he thinks, he observes, he makes jokes, and he communicates. How is that not representative of life?

Ugh! The idea of killing children is horrible, but that, the idea that it’s okay if they’re under two takes it to a new level. It’s disgusting!

I missed the news. Did they at least suggest this doctor’s obvious quackish-ness? Is he a neo-nazi? What is his premise?

Aslieas
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top