Help with Abortion Argument Needed!

[hojo33]

Please respond only if you have a clear and concise argument and please no emotional arguments-

I have been debating someone on the abortion debate, and we are down to an interesting question. He agrees abortion is murder, but…

In the instance of the mother’s life is definitely in danger, if the state mandates the woman has to have the child, is the state not condemning the woman to death? Or in other words, would the state not be, in a sense, mandating the murder of the woman? Maybe I have the definition of murder wrong, but if we would call it murder in the case of the child, would we not call the supposed knowing the mother would die, murdering her?

I am having a tough time with this one…

 

[Aquinas11]

In the instance of the mother’s life is definitely in danger, if the state mandates the woman has to have the child, is the state not condemning the woman to death?

No because State isn’t mandating the woman to have the child

They’re just not letting her murder the child

Subtle but huge difference

 

[hojo33]

Very good point, but what if he responds with something like, “most women get pregnant not knowing that they could have to choose between their life and the baby, so why should the state mandate this”. Or “She didn’t plan(or did plan) on the pregnancy, but decided to have the baby, and then when she found out that her life was on the line, and the state mandated her to have the baby, so she would die, wouldn’t that be considered state sponsored murder?”

In the end the abortion is a forced murder, and the state saying that she may not abort would not be a direct murder of the woman, but I’m still having a tough time with this…

 

[Elf01]

In the instance of the mother’s life is definitely in danger, if the state mandates the woman has to have the child, is the state not condemning the woman to death? Or in other words, would the state not be, in a sense, mandating the murder of the woman? Maybe I have the definition of murder wrong, but if we would call it murder in the case of the child, would we not call the supposed knowing the mother would die, murdering her?

Pro lifers don’t object to saving the mother in this scenario. We object to the direct killing of the baby. If the mother needs to be treated for canced, for example, she can be treated, even if that will result in the babies death.

Before that though I’d ask would you support making abortion illegal in all other circumstances?

 

[Aquinas11]

“most women get pregnant not knowing that they could have to choose between their life and the baby, so why should the state mandate this”.

I’d say
(1) false premise - state didn’t mandate she do anything (see above)
(2) nature playing its course , not state choosing between her life & baby

Or “She didn’t plan(or did plan) on the pregnancy, but decided to have the baby, and then when she found out that her life was on the line, and the state mandated her to have the baby, so she would die, wouldn’t that be considered state sponsored murder?”

(1) false premise on state mandate see above
(2) not murder since murder requires act to cause death of another , what’s the act?

In the end the abortion is a forced murder, and the state saying that she may not abort would not be a direct murder of the woman, but I’m still having a tough time with this

Take the argument to him: “so you’re saying the State actively killing a baby , that’s not murder , but the State refraining from action? That is murder? What is your definition of murder? Since it seems to exclude action and require inaction?”

 

[Annie]

Before that though I’d ask would you support making abortion illegal in all other circumstances?

This is a very good point. Sometimes questions about the toughest of situations are used as a mask to keep all abortions legal.

A situation in which the only way to save the mother’s life is non-existent. Here’s an article about that–it explains that if the mother and baby must be separated to save the mother’s life, a C-section or induced labor can be used. Even if the baby’s gestational age is known to be too young and thus death foreseen, the death is a side-effect. No action was taken to directly attack and kill the baby.

The article is very good and explains a lot.

It is very good of you to discuss this with him, and to ask for help when you need it!

 

[hojo33]

Thanks, I believe he would agree that all other abortion would be illegal.

Can all medical conditions of the mother be treated without aborting the child?

 

[hojo33]

Very very interesting and good point, I need to stew on that to wrap my small brain around any outs…

 

[hojo33]

Very good, thanks for the article, I will read this tomorrow before I see him. He is a very honest person in that he thinks logically and does believe abortion is murder. He just could not make a clear distinction, nor could I, between murder of the child, but also murder in the state mandating that she could NOT abort to save her own life.

We got into greater goods, and whether it was better to lay down ones own life for another, which he agreed was, but when it got to this end, we could not figure out a clear answer.

 

[hojo33]

So is the state refraining from action if they mandate that she is not allowed to have an abortion in the event she will die, or has the action of mandate already taken place therefore it is the state acting.

Not sure if what I said makes any sense…

 

[Annie]

I think where you two had problems was in two places:

1. The right to life is not so much a right that requires that everything must be done to save the life, but that that life of a human not be directly taken: the right is to be free from being killed. (People can lose this right, ie, if they attack someone so violently that the victim or another person is justified in using what turns out to be deadly force. The loss of life cannot be what is intended in this scenario, tho.)
2. Murder involves taking an action that is intended or can be reasonably expected to end a human life without a proper reason.

 

[hojo33]

So here is where I get tripped up. The first point is a very good point, but is it her right to live by not be “killed” because of the child? Because I think it could be argued that her life is being directly taken by the state because of a law preventing her from having the abortion…(not sure if this is a sound statement)

On point 2, Murder involves taking action. Is it not action that the state would make a law that mandates her not abort, therefore implying she must die, or is that not a reasonable implication.

With my protestant friends, on Faith and Works, I will argue that faith in and of itself is a work, so therefore it can’t be separated from faith, so I think I’m seeing the same thing here. The state mandates her have an abortion, therefore it implies the consequence would be her death, and therefore is the “reasonable expected end” to her human life, but with proper reason?

 

[goout]

Principle of double effect

Abortion and Double Effect | Catholic Answers Magazine

 

[1ke]

In the instance of the mother’s life is definitely in danger,

In such a case, the doctor has two patients. He is obliged to do whatever is in his power to save both. If his treatment of the woman’s condition causes the unavoidable but unintended death of the child, that is not abortion and not murder.

Killing the child is never a legitimate treatment for the woman’s condition.

 

[goout]

If the state mandated the woman cannot treat a real life threatening illness, that would also be an injustice.
I am not aware of any state remotely proposing that, but I could be wrong. I would be shocked if any state did, as it is immoral to withhold legitimate life saving treatment.
The Catholic Church would not support such a provision, at least the way I read our moral evaluation of this.

 

[hojo33]

That helps, thank you.

 

[hojo33]

Are you saying it is immoral to withhold life saving treatment of the mother if, in the event, the baby could kill her, and the baby must be aborted? Or does it go both ways?

 

[goout]

Are you saying it is immoral to withhold life saving treatment of the mother if, in the event, the baby could kill her, and the baby must be aborted? Or does it go both ways?

The moral evaluation here always points to the sanctity of human life. That is the objective.
You have two lives as Ike pointed out. If the mother’s life is in danger because of a physical condition related to the pregnancy (I;m not a doctor ok), the procedure to save her life is ordered to the good of preserving human life, even if as a double effect it results in the loss of the child’s life as an unintended consequence.

These situations are agonizing…but we sometimes have to make these evaluations unfortunately. But you have to keep in mind that morality is not just a set of rules that easily cover every situation. Those rules always point to a certain objective good.

And the problem with moral relativism is it robs the person of the agency to make good choices and act accordingly. Relativism paralyzes people.

 

[EZweber]

Are you saying it is immoral to withhold life saving treatment of the mother if, in the event, the baby could kill her, and the baby must be aborted? Or does it go both ways?

A direct abortion is immoral. There are cases in which a treatment is administered to the mother (not an abortion) which results in the death of the baby. This can be moral since the death of the baby is an unintended though foreseen result. But, if someone points a gun to my head and threatens to kill me if I don’t kill you, I still can’t kill you.

 

[hojo33]

Thank you, I misunderstood what you were originally saying. Agonizing yes, and unfortunately to many non Catholics, they argue that at some point we are splitting hairs.