I have a hard time understanding this

[Exiled_Child]

The recent call by the UN urging Latin American countries hit by the mosquito-borne Zika virus to lift restrictions on abortion for pregnant women who have contacted the virus and whose pre-born children may be at risk for birth defects has opened up some really good questions.

I understand that the Church says no to abortion under all circumstances.

I cannot understand why.

Life is precious. That I get.

There are exceptions. The double effect is one which, when applied to treating a critically ill mother, has the potential of killing the unborn “unintentionally”. While it may be “unintentional”, it is undertaken with the certainty that the foetus will die. The Church deems that while this would be unfortunate, there is no moral evil here.

What I cannot understand is why the Church would think that it is morally permissible to allow a child to be born terribly retarded (whether it’s caused by the Zika, or by any other defect). How can it be the moral thing to allow a child to be born terribly deformed, mentally and physically, and have to suffer for her entire life?

That’s precisely the same postion the Nazis took in World War Two.

The very first people they murdered were the disabled.

The psychiatric hospitals were swept clean with what the Nazis called “mercy deaths.”

The entire eugenics program was carried out by the Health Department.

 

[o_mlly]

It is not evil because no evil act has happened. It is sad; it is unwanted; but no more evil than a spontaneous miscarriage.

Acts are neutral, moral, or immoral. Effects are good or evil. The death of child is an evil effect.

In determining the morality of this surgical act, the OP has cited the"double effect" principle. If the act is neutral or not intrinsically evil, if the “good” effect is intended and does not proceed through the unintended “evil” effect, and if the two effects are proportionate, the act is permissible.*
66 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II,64,7, corp. art.*

Because no human act induces a spontaneous miscarriage, the evil is called physical not moral but still remains an evil just the same.

 

[St_Francis]

Acts are neutral, moral, or immoral. Effects are good or evil. The death of child is an evil effect.

In determining the morality of this surgical act, the OP has cited the"double effect" principle. If the act is neutral or not intrinsically evil, if the “good” effect is intended and does not proceed through the unintended “evil” effect, and if the two effects are proportionate, the act is permissible.*
66 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II,64,7, corp. art.*

Because no human act induces a spontaneous miscarriage, the evil is called physical not moral but still remains an evil just the same.

Wow, I have never seen a word with so many different definitions in different dictionaries! I used it in the sense of wickedly immoral, and you used it as meaning causing great sorrow or ruin.

I’ll have to be more specific in the future.

 

[Rau]

…What I cannot understand is why the Church would think that it is morally permissible to allow a child to be born terribly retarded (whether it’s caused by the Zika, or by any other defect). How can it be the moral thing to allow a child to be born terribly deformed, mentally and physically, and have to suffer for her entire life?

Because, once the child has been conceived, there is not a morally superior choice.

 

[Rau]

I think that in this case, the person advocating abortion seems to be doing it for humane reasons. That’s where the UN might be coming from. So it’s not that they mean to devalue life, but the push is driven more by a desire to end suffering, or rather, prevent suffering.

…So if we want people to understand why we don’t condone abortions, and in a similar vein, contraceptives, we have got to be able to explain it in a way that makes sense to them.

The failure to do so will make us look like fanatics who seem to be more focused on our dogmas than on being merciful and/or logical. We’ll look like our ideology has overwhelmed our intellect. Actually, that has already happened.

…What I’m looking for are good reasons not to abort without pulling the religion card.

It is a tenet of Catholic Moral Theology that doing evil is not justified, regardless of good intention or perceived good effect. To the atheist, this may well appear irrational. After all - what is evil? Isn’t consequences all that matter - isn’t that how evil is to be judged?

The Christian however needs to deal with divinely given law. The negative precepts of the law (“Thou shall’t not…”) don’t come with a list of exceptions. We are required to choose a path which is not in itself wrong - and sometimes, the perceived consequences of that path is not what we would hope for.

I am not sure if a persuasive case can always be made for choosing a good path without reference to God.

 

[ProdigalSun]

Life is precious. That I get.

QUOTE]

Actually I think what your saying is that some life is more precious than others. If you are deficient in metal or physical ability it is better that you do not live.

???