I think I found a situation where abortion is necessary to save the mother's life

[Drawmack]

Both Scripture “You shall not kill” and the Catechism are clear:

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2258.htm
**2258 **“Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.”

[2268](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2268.htm’) The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.
Infanticide, fratricide, parricide, and the murder of a spouse are especially grave crimes by reason of the natural bonds which they break. Concern for eugenics or public health cannot justify any murder, even if commanded by public authority.

I would like to point out that neither of these passages states what the poster I was responding to stated. Neither of these quotes states that one should choose to destroy the entire world instead of killing one person and the second quote actually backs me up. In the second quote it states “cooperate voluntarily in murder” I think a good case can be made that given the choice between killing one person and killing all of humanity, which by default includes that one innocent person, is not voluntary cooperation. If a mad man managed to get a hold of the codes to launch our nukes. Then he told me that either I could kill one infant or he would push the button and kill everyone in the world, including that infant, than I would not be voluntarily cooperating with murder. I would have lost my free-will which reduces any, ANY, mortal sin to a venial sin.

Again, point out where the Church has said “you should sacrifice the entire world for the sake of one innocent life”.

 

[Drawmack]

Why would you leave the Church if this were the case?

I think that you are not taking into account that the spiritual world co-exists with the material world, but the latter will pass away and the former is eternal. Anything which affects the spiritual world badly is called sin. It is better for the entire material creation to pass away than one person sin, but remember that our souls are eternal, and that their eternal being is more to be protected than the mere body.

I view the original statement is being in direct conflict with many Biblical teachings. Therefore, if the Church actually teaches this then the Church is in direct conflict with many Biblical teachings. Thus, I would have to leave the Church.

Can you provide me with dogma that states, “It is better for all of humanity to pass away than for one innocent life to be taken”

To name one contradiction that happens if this is true, the implications of this statement refute just war doctrine because innocent people die in war every day.

 

[kage_ar]

The one time when the situation was happening, the life of one innocent person to save the whole human race - that person willingly gave up His life.

One can never murder.

What would it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his own soul?

 

[kage_ar]

I view the original statement is being in direct conflict with many Biblical teachings. Therefore, if the Church actually teaches this then the Church is in direct conflict with many Biblical teachings. Thus, I would have to leave the Church.

Can you provide me with dogma that states, “It is better for all of humanity to pass away than for one innocent life to be taken”

To name one contradiction that happens if this is true, the implications of this statement refute just war doctrine because innocent people die in war every day.

What you do not seem to grasp or to accept - not all killing is murder.

While all killing is serious, it is not always murder. Murder is always a sin.

In your fictional drama, someone will launch nukes unless you kill a child. To kill that child would be murder, you could choose to commit that sin, but, it would still be sin.

 

[Drawmack]

What you do not seem to grasp or to accept - not all killing is murder.

While all killing is serious, it is not always murder. Murder is always a sin.

In your fictional drama, someone will launch nukes unless you kill a child. To kill that child would be murder, you could choose to commit that sin, but, it would still be sin.

Back this up with Church teaching! I am not interested in your, in anyone else’s, opinions. I am interested only in official Church doctrine and dogma. You may keep your opinions to yourself.

 

[Drawmack]

The one time when the situation was happening, the life of one innocent person to save the whole human race - that person willingly gave up His life.

One can never murder.

What would it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his own soul?

You are absolutely correct. The one person willing gave up his life to save all of humanity. Not the other way around as the post I was responding to stated!

 

[kage_ar]

Back this up with Church teaching! I am not interested in your, in anyone else’s, opinions. I am interested only in official Church doctrine and dogma. You may keep your opinions to yourself.

I’ve posted the CCC link, will do again.

The treatment of the 5th Commandment begins with 2258, it is far to lengthy to post here. Give the entire section a read.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm#2258

[2261](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2261.htm’) Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: “Do not slay the innocent and the righteous.” The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. The law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere.

 

[bilop]

I would like to point out that neither of these passages states what the poster I was responding to stated. Neither of these quotes states that one should choose to destroy the entire world instead of killing one person and the second quote actually backs me up. In the second quote it states “cooperate voluntarily in murder” I think a good case can be made that given the choice between killing one person and killing all of humanity, which by default includes that one innocent person, is not voluntary cooperation. If a mad man managed to get a hold of the codes to launch our nukes. Then he told me that either I could kill one infant or he would push the button and kill everyone in the world, including that infant, than I would not be voluntarily cooperating with murder. I would have lost my free-will which reduces any, ANY, mortal sin to a venial sin.

Again, point out where the Church has said “you should sacrifice the entire world for the sake of one innocent life”.

The difference is you are committing murder to stop someone else from committing murder. You can not sin to prevent another from committing a greater sin.

If you refuse to kill the innocent, and the madman then murders people the sin is on him not you.

God Bless

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

I gave some examples in a earlier post. And yes I admit so far my argument has been mainly based in emotion. But what is wrong with that? And isn;t much of the prolife arguments basically based in emotion?

Uhm, no.

Life begins at conception. That is a fact, not a feeling. Nothing changes that fact. You have a difference of opinion, take it up with God.

Abortion apologists. Help us, Blessed Mother!

 

[Drawmack]

I’ve posted the CCC link, will do again.

The treatment of the 5th Commandment begins with 2258, it is far to lengthy to post here. Give the entire section a read.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm#2258

[2261](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2261.htm’) Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: “Do not slay the innocent and the righteous.” The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. The law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere.

I read the entire section from my Catechism and I would think that the principle of double effect applies here. The intention is to save all of humanity. Until someone with teaching faculties sees fit to correct me, this is the belief I will hold.

And, unless I am ever put into such a situation it doesn’t really matter anyway. This was a case where I agreed with the posters intent but found the words used to express it objectionable.

 

[Drawmack]

The difference is you are committing murder to stop someone else from committing murder. You can not sin to prevent another from committing a greater sin.

If you refuse to kill the innocent, and the madman then murders people the sin is on him not you.

God Bless

But, I acted in compliance with the mad man’s sin of murdering everyone. That’s what I’m saying, my free-will was taken. I was forced to act as the inaction is itself an action.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

So if basically letting the world end wouldn;t be as bad as killing one baby? So in other words killing billions of people isn;t as bad as killing one?

This is an extraordinarily disingenuous question.

Life under the bridge…

And there’s two of them.

 

[Calliso]

This is an extraordinarily disingenuous question.

Life under the bridge…

And there’s two of them.

Ahh so anyone that disagrees with your point of view is a troll huh? And sorry I do realize my comment there was unfair. I was just a little shocked at the idea and was trying to point out the implications. And I was a little shocked by the idea that let billions of lives end would be worse then killing one person.

 

[Susanglori]

Yeah I sorta agree here…I say sorta because I donlt know medically what sort of effects an abortion would have on a woman with that condition. So it is actually possible that an abortion would have less risk then inducing labor or a c section.
I will have to do some research on that.

But I have also heard of other situations where abortion can be necessary. I mean assuming you donlt want the mother to die. Sometimes it;s not so black and white. Sometimes it;s not as simple as try to save both sometimes it;s save one or the other…or even you save the mother…or you let both die. Fortunately such situations are fairly rare.

Abortion is never necessary nor is it ever moral. You can’t give not even one instance where abortion is necessary. Not even one. Doesn’t exist.

 

[budgie2]

Abortion is never necessary nor is it ever moral. You can’t give not even one instance where abortion is necessary. Not even one. Doesn’t exist.

The Just War theory could be applied to abortion as abortion is a war within the womb. If abortion is to reduce the loss of life some people could justify according to the Just War Theory. So in the case of ectopic pregnancy for example where a woman could haemorrhage although sometimes ectopic pregnancies move into the womb as far as I know. Also in the case of honour killing whether mother, child and even father could be killed. I’ve got a muslim aunt and she had an abortion because she said her, her child and the child’s father would be killed. She’s married to my uncle who is baptised Roman Catholic but doesn’t always attend Church.

 

[yellowbicycle]

The Just War theory could be applied to abortion as abortion is a war within the womb. If abortion is to reduce the loss of life some people could justify according to the Just War Theory. So in the case of ectopic pregnancy for example where a woman could haemorrhage although sometimes ectopic pregnancies move into the womb as far as I know. Also in the case of honour killing whether mother, child and even father could be killed. I’ve got a muslim aunt and she had an abortion because she said her, her child and the child’s father would be killed. She’s married to my uncle who is baptised Roman Catholic but doesn’t always attend Church.

That would be an improper application of the doctrine, though. Here’s why.

Here is a link to an explanation on Just War Doctrine:
ewtn.com/expert/answers/just_war.htm

1. Just war doctrine is to be applied by communities or nations. A pregnant woman is neither of these.
2. For a war to be just, it must meet specific conditions, which are outlined in the link I posted. Abortion fails all of them.
3. In the Just War Doctrine itself, several specific moral actions are forbidden and which constitute morally unlawful orders that may not be followed, include:
   • attacks against, and mistreatment of, non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners;

If a pregnancy is ‘war within a womb’, (it’s not, by the way) then that would actually make the baby a prisoner of war, or at the very least an obvious non-combatant. In either case, you’re still not allowed to murder him or her.

Ectopic pregnancies have been discussed. The DIRECT and INTENTIONAL killing of a child is an abortion. If a mother needs life-saving treatment and the child dies, that is unfortunate, but it is not an abortion. So, if a woman has an ectopic pregnancy and the doctors remove the part of her fallopian tube with the embryo in it, the INTENT was to heal the mother, not destroy the child. And the action itself was on the mother, NOT on the child. Therefore, this act is not in any way sinful.

I don’t understand your example of an honor killing. (I know what an honor killing is, I just don’t understand how it is applicable in this thread.)

 

[kage_ar]

The Just War theory could be applied to abortion as abortion is a war within the womb. If abortion is to reduce the loss of life some people could justify according to the Just War Theory. So in the case of ectopic pregnancy for example where a woman could haemorrhage although sometimes ectopic pregnancies move into the womb as far as I know. Also in the case of honour killing whether mother, child and even father could be killed. I’ve got a muslim aunt and she had an abortion because she said her, her child and the child’s father would be killed. She’s married to my uncle who is baptised Roman Catholic but doesn’t always attend Church.

Just War theory is very complex and if it could be applied to abortion, the Church would have taught it. The Church does not teach it. Church teaching on matters of faith and morals is without error and will not change.

Your “honor killing” reference is something that is so opposed to Christianity, it is not part of God’s law - which is love. It does demonstrate the lack of love in some other religions, but, that is the topic for another thread.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

The Just War theory could be applied to abortion as abortion is a war within the womb. If abortion is to reduce the loss of life some people could justify according to the Just War Theory.

Uhhhh…

No.

 

[livi]

abortion is never allowed, regardless of the circumstances. medical risk is not an excuse for murder.

 

[Seatuck]

Budgie2 read this on Ectopic’s

cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=57