Yes I will. At first I thought after writing my example and looking back that it was useless, but I think now after the example above it will serve a purpose. My example of hanging from a cliff is actually a much more apt comparison to the case of the woman with pulmonary hypertension.
Actually I believe that this is the best analogy I have encountered so far, so if you permit, we will work this example. You example highlights the crucial issue here: that if A is hanging off B, then if A goes down, B will as well. On the other hand, A can save himself by killing B. Thus B dies either way.
The Catholic teaching is that A
cannot kill B, because the
action of killing is an
intrinsic evil, so, A should rather choose
inaction (and ignore the consequences). The utilitarian approach (which looks at the outcome) is that A can (or even should!) kill B to save himself because B is dead anyway – A would sacrifice himself for no benefit.
Now, if A is Catholic and chooses to die together with B – I have no problem with this. But if A decides to kick B off to save himself, then I would not condemn him either. I will also note, that A’s survival instinct will give him a strong impulse to save himself by killing B, thus making him less culpable for B’s death. I will further note, that if I was in A’s place, then I have no idea what I would do.
The reason this is important is that the debate of abortion starts with morality, but ends with criminal law. That’s why I asked, if you think that if A kicks off B, then should A be charged with murder. Because that’s exactly what a ban on abortion without exception for the threat of woman’s life boils down to. She kills the fetus to save herself, she gets charged. To my dismay, you have provided a non-answer to this:
In answer to your question earlier, no you would not be prosecuted for murder because there would be no witnesses and no way to prove what you did was murder.
which doesn’t really advance us in any way.
To bring your example closer to what is actually encountered in medical world, let’s make another modification. As before, A is hanging off B, but this time, C is standing on the opposite side of the canyon. C cannot help A (he’s on the other side), but he has a gun, and can shot B, so B falls off and A can climb up to safety. To make matters worse, C cannot communicate with A, so C doesn’t know what A wants him to do. That’s the Phoenix (MacBride) case.
The Catholic teaching here is that, again, C should simply choose
inaction. Utilitarians will argue that C should judge both possible outcomes and act accordingly (shoot B).
Your comment on the Phoenix case, echoing the bishop:
The bishop stood in defense of the rights of an unborn child who was blatantly cast aside as a parasite who was sucking up resources from the mother who was fighting a condition that had to do with a failure of her own body.
is equivalent to saying that A should be sacrificed to drive home the point that shooting people is wrong. I.e. shooting B infringes on his right to life, so we need to sacrifice A to demonstrate this. Thanks, but everyone already knows you are against shooting peple! That’s why I called it
valuing doctrinal orthodoxy higher than human life.
But there is an interesting twist here. We are ignoring B. B, being aware of the situation can decide to detach himself from A and kill himself, thus saving A.
Pro-lifers usually say that the fetus has a
right to life. But the very concept of right entails that it can be waived. In the example above, B waives his right to life (he cannot profit from that right anyway) in order to save A. So let’s go back to the Phoenix scenario, and ask a thought-provoking question: had the fetus been sentient, could it possibly request to be aborted in order to save its mother? Because the pro-life legal theory basically makes the state legal representive of the fetus.
Pro-life legal theory recognizes that the fetus has rights, such as right to life. I do not have a problem with that. But pro-life legal theory also claims that wherever there is a conflict between the rights of mother and the rights of the fetus,
the rights of the fetus have precedence over the right of mother. That’s not a bad idea either, but the implication is that the fetus’ right to life,
trumps the mother’s right to life. Application of that legal theory – medical’s personnel fear of being prosecuted should a pregnant patient miscarry – has already led to pregnant women being refused treatment because it could
potentially induce miscarriage, finally resulting in the death of both. See
ZZ vs. Poland. What happened there was, I believe, a fundamental injustice.
Taking all that into account, my view of the issue is that
no universally agreed on answer can exist here, and so, democratic society simply cannot pass legislation prohibiting either course of action. The decision must remain with the people directly involved. That, I believe, makes me
pro-choice.
If you would choose to not kick him off and go with the 1% chance, how high of a chance of survival should you kick him off would you require before you would change your mind? 10%? 25%? 50%?
Well, you have actually made my point here. As we move from
certainity of B’s death to
probabilities, there is even less hope that an objectively correct answer can exist here.
