I'm pro-life...but that's my choice

[Barbkw]

Am I wrong to think that we shouldn’t force faith and values on people who don’t want it? Doesn’t it degrade their own humanity by not letting them choose freely, just as we all have *chosen freely *to accept Christ?

They’re killing human beings and the government is giving them license to commit these murders.

How degrading is it to all of humanity when a mother is given license to kill her child, and society turns a blind eye to the massacre of the innocents.

Are you content standing by and watching as one dead child becomes two children and then 100, and then 100,000?

Are you content witnessing how U.S.'s sins have spread worldwide, killing 42 million children per year?

If you are content… then you are not pro-life.

 

[rom422]

In this post I propose to clarify a few things just to make sense of the truths that we hold most dear.

1. First, I want to make a distinction between a right and the exercise of that right. If I buy a house in France, then I have a right to use it because I am the new owner. But if I am here in the U.S.A., I might not be able to exercise my right, or actually use the house, just because I am not in France. Of course, I don’t lose the right to use my house in France even if I am in the U.S. I am just impeded from exercising my right because of my present location.

OK what is the point? My point is that the right to life belongs to us by virtue of the fact that we are human beings. Criminals have the same right, because they are human beings. And they do not lose that right just because they had been bad. However, on account of their crimes the law could impede them from the exercise of that right by executing them.

Now this might sound like a pure play in words, that this is just semantics. You might think that by depriving a person the exercise of that right, then the law effectively deprives the criminal of the right to life. But that is not really the case. It is just that it is not easy to see the distinction in this case because once a person dies by impeding his exercise of the right to live, then he also loses his right to life. The distinction is easier to see in the case of my right to use my house in France. For a crime that I have committed the law can also impede me from using my house by keeping me in jail. However, because I am not dead, I continue to have the right to use it, even if I cannot exercise that right.

This kind of distinction is very important in moral philosophy because it is also the distinction that helps us understand crucial issues regarding a person’s humanity. From a philosophical standpoint a man is defined as a rational animal, an animal that possesses the faculties of intellect and will. Here again we have to make a distinction between a person’s possession of these faculties and the exercise of these faculties. The insane and the unborn human beings possess these faculties, because they are human beings. But they are impeded from the exercise of these faculties either by a defect in one or more requisite organs (as in the case of the insane), or because of insufficient development or experience (as in the case of the unborn).

I will continue this on the next post.

 

[rom422]

Continued from previous post.

1. Second, I also want to make a distinction between a thing’s essence, its distinctive properties, and its accidents. The essence of a thing is what makes it the precise kind of being that it is. The property of a thing is a feature that necessarily belongs to the thing, but without being a part of its essence. An accident is a feature that belongs to a thing contingently rather than necessarily. Let me illustrate all these by one example.

The common sense definition of a circle is that it is a perfectly round figure. If you want a mathematical definition, we could say that a circle is a figure all of whose points are equidistant from the same point, called the center. Based on the common sense definition, roundness is the essence of the circle. One might even say that it is a defining feature of a circle because if roundness is missing in a figure, then the figure circle would not be there. So, the essence of the circle is being perfectly round.

A property is a feature that necessarily belongs to a thing, without being a part of its essence, or without being a part of its real definition. For example, a circle can be intersected by a straight line in at most two points. The fact that a straight line cannot intersect a circle in more than two points is a characteristic property of a circle, but it is not what makes a circle a circle. It is a characteristic that necessarily belongs to the essence of a circle, but it is not a defining feature of a circle. It is a feature that necessarily flows from the essence of the circle, without being a part of that essence; thus, it is a property of the circle.

An accident is an inherent feature that belongs to a thing or essence, but not necessarily. For example, every circle has a radius (the distance from the center to any point in the circle). That this particular circle has a 10" radius belongs to this circle, but it is not a necessary feature of a circle. A circle could have a 15" radius and would still be a circle. Accidents exist in things, but they do not form a necessary part of their natures (or essences).

Strictly speaking, the essences of material things are hidden from us, which is why it is so difficult to define them. Mathematical entities and concepts are relatively easier to define than material objects, like a monkey or a cow. Frequently, we define material objects by listing their distinctive properties, or properties that make them distinct from other objects in the same class. For example, nobody can see what the actual essence of water is. But we know that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius at sea level; that its molecule consists of two atoms of Hydrogen and one atom of Oxygen; etc. etc. Because the essence of a material object is hidden from the scientist, a list of observable, distinctive characteristics, features, or properties take the place of essence for him.

The same is true when we consider the essence of man. We cannot see man’s essence, but if you are a biology student, you probably could make a taxonomy-based definition that leads to the species homo sapiens. This is nothing but a list of distinctive properties that constitute what a man is for the scientist. Philosophers simply call man’s essence “humanity,” but while everybody understands it, it is still not a very clear concept. Aristotle attempted to give a real definition of man as a rational animal, and while it is not perfect, it is good enough for our purposes. The fact that a man is a rational being distinguishes him sufficiently from the rest of the Animal Kingdom.

Why did I go through the trouble of making these distinctions? Because what we call *natural human rights *are properties that belong to the nature (or essence) of man as man. They are not what define a human being; but they necessarily belong to man to the extent that he or she is human.

Now, not all human rights are natural. Some are arbitrarily given by law, such as the rights of citizenship - the right to vote, etc. These rights are not natural rights. But the right to life is one of the natural human rights. It is an axiomatic principle that every human being has a natural right to life, a property that belongs to every human being, without it being a part of the human essence. It is not what makes us human; it is not a part of what we call “humanity.” But it is one of those features that necessarily belong to man by virtue of the fact that he or she is human.

Natural human rights are inalienable rights. They cannot be removed or taken away from any man. The law can impede a human being from exercising an inalienable right, but it cannot take away his or her natural human right.

What about the unborn? It is also an axiomatic physical principle (rejected or denied by many) that the zygote, the embryo, or the fetus resulting from the conjugal action of two human parents, is a human being. Therefore, it has natural and inalienable human rights that may not justly be taken away from it, one of which is its natural right to live. The fact that the zygote is still so tiny is a temporary accident of man’s nature. Its size does not define it as non-human. It is a human being that possesses the distinctive faculties intellect and will, though it is still unable to exercise those powers.

What about the insane, or the disabled? They are all human. They have natural human rights, and they have human powers or faculties. They might not be able to exercise all their rights and powers, but that doesn’t make them any less human.

I hope all these definitions and distinctions that I took the trouble to write help to clarify the many issues wherein we all find ourselves entangled.

 

[mlz]

I’ve heard over and over that we can’t “legislate morality” but the fact is if you don’t stand for your morals someone else’s will be legislated. All law in essence is someone’s idea of what is right or wrong over another’s. It is a lie from the pits to believe this and not stand for your beliefs.

By the way, right to life is a huge difference to your brother having to go to Mass. Life has already begun, the right to choose can before the child was conceived.

My thoughts.

In His love,
mlz

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

If the reason really does stem from the simple fact of being a human, then what do we say about the legality of executing criminals? Is it possible for a man to change this very essence so much by committing a crime that he is no longer considered a human? Is that how we allow this exception? By saying that the criminal is not a human being? I don’t think so. What we do say is that this man is still human, but he is a very bad human. And for a well-ordered society it is necessary, sometimes, to execute such a human.

For reasons similar to my reasons for being pro-life (on abortion, embryo-destructive research, etc.), I also oppose the death penalty. It is not, in fact, necessary today.

That said, this exception is not problematic for the abortion issue, since no human zygote, embryo, or fetus is a criminal.

As for your argument with this hypothetical adversary who does not hold any religious or spiritual view, I think that adversary might not accept your premise that any rule that protects him must also protect the unborn. Why should it? We already see that the rules that protect him do not protect certain criminals.

That’s fine; my assertion that “any rule that protects him/her must also protect the unborn” is not really a premise; I believe I could in fact rationally demonstrate it.

My premise is that there is a general right not to be killed that ought to be protected by law. My interlocutor must grant that as a premise; I personally don’t know how to go about attempting to convince someone of that.

If they assent to that principle, however, one can show from there why their reasoning applies to the unborn as well.

If they attempt to give some difference between the born and unborn that justifies legal abortion, it can be shown that their exception includes other kinds of people as well: for instance, if it’s a matter of possessing rational faculties, self-awareness, etc., then killing babies ought to be legal, too (as Peter Singer advocates).

Most people don’t favor that, and as long as they hold such a position, its hideous moral inconsistency can indeed be rationally conveyed to them.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

For reasons similar to my reasons for being pro-life (on abortion, embryo-destructive research, etc.), I also oppose the death penalty. It is not, in fact, necessary today.

That said, this exception is not problematic for the abortion issue, since no human zygote, embryo, or fetus is a criminal.

it is not supposed to be problematic for the specific case of abortion. It is supposed to be problematic for the more general principle that was being put forward. That principle was that the essential nature of being human is to have the right to life. From this it was argued that a embryo, being human, therefore had that right. So the consideration of the death penalty does not prove that abortion is OK, but it does undercut the more general hypothesis that being human implies an unalienable right to life. Therefore what is called for is a revision of the argument against abortion that does not rely on this more general principle, which is not true in its most general form.

That’s fine; my assertion that “any rule that protects him/her must also protect the unborn” is not really a premise; I believe I could in fact rationally demonstrate it.

My premise is that there is a general right not to be killed that ought to be protected by law.

The trouble with this is that you have made this premise so general that its applicability is similarly general. That is, anyone should agree that there should be some sort of law that affords some kind of protection to people. But not everyone gets the same level of protection. When the President travels he gets a whole secret service team to protect him. When I go shopping at the grocery store I get whatever amount of protection is available from calling 911. My right to life is clearly not being protected as vigorously as the President’s. And that is as it should be.

My interlocutor must grant that as a premise; I personally don’t know how to go about attempting to convince someone of that.

If they assent to that principle, however, one can show from there why their reasoning applies to the unborn as well.

If they attempt to give some difference between the born and unborn that justifies legal abortion, it can be shown that their exception includes other kinds of people as well: for instance, if it’s a matter of possessing rational faculties, self-awareness, etc., then killing babies ought to be legal, too (as Peter Singer advocates).

What if they say the difference is the degree to which the embryo is uniquely dependent on a single non-transferrable mother? That cannot be said of babies already born because if a mother does not want the baby, the dependence relationship can be easily transferred to adoptive parents. So just because someone does not oppose abortion that does not mean they must also not oppose killing post-born babies.

Why not present this so-called rational person with a rational argument for God? Is that any harder to do than arguing against abortion with one arm tied behind your back, so to speak, by avoiding talking about God?

 

[MarkInOregon]

And if you give that egg-and-sperm pair that same kind of shelter, food, etc. It also will fuse and develop just like the embryo that was already fertilized. The act of fusing is something the pair can do without any additional help. So if you are going to base your support for the right to life on what something needs then you will not be able to distinguish between the egg-sperm pair and the already-fused embryo.

I don’t see this addressed in the posts that follow and I apologize if I missed it. If you give that egg-and-sperm pair that same kind of shelter, food, etc–there is no guarantee that they will fuse and consequently develop. That is why the two are distinguished.

Peace,
Mark

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

it is not supposed to be problematic for the specific case of abortion. It is supposed to be problematic for the more general principle that was being put forward. That principle was that the essential nature of being human is to have the right to life. From this it was argued that a embryo, being human, therefore had that right. So the consideration of the death penalty does not prove that abortion is OK, but it does undercut the more general hypothesis that being human implies an unalienable right to life. Therefore what is called for is a revision of the argument against abortion that does not rely on this more general principle, which is not true in its most general form.

Fair enough. People generally do implicitly accept that there are certain exceptions to the principle, and incorporate those exceptions into the very principle itself. If we want, we can just add a clause to that first premise, something like, “…with the following exceptions,” and the argument remains just as secular and just as accessible.

The trouble with this is that you have made this premise so general that its applicability is similarly general. That is, anyone should agree that there should be some sort of law that affords some kind of protection to people. But not everyone gets the same level of protection. When the President travels he gets a whole secret service team to protect him. When I go shopping at the grocery store I get whatever amount of protection is available from calling 911. My right to life is clearly not being protected as vigorously as the President’s. And that is as it should be.

We’re not talking about affording *concrete *protection to people. I’m referring to the simple legal reality of killing someone being illegal. Yes, the president gets way more protection than we do. But it is no more illegal to kill him than it is to kill me.

What if they say the difference is the degree to which the embryo is uniquely dependent on a single non-transferrable mother? That cannot be said of babies already born because if a mother does not want the baby, the dependence relationship can be easily transferred to adoptive parents. So just because someone does not oppose abortion that does not mean they must also not oppose killing post-born babies.

Most people, when confronted with the ramifications of making one’s basic rights dependent on one’s degree of independence, admit that it’s horrifying to base applying or withholding human rights on that condition.

Again, if they accept those ramifications, I fully admit my argument has nowhere to go, LeafByNiggle. But most people I’ve talked to don’t accept those ramifications.

Why not present this so-called rational person with a rational argument for God? Is that any harder to do than arguing against abortion with one arm tied behind your back, so to speak, by avoiding talking about God?

In the United States, we can’t base laws on what God wants, so that won’t help us achieve legal protection for those who do not have it now.

 

[kama3]

[Embryo]Left to itself it will grow into a baby, then a child, then an adolescent, then an adult human being.

Nope, left to itself it will die. It relies on mother’s body for support. In fact, the embryo, despite having its unique DNA, is built from the material taken from the mother’s body.

[If there is a threat to mother’s life] The mother may not allow this new organism to be killed in the name of “self-defense” because the fetus is not an unjust aggressor in this case. The fetus is completely innocent,

By your logic, if a mentally sick person tries to kill someone, law enforcement should not be allowed to use deadly force to stop the agressor, because the agressor, being unable to judge his own action, is innocent.

 

[kama3]

If they attempt to give some difference between the born and unborn that justifies legal abortion, it can be shown that their exception includes other kinds of people as well: for instance, if it’s a matter of possessing rational faculties, self-awareness, etc., then killing babies ought to be legal, too (as Peter Singer advocates).

Peter Singer advocates that personhood is a product of having sufficiently advanced rational faculties. Under this worldview, killing babies under certain age (i.e. before they are sufficiently advanced) should be legal, just as abortion is; that’s logical. Let’s say that Singer gets his was and killing babies under 3 is legal. But then we note that a grown chimpanzee has an intellectual capability of a 5-year-old human. So under Singer’s criminal law, killing an adult chimpanzee would be a murder. That’s something that Singer’s critics often fail to mention. His system goes against common sense, but it internally very consistent.

Instead, a typical prolifer believes that human life should be protected from conception, while a chimpanzee life should not be protected at all. Prolifers here employ a genetic criterion: whatever has 46 chromosomes has an inalienable right to live.

However, prolifers also assert that children with Down syndrome have an inalienable right to live – but these children have 47 chromosomes. Chimpanzees have 48. So why 47 chromosomes is okay, and 48 is not? That’s arbitrary.

The standard answer says that humans are a separate species, because they cannot interbreed with chimpanzees. But interbreeding criterion is based on capability, so the pro-life camp does the same thing that Singer does. (And we should note that not every human can breed with each other, but that should not be the reason to deny them personhood).

But wait, it gets even messier. Suppose that tomorrow someone discovers a lost colony of Neanderthals. Boy, now we have a problem. They are obviously not homo sapiens, but they have comparable intellectual ability, they can speak, and it’s even possible they can interbreed with us (although we are not sure). Should their personhood be recognized and why?

Abortion is just a tip of the iceberg. It’s about a more fundamental question: what makes a human?.

 

[sedonaman]

…Am I wrong to think that we shouldn’t force faith and values on people who don’t want it? Doesn’t it degrade their own humanity by not letting them choose freely, just as we all have *chosen freely *to accept Christ?

There are two issues here: faith and values, and I think you are confusing them. While we can’t force our faith on others, values are another matter. Your statement here implies that all laws are just laws because they have been enacted. Not all laws are just. Catholics have an obligation to work for the repeal of unjust laws. We have seen this question a million times before, and not just over abortion. Over 150 years ago, the politically correct line was, “I wouldn’t own a slave, but I don’t want to force my beliefs on others.” This is a red herring, because, in the end, we have to have laws in a civilized society, and someone’s beliefs of right and wrong are going to be forced on you and tell you what you must and must not do. Why should others have a monopoly on what gets codified while you remain silent, and you not only forced to accept a great evil but forced to support it as well ?

Commentator Selwyn Duke has written an eloquent piece on this: “…a law is a codification of morality, any which way you slice it. If a law weren’t a reflection of a value, there would be no value in having the law. … So the next time someone tells you that we shouldn’t legislate morality, you may want to ask, ‘Yours or other people’s?’ Because the only way not to legislate morality is not to legislate at all. So what it all boils down to is that if you truly wouldn’t legislate morality, you’re not tolerant – you’re an anarchist.”

“The Reality About Legislating Morality”
renewamerica.com/columns/duke/040914

 

[Nate13]

Nope, left to itself it will die. It relies on mother’s body for support. In fact, the embryo, despite having its unique DNA, is built from the material taken from the mother’s body.

Left to yourself after the day you were born you would die. It is the human condition to need others. The embryo is built with material from the mother and the father. We don’t asexually produce.

By your logic, if a mentally sick person tries to kill someone, law enforcement should not be allowed to use deadly force to stop the agressor, because the agressor, being unable to judge his own action, is innocent.

Name the instances where a woman’s life would be threatened by having a child with details and describe how this situation is a good analogy to each. It is morally permissible to take action to save the life of the mother in a way that does not have the direct intent to kill the child. I.e a mother with cancer can receive chemo therapy. An ectopic pregnancy can be resolved by removing the fallopian tube for example, which would in turn probably end the life of the child. The intent of the action is to resolve the problem with the fallopian tube that will kill the mother, not to kill the child.

Imagine that you and a friend are walking near a cliff-side and you both slip off the side. You manage to grab the edge of the cliff as you fall and your friend grabs you around the ankles (real Hollywood style). You are not strong enough to pull yourself up with your friend hanging onto your ankles, and there is no one around to help pull you up. Is it moral to kick him off to save yourself?

 

[rom422]

Nope, left to itself it will die. It relies on mother’s body for support. In fact, the embryo, despite having its unique DNA, is built from the material taken from the mother’s body.

Ha ha ha. I mean left to itself in the mother’s womb, not outside the mother.

By your logic, if a mentally sick person tries to kill someone, law enforcement should not be allowed to use deadly force to stop the agressor, because the agressor, being unable to judge his own action, is innocent.

Strictly speaking, you should not kill a mentally sick person. However, you can defend yourself. Now, if the only method of self defense that you have will kill the sick person, then his death is not directly intended but may be allowed. In the same manner, if there is a threat to the mother’s life, the doctor can treat the mother’s illness, say, by medication or some medical procedure. If in the process the baby dies, then it is also an unintended effect and many be allowed. But to directly intend to kill either the mentally sick person or the baby is never allowed.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Nope, left to itself it will die. It relies on mother’s body for support.

“Left to itself” doesn’t mean “cut off from all human contact.” It means “not acted upon.”

Birth, not abortion, is the termination of a pregnancy.

Peter Singer advocates that personhood is a product of having sufficiently advanced rational faculties. Under this worldview, killing babies under certain age (i.e. before they are sufficiently advanced) should be legal, just as abortion is; that’s logical. Let’s say that Singer gets his was and killing babies under 3 is legal. But then we note that a grown chimpanzee has an intellectual capability of a 5-year-old human. So under Singer’s criminal law, killing an adult chimpanzee would be a murder. That’s something that Singer’s critics often fail to mention. His system goes against common sense, but it internally very consistent.

Oh, I know. I’m not criticizing his logic; it’s impeccable. He is justly held up as a rare example of someone with “pro-choice” views that are actually consistent.

Instead, a typical prolifer believes that human life should be protected from conception, while a chimpanzee life should not be protected at all. Prolifers here employ a genetic criterion: whatever has 46 chromosomes has an inalienable right to live.

However, prolifers also assert that children with Down syndrome have an inalienable right to live – but these children have 47 chromosomes. Chimpanzees have 48. So why 47 chromosomes is okay, and 48 is not? That’s arbitrary.

(a) I do not say that a chimpanzee life should not be protected at all. I’m open to persuasion on the matter. But whether or not a chimpanzee life ought to be protected in the same way as human life does not affect the abortion debate, since what is at stake is human rights.

(b) Your chromosome/Down Syndrome example is a straw man. We never said one’s rights are dependent on the number of chromosomes one has, nor do we believe that.

As you observe below with your comment about reproduction/interbreeding, human beings with genetic disorders are still human. The dividing line remains clear.

What justifies the fact that it is illegal for me to kill an adult with Down Syndrome?

Whatever it is, you can bet that reasoning will apply to unborn with Down Syndrome too. We certainly don’t want to start arguing that genetic defects justify killing someone, or else comparisons to Hitler won’t actually be mere hysteria.

The standard answer says that humans are a separate species, because they cannot interbreed with chimpanzees. But interbreeding criterion is based on capability, so the pro-life camp does the same thing that Singer does. (And we should note that not every human can breed with each other, but that should not be the reason to deny them personhood).

No, it wouldn’t base it on capability, at least not in the same sense Singer does. A five-year old human female - to take a random example - is human, no question, despite the fact that she does not yet have the capability to reproduce. No one questions this way of categorizing.

But wait, it gets even messier. Suppose that tomorrow someone discovers a lost colony of Neanderthals. Boy, now we have a problem. They are obviously not homo sapiens, but they have comparable intellectual ability, they can speak, and it’s even possible they can interbreed with us (although we are not sure). Should their personhood be recognized and why?

Yes, that would be a very complex case. Scientists, ethical philosophers, and theologians would really have to get to work.

The key here is that such an issue would not affect the abortion debate:** “Does X constitute human?” doesn’t affect whether or not we protect the rights of Y, where Y is already recognized to be human.**

Abortion is just a tip of the iceberg. It’s about a more fundamental question: what makes a human?.

Indeed.

Again, though, that question doesn’t really have any bearing on the issue, since unborn human embryos and fetuses clearly fall into the “human” category - just as a fetal pig that students in a classroom dissect is clearly a pig.

 

[Nate13]

@kama3

lifenews.com/2012/01/06/liberal-web-site-lies-claims-santorums-wife-had-abortion/

Rick Santorum and his wife’s actions are a good example of what the moral choice is when it seems there is no way out.

abortion: The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy.

It may be you look to broadly into this definition. If were to say what the Santorum couple did was an abortion, you would be denying the circumstances surrounding what occurred. It would be like claiming a doctor murdered someone when he gave a terminally ill patient a risky medication that was his patient’s only hope for survival. The doctor was in no way deliberately trying to kill his patient.

 

[kama3]

Left to yourself after the day you were born you would die. It is the human condition to need others. The embryo is built with material from the mother and the father. We don’t asexually produce.

Half of the DNA information comes from the father, but the building material comes from the mother’s body.

Name the instances where a woman’s life would be threatened by having a child with details and describe how this situation is a good analogy to each.

Sr. Margaret MacBride.

You manage to grab the edge of the cliff as you fall and your friend grabs you around the ankles (real Hollywood style). You are not strong enough to pull yourself up with your friend hanging onto your ankles, and there is no one around to help pull you up. Is it moral to kick him off to save yourself?

That’s not the issue.

The issue is: if I kick him off to save myself, should I be charged with murder? Why (not)?

 

[kama3]

If were to say what the Santorum couple did was an abortion, you would be denying the circumstances surrounding what occurred.

Please propose a legal definition of abortion which does not cover the procedure performed on Mrs. Santorum.

 

[Nate13]

Half of the DNA information comes from the father, but the building material comes from the mother’s body.

The only people who have a problem with this are the people that deny the importance of reality, and rather believe that reality is whatever you make it.

Sr. Margaret MacBride.

I looked it up and I agree with the events that followed. The problems occurring with the women who had pulmonary hypertension, was not caused by her pregnancy. The pregnancy exacerbated the risk her condition had on her life though, but it is important that the distinction is made that her condition was not caused by the child.

Lets think about this in a different light. Lets say you had the same woman with the same condition, except she was not pregnant, but instead had a 1 year old child. She can’t afford to pay her hospital bills and continue receiving care so she in turn decides to kill her 1 year old child so she can use the money that she would have spent to feed, clothe, and keep warm that child to help save money for her own care. Indirectly, her child was a threat to her life and taking resources away from the mother that she would normally have to use only for herself.

Does the woman have the right to make this choice assuming killing her child is the only way to ensure she has enough money to pay for her care? We will presume that she killed the child directly to prevent a more cruel death of starving to death.

Among those defending the excommunication were The Catholic Physicians Guild of Phoenix led by William H. Brophy. Brophy wrote that “an action which is in and of itself wrong, in that it lacks goodness as discerned by the light of human reason, is never justified by circumstances or intended end.”[19]

Theologian Michael Liccone stated, “The Church does not condemn ‘indirect abortion’: abortion that is a foreseen but unintended side effect of a medical procedure designed to preserve the mother’s life.”

 

[kama3]

The only people who have a problem with this are the people that deny the importance of reality, and rather believe that reality is whatever you make it.

Some people need to be reminded that the very presence of fetus in woman’s body puts a strain on her – and that strain may be, in some circumstances, lethal.

Lets think about this in a different light. Lets say you had the same woman with the same condition, except she was not pregnant, but instead had a 1 year old child. She can’t afford to pay her hospital bills and continue receiving care so she in turn decides to kill her 1 year old child

Straw man. There is nothing that prevents her from placing a 1 year child with foster care.

Also, when the fetus is past viability, I’d argue that the “correct” course of action would be to induce birth and hope for the best (despite the fact that such option carries higher risk to the woman). But if the fetus is before viability, then it is dead in either case – so there is no benefit from sacrificing the woman.

The bishop in the MacBride case has clearly demonstrated that he values doctrinal orthodoxy higher than human life.

BTW, could you answer my question from #177?

 

[karebear92]

Kama3, before I begin to post, are you arguing that the zygote/fetus isn’t a human life or that it doesn’t have protection under the constitution?