Is abortion ever justified?

  • Thread starter Thread starter bobzills
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
bobzills said:
The first condition mentioned in the debunking concerns consent. The scenario in this thread concerns the case where the woman did not give her consent and was forcibly raped. Therefore the first condition of the debunking that you have suggested would not apply in the case of forcible rape.
Click to expand...
Which would be .01% of abortion cases, if not less. Do you propose giving all people the right to murder children with impunity because in .01% of cases the murder is due to rape or incest?

At any rate, here’s your answer: arizonarighttolife.org/userfiles/File/Hard_Cases.pdf
 
wanner47 said:
Which would be .01% of abortion cases, if not less. Do you propose giving all people the right to murder children with impunity because in .01% of cases the murder is due to rape or incest?
Click to expand...
No, I do not. If you would read the scenario, it concerns only the case of forcible rape. Let us narrow the scenario to consider only the case of forcible rape of a nine year old child. That is why the first condition of the debunking thesis does not apply in this particular case. Is there a sufficient analogy with the violin case or where does the analogy with the violin case break down? The argument that the scenario is debunked because the mother to be has given her consent does not work. It will convince no one since the nine year old mother has not given her consent.
 
bobzills said:
No, I do not. If you would read the scenario, it concerns only the case of forcible rape. Let us narrow the scenario to consider only the case of forcible rape of a nine year old child. That is why the first condition of the debunking thesis does not apply in this particular case. Is there a sufficient analogy with the violin case or where does the analogy with the violin case break down? The argument that the scenario is debunked because the mother to be has given her consent does not work. It will convince no one since the nine year old mother has not given her consent.
Click to expand...
Your scenario also fails because prenancy is not analgous to being hooked up by tubes to another bedridden adult. Except in very rare cases, pregnancy does not require 9 months of restrictive bedrest.

Also, your scenario fails because the rapist is not trying, in the vast majority of cases, to use his victim as a life support device for another person. In the scenario posited, the man himself can choose to give up his life in reparation for the evil his wife did. A baby can’t make that choice.

The bottom line is that a baby shouldn’t be murdered because of the crime of another.
 
Additionally, after the rape occurs, the crime ceases and is no longer present. The woman being hooked up to a kidney patient (as ridiculous as that is) is continually a victim of crime.
 
You picked a bad example. It’s unnatural and there are other ways of keeping him alive. A pregnancy isn’t like that.
People would probably treat this a bit more seriously if it were less fantastical, like if the wife wanted to give her kidney to the husband, but couldn’t because she was pregnant (which is where I originally thought you were going with this). Even then it wouldn’t be justified.
If you want to go with the force argument, then just ask about it directly. Convoluted stories won’t get you anywhere.
 
Gia_B said:
People would probably treat this a bit more seriously if it were less fantastical, like if the wife wanted to give her kidney to the husband, but couldn’t because she was pregnant (which is where I originally thought you were going with this). Even then it wouldn’t be justified.
Click to expand...
Your example is a good one. Or to put it a bit farther, what if the pregnant woman’s child needed a kidney. That’d be a tough situation! (I’m not saying the woman should abort, I’m only saying it’s a tough situation to be in.)
 
Abortion is never justified and if the guy was such an excellent surgeon, as you said, why didn’t he just take one of her kidneys and use it instead of something so ridiclous as this?

By the way, for those who don’t know, a kidney has to match or the body will reject it and it takes lots of testing to find out if they do indeed match first. There are like 5 different criteria for this.

So, further silliness that they would just kidnap some random woman.

But…in all honestly, if I could help with one of my kidneys (which mine are not so good themselves and haven’t been my whole life), I would. If I were the woman in this weird case, I’d stay hooked up to the guy until they could do the surgery properly. How’s that?
 
bobzills said:
We all know that abortion is wrong. But consider the following scenario: A man is dying of kidney failure and must find a kidney somewhere. But he cannot, so his wife pays a mobster to kidnap and drug a young woman. The mobster knows an excellent surgeon who can be bought and the doctor surgically connects the woman to the man so that the sick man can now live since he can tap off of the kidney of the woman. The woman then wakes up from the surgery and finds herself surgically connected by tubes to this sick man who needs her kidney. It is possible for the woman to easily remove these tubes any time she wants and disconnect the life support of the man, which will then result in the instant death of the man to whom she has been connected.
Now does this woman have a moral obligation to keep this man alive ? Or is she morally justified in removing these tubes?
What does this have to do with abortion? Consider the case of a woman who has been forcibly raped? There are differences between the two cases, but are there not some similarities which may be relevant when considering the morality of the actions of removing the tubes versus the morality of an abortion in the case of violent rape?
Click to expand...
I noticed how in this example you or whoever made, intentionally left out the part where the man would be connected to the woman for 9 months. If you want to ‘try’ to give an accurate example, why leave out something that is so common with pregnancies.
I wonder how many people would actually allow him to die now knowing it would only be for 9 months he’s hooked up to them instead of a life long trial. A very deceiving argument and one to make sure there are no allowances for people who would actually make a small sacrifice for a life they could help survive if only it were 9 months long.
 
I do kind of understand where you’re trying to go with your question - but having kidney disease myself, obviously the surgeon would have taken out one kidney (we’ll assume it’s a UNOS match-that’s kind of hard thought since this is back alley)- and placed it in the man. But if your situation was possible then - since this woman didn’t consent to do this she might feel obliged to keep him alive but I think in the long run she would eventually detach. I know this isn’t the same but maybe it’s a little like this. I became pregnant (while using NFP) and as I mentioned I have kidney disease as well as tumors and cysts in my ovary and uterous respectively. At the end of 3 months my kidneys began shutting down completely (in other words they were working at less than 2/3 capacity) - then something else happened a few days later in hospital when I was right on the 4 month date - I began to loose blood - lots of blood and my doctor had to proceed for either myself or the fetus to live. The fetus was not viable at that point and to continue the pregnancy would have cost my life and the fetus life. My life was saved and I am glad of it. I’m very sad that I was not able to carry the fetus to term but I’m glad I"m still here. I think that might be as close to a real life example as you might get. I did speak with a priest and he agreed that this was the best outcome possible. Of course according to many on here and the Catechism, apparently I have done a serious wrong by choosing my life over both myself and the fetus dying. As I said, it was sad but I’m glad I’m still here. I know this is a rare occurance just as rape and getting pregnant is a rare occurance, but it does still happen. And I"m glad I’m still here to tell about it - I love God and I am glad that when the doctors tell us it’s o.k. to try again that we will be able to try to carry a pregnancy to term. I don’t think I will understand ever why the Church (according to the Catechism) will state that two deaths are better than one.
 
ryecroft said:
I do kind of understand where you’re trying to go with your question - but having kidney disease myself, obviously the surgeon would have taken out one kidney (we’ll assume it’s a UNOS match-that’s kind of hard thought since this is back alley)- and placed it in the man. But if your situation was possible then - since this woman didn’t consent to do this she might feel obliged to keep him alive but I think in the long run she would eventually detach. I know this isn’t the same but maybe it’s a little like this. I became pregnant (while using NFP) and as I mentioned I have kidney disease as well as tumors and cysts in my ovary and uterous respectively. At the end of 3 months my kidneys began shutting down completely (in other words they were working at less than 2/3 capacity) - then something else happened a few days later in hospital when I was right on the 4 month date - I began to loose blood - lots of blood and my doctor had to proceed for either myself or the fetus to live. The fetus was not viable at that point and to continue the pregnancy would have cost my life and the fetus life. My life was saved and I am glad of it. I’m very sad that I was not able to carry the fetus to term but I’m glad I"m still here. I think that might be as close to a real life example as you might get. I did speak with a priest and he agreed that this was the best outcome possible. Of course according to many on here and the Catechism, apparently I have done a serious wrong by choosing my life over both myself and the fetus dying. As I said, it was sad but I’m glad I’m still here. I know this is a rare occurance just as rape and getting pregnant is a rare occurance, but it does still happen. And I"m glad I’m still here to tell about it - I love God and I am glad that when the doctors tell us it’s o.k. to try again that we will be able to try to carry a pregnancy to term. I don’t think I will understand ever why the Church (according to the Catechism) will state that two deaths are better than one.
Click to expand...
I am very sorry for the loss of your child, a good Doctor does all he can to save the lives of both mother and child and it kind of sounds like that may have been your situation.

I’m a little confused over you thinking that some on here would think that you did something seriously wrong, unless of course, you had an abortion. (which you didn’t state, but that is the only reason I would see why anyone could find a problem with what you choose,) then I would imagine that since you have already spoke to a Priest about this (confession), that all is well.

That you say that the Catechism states that two deaths are better than one sounds a little like you didn’t understand something properly.

In any case, I think that any of us ought to do all we can so that others might live. That is why above I stated that until the man could properly be operated on that I would, in that very strange, and unreal situation “carry” him until that could take place. Like the poster after me stated, that probably wouldn’t even be for nine months, but if it were, I could take it. I wouldn’t be giving up my life for another, just letting someone else live until the proper thing could be done.

So, in the case of a mother who didn’t want her child for whatever reason, (which certainly wasn’t your situation.) She could carry that child for the nine months and then let that child live with someone else, or, who knows, a lot can happen in nine months, perhaps by then she would change her mind again and want to keep her child.

None of us knows what we would do unless we really were in YOUR situation.
 
Everyone who spoke before I posted and explained why aborting a baby is wrong–even one that resulted from rape–did an excellent job already, so I won’t repeat the same sentiments again. I agree with all.

But I’m new here, and have to admit that I’m heartened to see the way so many of you were quick to defend life. It’s a beautiful thing. I’m encouraged that this site may have as its’ members more of those who follow the teachings of our Holy Father and the magisterium of the church. 👍
 
This is merely the same old “Trojan Horse” argument that begs it’s own answer - that is, abortion is justified.

Why use this type of silly argument? So, after the horrible wrong of rape, let us heap another horror of abortion upon it - is that the answer you are waiting to hear?

Keep waiting. The human life that was created from the vile act of rape cannot be held accountable for the circumstances surrounding its conception.

So, to use your own twisted argument, we should put to death the parents of a serial killer because they planted the seed of the murderer? Back to your example, we should destroy an innocent life to satisfy the anger that should more correctly be aimed at the rapist?

Not only is this a foolish argument, it lacks any real moral basis.

:mad:
 
Whenever this subject comes up, I keep waiting for someone to raise the issue of tubal ligation. So far, I’ve never seen it discussed. So I guess I’ll have to raise the issue.

Technically, a tubal ligation does result in an abortion, since the doctor kills the embryo when he removes the woman’s fallopian tube. However, the doctor’s intent is not to kill the unborn child but to save the woman’s life. If the doctor does nothing, then both mother and child will die.

I have been pro-life my entire life (I learned it from my mother). However, I also think it would be a sin to let someone die through inaction. Maybe someday we’ll have the technology to save both mother and child in a situation like this, but until that day comes, I think we have to save one life rather then let both die.

So if the intent is to save a life when you know with “absolute medical certainty” that the mother will die without intervention, then in this extreme case the abortion (tubal ligation) would be justified.
 
Robert_Burke said:
So if the intent is to save a life when you know with “absolute medical certainty” that the mother will die without intervention, then in this extreme case the abortion (tubal ligation) would be justified.
Click to expand...
no abortion is still not justified. a medical procedure that isnt an abortion is done to save the mothers life, if the indirect consequence is the death of the baby it isnt the same. its like if a pregnant woman had cancer, she could get that treated even if it killed the baby, but not to get it to kill the baby.

it may seem like arguging semantics but there is a difference.
 
In both cases we are talking about the termination of a pregnancy. That constitutes an abortion (I’m a lawyer, I can play semantics all day long). 🙂

But we do agree that the intent behind the medical procedure (whatever we choose to label it) is to save a life, not to kill an innocent child. That is the important distinction.
 
O.K. - I’m reading this about ectopic pregnancy - tubal ligation - whatever you would like to call it. I understand that the mother will die if something isn’t done- sometimes if it’s early enough they will just give mifpresterone - not sure on the spelling - and she won’t even have to have surgery. So since that would be “killing the fertilized egg” no one would have a problem still?
I guess I just have trouble with people telling me that I did something wrong when I was right at 4 months pregnant, my kidney began to stop to work and then began to bleed excessively (I’m putting this fairly simply - I don’t need to go into to saying that I had already become hydronephrotic etc.etc.- I hope) anyway the point is that the doctor was getting to telling us if I keep on bleeding out and my kidney continue to go down hill even with dialysis, if we didn’t end the pregnancy, the chances of me living were getting slimmer and slimmer and there was no way he could see to keep both the pregnancy and myself alive. So the deciion was made (In my opinion and the doctor’s and my husband’s opinion) the only decision that could be made. I was lucky I didn’t wind up with a hysterectomy I was told later. The only reason I bring this up again is that the majority of the people on here have either replied and told me that I should have gone the way of St. Gianna and left it up to God even if it meant death. I’ve never claimed to be a Saint - and even after, although I was sad about not being able to have the pregnancy continue to fruition, I counted myself lucky to be alive, and still able to try again. I have never felt guilty - I did go to a Priest and he agreed that I had done nothing wrong. Of course I’ve been told on here that it’s sad how many Priests don’t know what’s right and wrong. I’ve had friends who have had ectopic pregnancies - one had surgery - the other was lucky and was able to just take a few pills and be done with the situation.
God Bless

Annie aka Ryecroft
 
The two cases are indeed quite interesting. In one, the woman is drugged…somehow…and forced to be connected to another person in order to save that person’s life. On the other hand, abortion is the deliberate termination of an innocent human life, a life that is 100% dependent on his or her mother for the first 9 months… leading up to birth. Even after that, the baby is still dependent (for a fairly long time, too!) on whoever comes along to tend to his or her needs. No physical connected is required in order to change the diapers, or to feed the baby. But clearly, the connection IS required in order to save a life in the first instance.

While this is supposed to be Roman Catholic forum, I’m going to draw upon the laws of ancient Judaism. Under (Orthodox) Jewish law, if the pregancy is going to result in the death of the mother, she is REQUIRED to abort… and then try again at a later time, if necessary. It’s under the basic doctrine that people are supposed to defend themselves and their lives, and that a pregnancy that will result in the death of the mother must be terminated in order to defend the mother from whatever harm is going to come her way otherwise.

Do I like that idea? Well, first, I dislike the idea of terminating ANY innocent human life. Period. However, for Orthodox Jews, that is their law, and I would respect that. They are never bound by the laws or teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.
 
Robert_Burke said:
In both cases we are talking about the termination of a pregnancy. That constitutes an abortion (I’m a lawyer, I can play semantics all day long). 🙂

But we do agree that the intent behind the medical procedure (whatever we choose to label it) is to save a life, not to kill an innocent child. That is the important distinction.
Click to expand...
I believe when an abortion occurs as the result of another action, such as chemotherapy, it is acceptable, as long as the primary goal wasn’t to abort the child. That is why St. Gianna was so wonderful - her “abortion” would have been an acceptable one in the Catholic Church. Therefore, it may be acceptable in the case of tubal ligation, as you mentioned in you previous post. Not sure, but just remember hearing something about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top