Keep hitting the same hurdles on the Catholic Church

[AiyanaS]

I answered you clearly - the medical staff have two patients and must act in the best interests of each. If consequentialism isu the ethical system to be applied, kill the baby. If murder is intrinsically evil, do the best you can without murdering.

Acting in the best interest of each, in the situation I’m describing you can’t. Act in favor of the baby and wait for it to die naturally, you risk the mother dying. Act in favor of the mother, the babies dies quicker.

And you didn’t answer my question. I asked, in bad situation could you willingly sit by and let the mother die if that was the way things panned out in order to prevent the baby’s quicker but inevitable death?

The vast majority of abortions are conducted for various kinds of convenience. I am glad that you agree murdering those babies is immoral.

And I’m glad you agree that in a life threatening miscarriage, to let both die.

 

[Rau]

Acting in the best interest of each, in the situation I’m describing you can’t…

Of course you can. But you must rule out what you cannot do. To act to murder the child is unthinkable

And you didn’t answer my question. I asked, in bad situation could you willingly sit by and let the mother die if that was the way things panned out in order to prevent the baby’s quicker but inevitable death?

“Willingly sit by” - hardly. But that does not lead to embracing an option to murder.

 

[Rau]

…And I’m glad you agree that in a life threatening miscarriage, to let both die.

No. I said that each patient should be treated to the best standard possible.

 

[thewanderer]

Aiyana, when you claim that Catholic teaching prevents DR’s from inducing a baby before 20 weeks so long as there is a heartbeat you are just flat out wrong. If the life of the mother is at stake then there is nothing wrong with removing the baby from the mothers womb, even though it will result in the baby’s death, because you are not directly killing the baby or rely on on the baby’s death in order to protect the mother. Think about ectopic pregnancies, the church has no problem with removing the living fetus, even surgically, what they have a problem with is a direct abortion, huge difference. So, if a hospital ever let’s a mother die of sepsis because they refuse to induce and/or surgically remove a living baby they are not doing so because of Catholic teaching but rather out of pure negligence. Please stop trying to blame this on the Catholic Church.

 

[thewanderer]

Oh, and as for the case of Davita in Ireland, you do realize that the very hospital she was at had, even just the year before, performed a terminanation if pregnancy to save the life of the mother, right? Because, as it happens, it is, and was before Savita’s tragic death became widely publicized, the law in Ireland that I there is a clear and present danger to the mothers life you save her life even I it involves a medical termination. Again, there is not some Catholic, or even Irish conspiracy that is condemning women to die here, when a tragedy such as Savita’s death occurs it is due to the actions and negligence of the particular care providers, not due to Catholic teaching or Irish law.

 

[thewanderer]

Sorry for yet another post, but, being Irish, I get particularly fired up about people trying to blame Savita’s death on Irish law. We’re you aware that Ireland has one of the lowest maternal death rates in the world? This is not a problem with Ireland, or Catholic teaching, but with the individual medical providers in charge of her care.

 

[AiyanaS]

Aiyana, when you claim that Catholic teaching prevents DR’s from inducing a baby before 20 weeks so long as there is a heartbeat you are just flat out wrong. If the life of the mother is at stake then there is nothing wrong with removing the baby from the mothers womb, even though it will result in the baby’s death, because you are not directly killing the baby or rely on on the baby’s death in order to protect the mother. Think about ectopic pregnancies, the church has no problem with removing the living fetus, even surgically, what they have a problem with is a direct abortion, huge difference. So, if a hospital ever let’s a mother die of sepsis because they refuse to induce and/or surgically remove a living baby they are not doing so because of Catholic teaching but rather out of pure negligence. Please stop trying to blame this on the Catholic Church.

That’s what I was basically trying to say and Rau was not comprehending! The baby is going to die anyway, your not directly killing it, thought the death maybe quicker than it would be if left inside the mother.

And it might not be Catholic teaching but like it or not that happens in Catholic hospitals. This rule has killed women or serious injured others. However, I must point out that early Catholic theologians taught that in life threatening situations, it is always the baby over the mother. I don’t remember off the top of my head but when I find the article, I’ll post a link.

Also, Catholic Church does apparently accept consequentialism because by removing the baby to save the mother is, taking a life to save another.

 

[AiyanaS]

Oh, and as for the case of Davita in Ireland, you do realize that the very hospital she was at had, even just the year before, performed a terminanation if pregnancy to save the life of the mother, right? Because, as it happens, it is, and was before Savita’s tragic death became widely publicized, the law in Ireland that I there is a clear and present danger to the mothers life you save her life even I it involves a medical termination. Again, there is not some Catholic, or even Irish conspiracy that is condemning women to die here, when a tragedy such as Savita’s death occurs it is due to the actions and negligence of the particular care providers, not due to Catholic teaching or Irish law.

Actually that’s incorrect, Savitas died in 2012 and the first medically necessary abortion in Ireland occurred in 2013 after a law was passed in response to public outrage over Savitas death. The law was created to relax the rules a little so that abortions to save the mothers life were allowed. Before 2013, there were zero exceptions.

thinkprogress.org/ireland-has-performed-its-first-ever-legal-abortion-and-it-saved-a-dying-womans-life-8ecf9fba3b81#.6jqcrsywc

 

[Wesrock]

This was created to prevent the family of priests from inheriting church land. There is zero biblical evidence for it. It was created out of pure political convenience for the church.

No. That is not the sole reason. While celibacy was instituted in the middle ages sexual continence was an ancient tradition in the west. Early councils and synods made clear that priests who were married at their ordination were to cease sexual relations with their wife and life continently with them, and the pronouncements made clear there was much scandal when priests and bishops did not follow this directive. They also cite this as an apostolic practice, going back to the Twelve and early missionaries, as their basis. Clement of Alexandria in the second century even wrote that the woman (“sister-wives”) traveled with apostles to bring the gospel to women in areas it was inappropriate for men to go and that the men did not have relations with them, as was appropriate for their office. Tertullian and Origen attested to it in the third century.

In a sense, the change to celibacy in the middle ages was a stricter enforcement of this far older tradition and not something new.

There are practical reasons for celibacy. Their are spiritual reasons for it. There are “higher calling” reasons. There are traditional reasons for it.

Is it a dogma of the Church? No. It is in some sense disciplinary. But abstaining from all sexual relations after ordination is an ancient practice, attested to very early on as apostolic in origin, and it’s important that respective churches keep to their ancient traditions. Many Catholics are only aware that the Church stopped ordaining married men in the middle ages. They don’t know the historical reasons behind this change and that it’s actually, in a way, a return to a more ancient practice attested to by the fathers as apostolic in origin.

Posting from my phone and got interrupted mid post. Sorry if I was redundant.

 

[Rau]

That’s what I was basically trying to say and Rau was not comprehending! The baby is going to die anyway, your not directly killing it, thought the death maybe quicker than it would be if left inside the mother.

And it might not be Catholic teaching but like it or not that happens in Catholic hospitals. This rule has killed women or serious injured others. However, I must point out that early Catholic theologians taught that in life threatening situations, it is always the baby over the mother. I don’t remember off the top of my head but when I find the article, I’ll post a link.

Also, Catholic Church does apparently accept consequentialism because by removing the baby to save the mother is, taking a life to save another.

How many times does it need to be repeated that it is not morally permitted to directly kill the baby? I cannot speak to hospital practices and what medical procedures (eg. Early delivery) cross the line, but no procedure directed towards ending a life becomes acceptable because the baby “was going to die anyway”. This is plainly obvious from the allowable and not allowable treatments for ectopic pregnancy. A methotrexate injection directly kills the baby - that is its immediate purpose - and is not allowable. Tube removal is licit, not because the baby was going to die anyway, but because the treatment is directed at necessary treatment of the mother’s body and the child is indirectly lost. There is death of child as an unintended consequence.

Catholic teaching addresses morality of human acts and murdering innocents is never permitted. If has never taught “baby over mother” - it teaches that the baby is not to be murdered.

Would you like me to post the encyclical where pope St John Paul 2 discusses consequentialism and confirms its utter rejection by Catholicidm?

 

[Rau]

How many times does it need to be repeated that it is not morally permitted to directly kill the baby? I cannot speak to hospital practices and what medical procedures (eg. Early delivery) cross the line, but no procedure directed towards ending a life becomes acceptable because the baby “was going to die anyway”. This is plainly evidenced by the allowable and not allowable treatments for ectopic pregnancy. A methotrexate injection directly kills the baby - that is its immediate purpose - and is not allowable. Tube removal is licit, not because the baby was going to die anyway, but because the treatment is directed at necessary treatment of the mother’s body and the child is indirectly lost. There is death of child as an unintended consequence.

Catholic teaching addresses morality of human acts and murdering innocents is never permitted. If has never taught “baby over mother” - it teaches that the baby is not to be murdered.

Would you like me to post the encyclical where pope St John Paul 2 discusses consequentialism and confirms its utter rejection by Catholicidm?

 

[thewanderer]

Actually that’s incorrect, Savitas died in 2012 and the first medically necessary abortion in Ireland occurred in 2013 after a law was passed in response to public outrage over Savitas death. The law was created to relax the rules a little so that abortions to save the mothers life were allowed. Before 2013, there were zero exceptions.

thinkprogress.org/ireland-has-performed-its-first-ever-legal-abortion-and-it-saved-a-dying-womans-life-8ecf9fba3b81#.6jqcrsywc

I’m sorry but that’s just not true.
In 1983 the 8th and amendment to the Constitution?article 40.3.3) was added which required that the life of the child was respected with due regard to the life of the mother.

In 1992 the high Court ruled in case x that the girl, due to 40.3.3, was entitled to an abortion because being suicidal was a threat to her life. Thus making it clear that 40.3.3 ensures that when the life of the mother is at risk medical termination is permitted.

In 1997 a court ruling was made that, due to the court ruling in case x, a 13 year old girl was entitled to an abortion in Ireland due to suicide risk.

In 2002 there was a failed attempt to reverse the ruling that suicide risk was a suffiecient risk to the mothers life to allow termination.

It already was the law before Savita’s death that women were entitled to a medical termination if their life was at risk. Pro-abortion advocates turned Savita’s tragic death into an opportunity to try and push their agenda, and so, many biased propaganda articles were published, but the fact remains that it was already the law that women are entitled to medical termination when their life is in danger.

And, again, as for Catholic hospitals refusing induction/surgical removal of a fetus when the mothers life is at risk, if this is actually a regular occurrence across Catholic hospitals it is not because they are Catholic but despite the fact that they are Catholic as Catholic teaching does not prohibit such an induction/surgical removal (also often labeled as an abortion or medical termination despite not being a direct abortion). And so, there is no point in bringing it up when discussing the Catholic Church’s teaching.

 

[AiyanaS]

How many times does it need to be repeated that it is not morally permitted to directly kill the baby? I cannot speak to hospital practices and what medical procedures (eg. Early delivery) cross the line, but no procedure directed towards ending a life becomes acceptable because the baby “was going to die anyway”. This is plainly obvious from the allowable and not allowable treatments for ectopic pregnancy. A methotrexate injection directly kills the baby - that is its immediate purpose - and is not allowable. Tube removal is licit, not because the baby was going to die anyway, but because the treatment is directed at necessary treatment of the mother’s body and the child is indirectly lost. There is death of child as an unintended consequence.

Catholic teaching addresses morality of human acts and murdering innocents is never permitted. If has never taught “baby over mother” - it teaches that the baby is not to be murdered.

Which, in life threatening situations = the baby over the mother. It doesn’t matter how much sugar coating or religious dogma to make the truth of the matter for ethical and pleasant sounding.

Hopefully you never come across this situation. I don’t know if you have kids, but if your daughter had a miscarriage and it was clear that the only way to save her was to remove the fetus, good luck telling her to humble herself and accept her fate. Also take into account you’d lose you child and grandchild in a preventable situation but no action was taken do to a roadblock in beliefs. Very sad actually. People can talk all they want, it’s a totally different story when your face to face with reality and the situations personal and not just speaking hypothetical talk.

 

[Rau]

Which, in life threatening situations = the baby over the mother.

In life threatening situations, like all others, Catholic teaching is “do not murder the innocent”. That is all. Not sugar-coated - simple fact.

 

[Rau]

This is the Catholic directive to hospitals often cited in these “life threatening” situations:

“47. Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.”

 

[thewanderer]

Which, in life threatening situations = the baby over the mother. It doesn’t matter how much sugar coating or religious dogma to make the truth of the matter for ethical and pleasant sounding.

Hopefully you never come across this situation. I don’t know if you have kids, but if your daughter had a miscarriage and it was clear that the only way to save her was to remove the fetus, good luck telling her to humble herself and accept her fate. Also take into account you’d lose you child and grandchild in a preventable situation but no action was taken do to a roadblock in beliefs. Very sad actually. People can talk all they want, it’s a totally different story when your face to face with reality and the situations personal and not just speaking hypothetical talk.

Except that if a pregnancy is threatening the mothers life you can always induce or surgically remove the baby without directly killing them, which is absolutely in line with Catholic teaching. It is never necessary to direct kill the baby to save the mothers life. Rau is not contradicting this fact, he/she is just phrasing it in different language.

 

[thewanderer]

That’s what I was basically trying to say and Rau was not comprehending! The baby is going to die anyway, your not directly killing it, thought the death maybe quicker than it would be if left inside the mother.

And it might not be Catholic teaching but like it or not that happens in Catholic hospitals. This rule has killed women or serious injured others. However, I must point out that early Catholic theologians taught that in life threatening situations, it is always the baby over the mother. I don’t remember off the top of my head but when I find the article, I’ll post a link.

Also, Catholic Church does apparently accept consequentialism because by removing the baby to save the mother is, taking a life to save another.

I just realized I never addressed your claim that the Catholic Church accepts consequentialism. If by consequentialism you mean that if the consequences are good enough it doesnt matter what means you use the action will be moral then that statement is clearly false.

What the church teaches is that an action that has both good and bad effects is moral despite the bad effects so long as these conditions are met.

1. The good effects are proportional to the bad effects
2. The bad effects are not desired
3. The good effects are not caused by accomplishing the bad effects
4. The action itself is not inherently immoral.

Do you see how that is different than straight up consequentialism? With consequentialism there is no such thing as an inherently evil action and it doesn’t matter whether or not the good effect is caused by the bad effect. The Catholic position is much more nuanced than people often give it credit for. Just because the church is fine with inducing/surgically removing a child who is not yet viable in order to save the mothers life does not mean the church is consequentialist.

 

[AiyanaS]

Except that if a pregnancy is threatening the mothers life you can always induce or surgically remove the baby without directly killing them, which is absolutely in line with Catholic teaching. It is never necessary to direct kill the baby to save the mothers life. Rau is not contradicting this fact, he/she is just phrasing it in different language.

I wasn’t referring to directly killing a fetus, I was referring to taking a dying fetus out of the mother post miscarriage and placing them in a bucket or on a towel where they die from there. Does this kill them directly? no. But they still die quicker than if they stayed and died naturally in the mother. I believe there was miscommunication between what I’m saying and others on here were saying. But no, I’m not referring to going and tearing apart the fetus to save the mother, there’s no logic in that. However, there is logic in removing/inducing an already dying fetus and it dying quicker than it would’ve normally, in order to save the mother from an infection.

 

[thewanderer]

I wasn’t referring to directly killing a fetus, I was referring to taking a dying fetus out of the mother post miscarriage and placing them in a bucket or on a towel where they die from there. Does this kill them directly? no. But they still die quicker than if they stayed and died naturally in the mother. I believe there was miscommunication between what I’m saying and others on here were saying. But no, I’m not referring to going and tearing apart the fetus to save the mother, there’s no logic in that. However, there is logic in removing/inducing an already dying fetus and it dying quicker than it would’ve normally, in order to save the mother from an infection.

The miscommunication seems to be that you think that is against Catholic teaching and/or contrary to Irish law pre-2012 whereas neither of those are true.

 

[AiyanaS]

I just realized I never addressed your claim that the Catholic Church accepts consequentialism. If by consequentialism you mean that if the consequences are good enough it doesnt matter what means you use the action will be moral then that statement is clearly false.

What the church teaches is that an action that has both good and bad effects is moral despite the bad effects so long as these conditions are met.

1. The good effects are proportional to the bad effects
2. The bad effects are not desired
3. The good effects are not caused by accomplishing the bad effects
4. The action itself is not inherently immoral.

Do you see how that is different than straight up consequentialism? With consequentialism there is no such thing as an inherently evil action and it doesn’t matter whether or not the good effect is caused by the bad effect. The Catholic position is much more nuanced than people often give it credit for. Just because the church is fine with inducing/surgically removing a child who is not yet viable in order to save the mothers life does not mean the church is consequentialist.

That’s basically the same thing. The only difference is based on the Church’s perceived views of moral and immoral acts. Take away that and there is no difference.