Killing

[rben20]

Hello Catholics,

Does the Church ever support war efforts? I have heard that war is never a wanted option but it is needed in times where it would result in good. How is killing viewed then? I am loosely tying this to abortion as I find it odd that the Church would allow killing for a greater good but would not allow abortion let’s say in order to save a mother’s life.

Thanks

 

[djwright4341]

Here’s the Just War doctrine explained… catholic.com/library/Just_War_Doctrine_1.asp

It’s like self-defense (or defense of another) on a national level. There is no instance to support aborting a viable baby. Tubal pregnancies and other abnormalities that will result in the baby’s death, but the mother can be saved, are a different matter.

 

[RuthByzCat3]

Abortion is never allowed. Now, if there were a case in which a woman was pregnant and needed to have an operation to SAVE HER LIFE that would kill her unborn child AS A SIDE EFFECT THAT IS ONLY TOLERATED BUT NOT DESIRED, that would be morally permissible (as both lives are equally valuable). However, the operation MUST NOT BE INTENDED TO KILL THE CHILD. If the cure for the disease were an outright abortion, it would UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WHATSOEVER be permissible.

 

[Victorious]

Tubal pregnancies and other abnormalities that will result in the baby’s death, but the mother can be saved, are a different matter.

This is only because the treatment of an ectopic pregnancy is not intended to cause the death of the baby, even though it is certain that the death of the baby will result. The difference between that and abortion is that abortion is done for the purpose of killing the baby.

In re abortion: no theory of self-defense can justify abortion. My right to self-defense applies to a situation in which another person is threatening me with aggression. I may use force to defend myself to a degree proportionate to the threat (e.g., I may not use deadly force unless I am threatened with deadly force). A child in my womb, however, is not aggressing against me, even if its presence there threatens my life. The child is where it has every right to be; it is human in every way, even in spite of its utter dependence on me; and I may not kill it, even to save my own life. In fact, the child’s utter dependence on its mother for its survival would seem to be an aggravating factor rather than a mitigating one in the case of abortion. (How often, by the way, have doctors been *wrong *about the threat to the mother’s life of carrying her child to term?)

 

[kepha1]

It is moraly acceptable, in the case of ectopic pregnancy ( a life threatening condition for both baby and mother) to remove the fallopian tube without the intent of killing the child whereas abortionist doctors will indend to kill the child.

an example of how these criteria are applied to contemporary issues, consider a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy, i.e., one in which the pre-born child has become implanted in a place other than the uterus. In most ectopic pregnancies, the pre-born child has become implanted in one of the mother’s Fallopian Tubes, which normally transport unfertilized eggs. Because the Fallopian Tubes are very small and narrow, implantation within one of them presents serious problems. The growing child will eventually rupture the mother’s tube and cause a life-threatening situation. If the situation is left untreated, both mother and child will likely die.

•  By the time an ectopic pregnancy is diagnosed, the life of the pregnant mother is usually already in danger. If the Fallopian Tube is not already ruptured when the pregnancy is diagnosed, a person applies the principle of double effect to make a morally acceptable course of action. In this case, a person has two legitimate options: 1. Remove the entire Fallopian Tube or 2. Remove a portion of the tube at the site of implantation.*

•  The side effect of any of these procedures is the death of the unborn child; yet this end is not the end which the mother or physician intends or chooses. Direct attacks on an unborn child are always forbidden, as in an elective abortion which intends the death of the child. If the death of a child was not the intended effect, an abortion would just be an early means of delivering a child. However, abortion is an evil means that attempts to bring about some good end, real or perceived. Therefore, shelling out the child from the damaged tube as a means of "medical" treatment is equivalent to an abortion, which is morally unacceptable. The death of the child would be the means of "medical" treatment.*

•  If you allow and justify the direct killing of a pre-born child involved in an ectopic pregnancy, then you thereby justify other direct killings of pre-born children via other means. In contrast, removing part or all of the Fallopian Tube is not an abortion. These treatments are morally permissible because they meet all of the conditions of the principle of double effect. The morally good end which is directly sought is to save the life of the mother. That which is directly treated is the life-threatening damaged tissue of the tube; therefore, the child is not directly attacked. Removal of the damaged tube or a portion of the tube that contains the child is morally permissible, because the death of the child is an effect which may be foreseen, but it is unintentional. The good end of saving the mother's life is proportionate to the unintended evil side effect, that of the unborn child's death. [2] Further, because there are no other means by which the mother's life may be saved, the principal of necessity also applies. There are no other medical procedures that can save both mother and child.*

cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffid=56

Don’t be fooled by evil propaganda and phoney straw man arguments that claim the Church would want mothers to die instead of getting an abortion, because when done morally, there is no abortion taking place.

 

[djwright4341]

That’s what I meant… I didn’t intend to sound like abortion was OK for treatment of those medical conditions. The object of treating those medical conditions is to save life–hopefully both the mother and child–but unfortunately the child is almost always lost.

 

[rben20]

Thank you all that have replied. Definitely has clicked for me. A baby shows no agression of course…should have considered that.

It moves me on to another question though. I’m sure that you all are aware of the nun who was excommunicated in Arizona for her authorization of an abortion. In this case, the abortion saved the mother who was already raising several kids. Why is it in this case that the abortion was still ruled wrong when it kept those children from losing their mother? It would have been either both killed or just the baby to save the mother. A very complicated issue nonetheless but why was this wrong if it kept the woman of three or four children with their mother?

 

[Victorious]

It moves me on to another question though. I’m sure that you all are aware of the nun who was excommunicated in Arizona for her authorization of an abortion. In this case, the abortion saved the mother who was already raising several kids. Why is it in this case that the abortion was still ruled wrong when it kept those children from losing their mother? It would have been either both killed or just the baby to save the mother. A very complicated issue nonetheless but why was this wrong if it kept the woman of three or four children with their mother?

Because you cannot do evil in order to achieve good. When we have reached the point where we can only achieve some good by evil means, we must humbly acknowledge that we are at the end of human resources and abandon ourselves to God’s mercy.

There is nothing – including physical death – worse than the one thing in the world that can separate us from God: sin. We should flee from sin like the plague – and if we truly loved God, we would rather die than sin. These situations are extremely painful, but they are really not complicated. The only thing that makes them seem complicated is that we do not love God enough, and we do not view life in the light of the supernatural.

P.S. Doctors seem to want to steer mothers toward abortion as a lifesaving measure, but how often have they been wrong?