Let's go again!

[Pup7]

gregoryphealy:

What if it’s your spouse on one side and family members on the other…

If she gives me a hard time about going out with my brother and brother-in-law and having a few beers and watching the European Cup final on Saturday (followed by a curry), then I won’t be held responsible for any lever I might pull.

Excuse me, is this my husband?



(It’s not, I know, but that is uncanny…LOL!!!)

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

No. You can do everything to save both, even if the child is not yet viable. Having a C-Section of a non-viable fetus which results in the baby’s death is not an abortion.

You think it is moral to remove a prenatal from the womb, prior to viability, to save the life of the mother? That is absolutely a case of direct abortion. The chosen act is directly ordered toward the end (the proximate end) of killing the child, since it is not viable outside the womb. So the killing of the child is the object of the act. The mother’s life is then only saved as a result of that act, placing the saving of life as a consequence, not an object.

If your position were true, then there would be no cases of direct abortion, when the mother’s life is endangered by the pregnancy. And what would we make of the Church’s teaching, then, that direct abortion is not justified to save the life of the mother?

No, I’m talking about an indirect abortion. Perhaps I didn’t express it correctly, but let’s say there is something wrong with the uterus and the child will die and the mother will die unless the uterus is fixed.

An let’s assume that there is no way to repair the uterus which allows the child to live.

A direct abortion is still wrong. However, a c-section to remove the child and fix the uterus would be licit. The child is born, give the opportunity to be baptized, and the prarents (or at least the father if not the mother) are given the opportunity to be with the child until he/she dies.

https://www.ncbcenter.org/files/3814/4916/3459/NCBCsummFAQ_AbortionContraceptionParenthood.pdf

I will try to post more things when I can from Catholic sources

BTW - needing an abortion to actively save a mother’s life is almost an absolute myth. In most (if not all situations) it is morally licit to actively save a mother’s life and have an INDIRECT abortion which will be licit under the principle of double effect.

God Bless

 

[LittleFlower]

Slightly NSFW, but not really. They repeat this ad nauseam in the episode.

 

[HolySpirit]

If the guy at the lever is union, he will probably be on his morning coffee break.

 

[LittleFlower]

A woman’s pregnancy endanger’s her life and the life of her unborn child. Do nothing and they both die. But if you intervene to kill the child, that is a direct abortion and intrinsically evil. Sometimes you have to refrain from acting, even though more persons will die than if you acted.

This isn’t entirely true. If your medical intervention helps the mothers and the intention is to provide medical care to the mother, if the baby dies it is not an abortion.

Lawful Therapeutic Means
On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. (19)

From http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-v...ments/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html

 

[HolySpirit]

What if he was your first-year Torts Professor?

 

[Vonsalza]

If the guy at the lever is union, he will probably be on his morning coffee break.

I heard they privatized it to a multinational.

In order to pull the lever, there will be a $100 fee and if you don’t pay to pull the lever, you’ll be sued for damages arising from trespass after you get served with a gag order. What the company does with the help it imports on visa is absolutely none of your business.

 

[phil19034]

HolySpirit:

If the guy at the lever is union, he will probably be on his morning coffee break.

I heard they privatized it to a multinational.

In order to pull the lever, there will be a $100 fee and if you don’t pay to pull the lever, you’ll be sued for damages arising from trespass after you get served with a gag order. What the company does with the help it imports on visa is absolutely none of your business.

This! I would be no different than an $80 minimum for changing one lightbulb!

 

[TheOldColonel]

The Old Colonel quickly removes the pin securing the throw lever to the switch and quickly runs to the frog (switching point on the track) and firmly jams the lever in the gap at a ramp like 45 degree angle. The trolley, on reaching the point, derails and veers off course to the right completely missing everyone. It then rolls to a harmless stop. No one is hurt. The Old Colonel receives the Congressional Medal of Honor… yet again.

 

[Ron_Conte]

BTW - needing an abortion to actively save a mother’s life is almost an absolute myth. In most (if not all situations) it is morally licit to actively save a mother’s life and have an INDIRECT abortion which will be licit under the principle of double effect.

No. The Magisterium does not teach myths. The Magisterium does condemn direct abortion, even to save the life of the mother.

An abortion does not become indirect merely because the mother’s life is in danger. An abortion is not justifiable under the principle of double effect, if it is direct. You don’t determine if an abortion is direct by applying that principle. Instead, the principle itself requires that you first determine if the act is intrinsically evil (and in the case of abortion therefore direct). Intrinsically evil acts are not justified by the principle of double effect.

Removing a cancerous uterus is a case of indirect abortion. But many other cases would propose a direct abortion to save the mother’s life.

 

[Mtdobbs]

I agree with you on the theology behind the train track issue that you cannot pull the switch to save either group. Would the situation be different if 1 was your spouse?

 

[Rhubarb]

[No message]

 

[OsculeturMeOsculo]

We have a Jigsaw here.

 

[OsculeturMeOsculo]

Rocket launcher.

 

[Greenfields]

A trolley is a tram,right? Disable the electric pole,cable whatever.

 

[phil19034]

No. The Magisterium does not teach myths. The Magisterium does condemn direct abortion, even to save the life of the mother.

An abortion does not become indirect merely because the mother’s life is in danger. An abortion is not justifiable under the principle of double effect, if it is direct. You don’t determine if an abortion is direct by applying that principle. Instead, the principle itself requires that you first determine if the act is intrinsically evil (and in the case of abortion therefore direct). Intrinsically evil acts are not justified by the principle of double effect.

Ron - you are totally twisting my words or misunderstanding me. And perhaps, I’m not being clear enough.

I know that direct abortions are always condemned, and I know what Church teaching is regarding this. Again, perhaps I’m not being clear enough.

It’s not enough for a mother’s life to be in danger (or at risk), she has to be actively dying for the doctor act to save her life. When the mother is ACTIVELY dying, a doctor has the right to attempt to save both lives, but may not directly kill the baby. In other words, directly killing a baby is never moral.

However, if a C-Section is required to actively save a dying mother, and to avoid directly killing the child, it may be licit, even if baby isn’t yet viable because the baby doesn’t die from a c-section. If the mother dies when a baby isn’t yet viable, they both die. A nonviable baby typically isn’t capable of living without the mother. HOWEVER with modern technology a 4 or 5 month old pregnancy might be able to be saved via a c-section. My nephew was born around 5 months of pregnancy and he’s still alive today, 12 years later.

Point is, a c-section is not an abortion because it gives the child a chance, even if the chances are not good. But the c-section may only take place if absolutely necessary to save an actively dying mother.

What I was saying about “myth” is that in the real world, there are very few (if any) situations where an abortion is required to actively save a mother’s life. Personally, I cannot think of a single situation which would require an abortion to actively save the mother’s life. None. The idea that we need to keep abortion legal to “protect the life of a mother” is what I was calling a myth. It’s not needed because an abortion never protects the life of a mother.

I pray I’m starting to make more sense.

God Bless

 

[Arkansan]

The act of pulling the lever doesn’t require you to even think about the one person, so it is not a question of intrinsic evil.

 

[Spyridon]

It depends, are you the single man? If so, the group most go.

 

[Arkansan]

BTW:

To the Question:
“Whether it is at any time permitted to extract from the womb of the mother ectopic fetuses still immature, when the sixth month after conception has not passed?”

The reply is:
“In the negative, according to the decree of Wednesday, the 4th of May, 1898, by the force of which care must be taken seriously and fittingly, insofar as it can be done, for the life of the fetus and that of the mother; moreover, with respect to time, according to the same decree, the orator is reminded that no acceleration of the birth is lict, unless it be performed at the time and according to the methods by which in the ordinary course of events the life of the mother and that of the fetus are considered.”

From the reply of the Holy Office to the Dean of the faculty of theology of the University of Marienburg, March 5, 1902

The Church has already ruled that inducing labor before viability is intrinsically evil, since some have disputed that.

 

[Bradskii]

The single man is a Supreme Court judge who we know is a mass murderer and is on his way to make the decisive vote to legalise abortion. The five people on the other track are five pregnant women.

Pick the bones out of that…