Objection to Pro Life view

[MichaelTDoyle]

I was on a website arguing Pro-life and I ran into this unusual objection. I thought in the event a pregnancy will cause the death of the mother The doctor’s can save the mother if the baby dies. But the is this not supporting an abortion?

Here’s the excerpt from the discussion…

QUOTE
No. The doctor goes in not with the intent of killing the baby. Should the baby die to save the mother it is a tragedy, but the doctor’s intent is not to kill. No slippery slope.
/QUOTE

/RESPONSE

I disagree. So do the Jesuits who were the ‘think tank’ behind the Catholic view. The official Catholic view is that it is never permissible to have an abortion. Ever.

The analogy that was given is this: imagine you are in a hospital bed and need a kidney transplant. Imagine the person next to you has one functioning kidney will die in three weeks and you will die in one without the kidney but with the kidney you will live a long life. You can not take that person’s kidney from her if you adhere to the Catholic view of life.

Some Catholic philosophers and priests have tried to come up with ways to get out of the necessary conclusion the Catholic view of life commits you to. The most succesful in my opinion are those that use a triage analogy.

At the end of the day though, all attempts to escape the conclusion tend to fall down if you accept the Catholic premises. If you disagree, and say that it is EVER acceptable to have an abortion, your views do not adhere to those of the Catholic church. If you accept their premises, any abortion is murder (not in the legal sense, if you want to get technical then maybe it’s manslaughter instead.)

If you disagree with the conclusions, there must be a problem with the premises. If you agree witht he premises, you must bite the bullet and accept the results unless you want to start carving out inconsistent exceptions and heading down a ‘slippery slope.’

It’s the draconian results of the Catholic position that make it so loved by Pro-Choice advocates. Much like it is the intuitively horrific results of Peter Sanger’s position that make him so loved by Pro-Life advocates.

---

 

[mercygate]

MichaelTDoyle:

I disagree. So do the Jesuits who were the ‘think tank’ behind the Catholic view. The official Catholic view is that it is never permissible to have an abortion. Ever.

That “Jesuit” reference, please?

---

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

mercygate:

That “Jesuit” reference, please?

---

I dunno. That was the response. Truth be known I’ve given up posting on the thread, but I was wondering how the Church resolves the moral dilemma of what to do in a problematic pregnancy. Each life is of value to God and we as disciples cannot do evil in order to do good, so what is the proper moral resolution when a baby is in a problematic pregnancy and threatens the health of the mother. I realize such cases are rare but they are not unheard of.

What is a Christian doctor to do?

 

[1ke]

Abortion is the direct killing of the child. If the doctor scraped the uterus, dismembered the baby and removed it, etc, THAT is an abortion.

If a woman has a condition that requires the doctor to take action to treat the woman that results in the unintended, but perhaps unavoidable, death of the child that is NOT an abortion.

And, the Church supports this position.

I have no idea what the Jesuit thing you are talking about is, but remember, the Jesuits are (thankfully) NOT the Magesterium and DO NOT speak for the Church authoritatively.

 

[Michels]

In this situation an example was set by Saint Gianna Beretta Molla. She was a surgeon in Italy. In September of 1961, at the age of 39, Saint Gianna was pregnant with her fourth child when physicians diagnosed a large ovarian cyst which required surgery. The surgeon suggested that Gianna undergo an abortion in order to save her own life. Gianna’s decision was prompt and decisive: “I shall accept whatever they will do to me provided they save the child.” She underwent the surgery but her fate was sealed. The following year, on Good Friday, Gianna was admitted to Monza Maternity Hospital. Her daughter, Gianna Emanuela, was born the next day but Gianna expired seven days later, on April 28, 1962. Her daughter Gianna Emanuela is alive today because of her mother’s strong faith.

 

[martino]

I do not see this as a very strong argument at all. In fact the example that was used is rediculous and only serves to support the pro-life position that we can’t kill one person to save another. Its true that abortion is NEVER ok, but that doesnt mean you cannot save a dying mother, it just means that you cannot save a dying mother by killing the baby. It is permissible for doctors to perform a prodedure that will result in the death of the baby if it is the only way to save the mothers life, but that is not the same thing as having a direct abortion with the intent to kill. I accept the Catholic position and any logical conclusion that comes from it.

MichaelTDoyle:

IThe analogy that was given is this: imagine you are in a hospital bed and need a kidney transplant. Imagine the person next to you has one functioning kidney will die in three weeks and you will die in one without the kidney but with the kidney you will live a long life. You can not take that person’s kidney from her if you adhere to the Catholic view of life.

Is this person actually advocating stealing vital organs from living people on the basis that they wouldn’t have lived that long anyway!!!

That my friend is the draconian result of the culture of death movement and this person seems proud to proclaim it!!

Discusting!

 

[manualman]

Medical procedures that are required to save the life of the mother, but have the unintended (even if unavoidable) side effect of killing the child are NOT abortions.

Ectopic pregnancy (Zygote implants in the fallopian tubes instead of the uterous) is an excellent example and one a family member of mine sought considerable church (name removed by moderator)ut over before acting.

The saint example above is trickier since it was not clear that the condition was CERTAIN to be fatal to both parties. Heroic virtue, for sure.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

martino:

Is this person actually advocating stealing vital organs from living people on the basis that they wouldn’t have lived that long anyway!!!

That’s what is sounded like to me. Not a very convincing indictment of Catholic thinking.

Gee whiz, if we all thought like that then anybody over age 65 is ripe for harvest. Take the parts on them that are still working and give it to the young and healthy who still have “quality of life,” as Hillary and other pro-deathers would say.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

My response to this is, “are you saying we should kill people any time they are ‘tying up’ a commodity which somebody else may be able to use for a longer period of time than they could?”

Alan

 

[martino]

AlanFromWichita:

My response to this is, “are you saying we should kill people any time they are ‘tying up’ a commodity which somebody else may be able to use for a longer period of time than they could?”

Alan

Wow Alan, you and I rarely agree as completely as we do hear!! Its nice to know you are starting to come around!

 

[AlanFromWichita]

martino:

Wow Alan, you and I rarely agree as completely as we do hear!! Its nice to know you are starting to come around!

Gee I thought it was you who was coming around! :ehh:

Anyway, to unity! :bounce:

Alan

 

[mike182d]

MichaelTDoyle:

I disagree. So do the Jesuits who were the ‘think tank’ behind the Catholic view. The official Catholic view is that it is never permissible to have an abortion. Ever.

I hardly think this would be the definitive Catholic viewpoint as it would contradict 1900 years of teaching on just war and self-defense.

In self-defense, the only justifiable reason for killing a human being is to save life.

In just war, the only justifialble reason for killing human beings is to prevent the further killing of human beings and maintain justice.

In abortion, the killing of a human being is never justifiable?

Doesn’t seem consistent, but I wouldn’t expect anything less from contemporary Jesuits.

(sorry, I’m just kidding, that’s pretty bad. there are some wondeful, amazing, orthodox Jesuits)

Point being, the end of all human action is to save human life. If a pregnancy will kill both the child and the mother, it is better to kill the child so that instead of two people dying, you’ve saved one’s life.

Yes, this situation is horrible - and fortunately very rare - but if you had the choice of letting two people die or saving one, which would be the more “catholic” choice?

 

[Brendan]

Here is something from Fr. Pavone’s website. I think we can all agree he has the utmost respect for human life.

Fr. Pavone has a bit on this on his website. This relates to the morality of handleing an ectopic pregnacny by removing the tube in which the embryo has implanted.

priestsforlife.org/questions.html

There is more than one medical way of handling an ectopic pregnancy. The relevant moral question is whether the method or action is in fact a killing of the child. If so, that is a direct abortion, which is never permissible for any reason. "Direct means that the destruction of the child is willed as the end or the means to another end. Sometimes ectopic pregnancies are handled this way, killing the child but leaving the tube intact. Such an action is morally wrong.

However, if what is done is that the damaged portion of the tube is removed because of the threat it poses to the mother, that is not a direct abortion, even if the child dies. What is done is the same thing that would be done if the tube were damaged from some other cause. The mother is not saved by the death of the child but by the removal of the tube.

Because the death of the child in this case is a side effect which is not intended, and because the saving of the mother’s life is not brought about by the death of the child, such a removal of the damaged portion of the tube is morally permissible.