Official teaching on death penalty and abortion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thepeug
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Thepeug

Guest
I’m an undergraduate sophomore at UNC-Chapel Hill (Go Heels!), and I’m trying to get involved in some kind of extracurricular activity. I’m torn between joining the Carolina Pro-Life Society or the Campaign to End the Death Penalty. I’d join both, but I simply don’t have the time. Before I decide, however, I’d like to know what the Church’s official teachings are regarding both abortion and the death penalty. I have a question regarding both respective issues.

Abortion: While I’m fervently against abortion, there’s one situation about which I keep wondering: If someone’s wife was raped and became pregnant with the rapist’s child, and the couple learned that because of age or some medical condition, bearing the child would kill the wife, would an abortion be permissible? I often hear the argument that “the child shouldn’t suffer for the sin of the rapist”, but what about the husband and wife? Must the wife die because of the rapist’s actions when her death is easily avoidable? At the same time, saving her life means killing the rapist’s child, so it’s a truly perplexing situation. Any ideas?

Death penalty: I personally don’t think that anyone has the right to take another person’s life, but what is the Church’s stance on this issue? I can think of numerous Biblical instances in which murder is supposed justified, i.e. David vs. Goliath, the Israelites vs. the Canaanites, etc. And let’s be honest: Church officials have certainly executed a number of people in the past. Has the Church’s stance on the death penalty changed since the Inquisition, for example?

I know that some of these situations are pretty far-fetched, but I just want to have firm convictions that are in line with Church teaching before I decide to join either organization. Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut!

God bless,

Chris
 
Hutch,

Thanks for the link. I understand the position on the death penalty more fully. While abortion is emphatically condemned, I’m still struggling with the above scenario, however. Would moral and ecclesiastial law dictate that the wife must die in order to save the child, without exceptions? A grim scenario, I know, but one which an unfortunate few have undoubtedly faced.

God bless,

Chris
 
the objective moral principle is that you cannot deliberately cause a certain death in order to prevent a possible death. Since your case is hypothetical, so is this answer. To abort the innocent baby is to cause a certain death, in your case the death of the mother is a possibility, not a certainty, so to kill the baby would be immoral. In any case, the baby is an innocent party, just like the mother, so a another violent assault on the mother’s body, which abortion is, can hardly be a remedy for the first violent assault.
 
40.png
puzzleannie:
the objective moral principle is that you cannot deliberately cause a certain death in order to prevent a possible death. Since your case is hypothetical, so is this answer. To abort the innocent baby is to cause a certain death, in your case the death of the mother is a possibility, not a certainty, so to kill the baby would be immoral. In any case, the baby is an innocent party, just like the mother, so a another violent assault on the mother’s body, which abortion is, can hardly be a remedy for the first violent assault.
Click to expand...
Annie,

I see where you’re coming from, but what if the doctor tells you that the mother WILL die if the baby is born? In other words, her death is as much a certainty as is humanly possible to ascertain? Would the death of the child still be immoral?

I don’t mean to go off on a tangent, but your answer raises another hypothetical question: If authorities knew with certainty that a terrorist was about to blow up a football stadium full of people, would it be immoral to kill the terrorist in order to prevent the possible deaths of thousands of people?

In other words, I think it’s hard to apply a single, concrete answer to every situation in life. Would you agree?

God bless,

Chris
 
I have a pro-life Doctor freind who used to be an aborionist.He said there are high risk prgnancys,but none are deemed “certain death”.Doctors will tell people they will die for fear of a lawsuit.God Bless
 
I just wanted to ad, as a long time pro-life activist, (well, comparitavely, Im only 18) something on what the church teaches and the “life of the mother” incident, which is used so much to clutter and confuse the prlife argument. If the treatment the help the mother ‘might’ hurt the child, but might not, of course it is permissible, and the other distinction that needs to be made is whether the direct action is to kill the child (aka abortion) or to help the mother, with a side effect being the possible death of the child. This also is permissible, but as we see with the recent cannonization of St. Gianna Molla, who sacraficed her life for her unborn child, (she could have lived is she underwent a medical procedure that might have endangered or killed her baby) God definitly looks favorably on heroic prolife actions, no greater love…
 
40.png
Thepeug:
Annie,

I see where you’re coming from, but what if the doctor tells you that the mother WILL die if the baby is born? In other words, her death is as much a certainty as is humanly possible to ascertain? Would the death of the child still be immoral?

I don’t mean to go off on a tangent, but your answer raises another hypothetical question: If authorities knew with certainty that a terrorist was about to blow up a football stadium full of people, would it be immoral to kill the terrorist in order to prevent the possible deaths of thousands of people?

In other words, I think it’s hard to apply a single, concrete answer to every situation in life. Would you agree?

God bless,

Chris
Click to expand...
Don’t get too hung up in the scenarios, try looking at the principles behind it. That, I believe is the answer to your last question about the inability to come up with all scenarios. There is an objective reality, and God allows us to know the principles by which to operate.

We may never do evil so that a good may come from it. That is a principle that is knowable and applies here.

You have two innocent individuals. You may not take a direction action to kill either of them, in any circumstance. Your goal would be to save both. If, in the process of taking action to save them both, one dies then it is an unintended consequence, not the intended action.

Let’s look at some examples based on your scenario of the “certain death” of the mother. Let’s ignore for a moment that most doctors concur there is no such thing.

Let’s say the woman has cancer and will die unless treated. So, she opts for an abortion. Has the abortion cured the cancer? No. Abortion is NOT a cure for anything. She still has to seek treatment for the cancer.

The alternatives would be to treat the cancer, and hope that the treatment did not kill the child, or postpone the treatment until the child is born. The woman can choose either, she is NOT required to embrace heroic virtue (ie, giving her life for the child). If the treatment killed the child, it is an unintended but tolerated consequence of the attempt to save the mother’s life and therefore the child’s as well.

If the woman has some sort of emergency related to the baby where it is medically necessary to induce labor or perform a C-section, then the goal would be to save both. The doctor should treat the child as a patient, and do what is possible to save the child. If the child is too premature to live, that is a sad and unintended consequence. Again, the intent is never to kill the child but to help the mother.

Do you see a difference here between treating both as patients and abortion?

As to the terrorist scenario, it depends (which is why you need to study the underlying principles and not the scenario itself).

If the terrorist is sitting in his apartment, and the CIA assasinates him, then that is an immoral act. At that point, he is innocent. He has committed no act of aggression. He can be apprehended or watched.

If the terrorist has a bomb strapped to him and is walking into the stadium, then he is an unjust aggressor, not an innocent person, and the authorities should attempt to apprehend but would be justified in using lethal force in self defense.

You can go on all day with scenarios, but the principles are the same. One may not do evil so that good may come.

I hope you see the difference between abortion and the death penalty. While the death penalty is in most cases unnecessary in this day and age, it is not intrinsically evil because society may defend itself against an unjust aggressor with as much force as necessary to ensure safety.
 
Thepeug,
I feel there is a huge difference between abortion and the death penalty. Abortion is the deliberate killing of an inoccent human being. This is consistemtly condemned in scripture and throughout Church history. The death penalty is the state enforcing an ultimate punishment on someone who has taken an inoccent human life. I know it sounds strange, but to me the death penalty affirms the sanctity of life, because it says that an inoccent life is so precious that anyone who deliberately takes it must themeselves pay the supreme penalty. This theme is constantly repeated through scripture. A Protestant theologian once said that the moment Britain banned the death penalty he knew they would soon after legalise abortion - which is exactly what happened. The death penalty is society’s statement that it takes absolutely seriously the sacredness of inoccent human life. Please note that the same theologians and groups who have argued most strongly against the death penalty tend to be “soft” on abortion and euthanasia. It is not for no reason that the Bible says that "Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death."Exodus 21:12.
 
40.png
Thepeug:
Hutch,

Thanks for the link. I understand the position on the death penalty more fully. While abortion is emphatically condemned, I’m still struggling with the above scenario, however. Would moral and ecclesiastial law dictate that the wife must die in order to save the child, without exceptions? A grim scenario, I know, but one which an unfortunate few have undoubtedly faced.

God bless,

Chris
Click to expand...
I know that is a tough scenario peug, but if it were me, well I’d die for anyone’s child even my worst enemies, …a baby is a baby, no matter who bred him/her, but that is my level of devotion to kids…and the Word of the Church.
I am not a woman, but my opinion would not change if i were,

…that and since im an advocate for legal carry of handguns, i pity the fool that tried to rape me if i were a girl…;).

MHO on the death penalty:
I actually would like to see the death penalty extended to violent sexual crimes including child molestation. [would have to be a proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in any case]. I have no pity for anyone who does these things, I pray they have contrite hearts when they die, but they should be put to death.

My reasoning for this:
Threre is no cure for the type of sickness that invades the mind of a sexual predator, especially a child molester. NONE, anything else is a lie, that is why they ALL are repeat offenders, except the ones that got caught and killed by society, loved ones of the victim, or guys in prison who can’t even stand the thought of what they have done.

There are things worse than dying, one of them is living a life full of suffering due to guilt, shame, and anger[this is what victim’s of rape/molestation experiance], which leads to social deficiencies[not being able to have normal, healthy relationships with family and lovers/significant others]in the future…some worse than others.
All this destruction because some sicko couldn’t control his “Id”.
No Tolerance…offer them conversion, confession, communion then, blam! [Would probably be the only sure fire way to get them into heaven…bad me for judging, bad dog!]

Uh oh! I hear the liberals coming! …😛

Peace of the Lord be with you all!
 
40.png
1ke:
You have two innocent individuals. You may not take a direction action to kill either of them, in any circumstance. Your goal would be to save both. If, in the process of taking action to save them both, one dies then it is an unintended consequence, not the intended action.
Click to expand...
This was a good application of the law of double effect that you posted!
 
40.png
Thepeug:
Death penalty: I personally don’t think that anyone has the right to take another person’s life, but what is the Church’s stance on this issue? I can think of numerous Biblical instances in which murder is supposed justified, i.e. David vs. Goliath, the Israelites vs. the Canaanites, etc. And let’s be honest: Church officials have certainly executed a number of people in the past. Has the Church’s stance on the death penalty changed since the Inquisition, for example?

I
Click to expand...
the OT examples you cite were during wartime, just war, not instances of one individual killing another innocent person, like Cain and Abel, which was condemned.
The Church did not burn heretics, the civil government (both in Catholic and Protestant countries) did it. The inquisition was begun to establish the legal principle that only the Church, not the civil authority, had the right to define heresy, and to limit executions by the government which were being done for political expediency, using heresy as an excuse. The disciplines of the inquisition were intended to give the heretic every chance to renounce his heresy and save his soul, which was considered paramount. Were there abuses? sure, humans sin and abuse power. does that deny the principal? no. the total number of people killed by the inquisition was numbered in hundreds, not thousands, banishment and deprivation of inheritance and honors were the more usual punishments, with penitential practices.

not everything you learn in your history class is the truth, as a college student you are going to have to bite the bullet on that one.
 
40.png
Thepeug:
Annie,

I see where you’re coming from, but what if the doctor tells you that the mother WILL die if the baby is born? In other words, her death is as much a certainty as is humanly possible to ascertain? Would the death of the child still be immoral?
I don’t mean to go off on a tangent, but your answer raises another hypothetical question: If authorities knew with certainty that a terrorist was about to blow up a football stadium full of people, would it be immoral to kill the terrorist in order to prevent the possible deaths of thousands of people?

In other words, I think it’s hard to apply a single, concrete answer to every situation in life. Would you agree?

God bless,

Chris
Click to expand...
these are two separate cases and two separate principles. in the abortion case, the baby is innocent. any medical procedure could be taken to save the mother’s life if that was its intent, and the abortion an unfortunate, unintended side effect - surgery for tubal pregnancy for example, or cancer surgery. No matter what the doctor says, the death of the mother is still not a 100% certainty while direct intended abortion is.

in the terrorist situation, it is again a matter of war, the attack is against a one criminal, who is it that moment engaging in a criminal action with intent to kill, for the purpose of defending the lives of innocent people. the threat is immediate and direct, not hypothetical --not the same thing as killing an innnocent person.
 
40.png
Thepeug:
I see where you’re coming from, but what if the doctor tells you that the mother WILL die if the baby is born? In other words, her death is as much a certainty as is humanly possible to ascertain? Would the death of the child still be immoral?
Click to expand...
The pro-life cause is just as concerned about saving the life of a mother as it is about saving the life of a child. If the mother’s life is in danger, she may receive treatment to save her life as long as the treatment is not a direct intentional abortion. Many people confuse “saving the life” of the mother with “saving the lifestyle” of the mother. If she is not in danger of death then any treatment that could cause the death of the child whether intentional or not would be immoral.
I don’t mean to go off on a tangent, but your answer raises another hypothetical question: If authorities knew with certainty that a terrorist was about to blow up a football stadium full of people, would it be immoral to kill the terrorist in order to prevent the possible deaths of thousands of people?

In other words, I think it’s hard to apply a single, concrete answer to every situation in life. Would you agree?
Click to expand...
Civil authorities are not only permitted but they are obligated to protect its citizens. I understand what you are trying to say but you are wrong to compare a terrorist in the process of blowing up a stadium full of people and an innocent baby resting peacefully in its mother’s womb.
Would you put an innocent baby in prison because the mother died during birth? I am guessing your answer is NO; but then why would you place a terrorist in prison for causing the death of the same mother? Somehow there must be a difference between an unborn baby and a working terrorist…go figure!! :rolleyes:
 
The classic example is an ectopic pregnancy, where the embryo develops inside the fallopian tube. In the normal course of events, the fallopian tube will rupture as the embryo grows, and both mother and child will die.

At the present time, the only possible remedy results in the death of the embryo, but the life of the mother is saved. This is not – unless someone has some solid citations – a violation of the Church’s position on abortion.
 
vern humphrey:
The classic example is an ectopic pregnancy, where the embryo develops inside the fallopian tube. In the normal course of events, the fallopian tube will rupture as the embryo grows, and both mother and child will die.

At the present time, the only possible remedy results in the death of the embryo, but the life of the mother is saved. This is not – unless someone has some solid citations – a violation of the Church’s position on abortion.
Click to expand...
You are exactly right! However we must note that the procedure done to save the life of the mother is not a direct abortion, the fallopian tube is removed and unfortunately the baby dies as a result of the procedure. The baby’s death is an unwanted but tolerated side effect of the life saving procedure.
 
Correct. The Church distinguishes between acts aimed at ending life and those aimed at saving life.

Another example is providing large doses of pain medication for terminally ill patients. The Church accepts that such medication may in fact hasten death, but accepts that it is moral if the intent is to alleviate pain in such a case.
 
Thanks, everyone, for all of the (name removed by moderator)ut! A lot of it makes sense to me. The idea that, in the event of a life-threatening abortion, both the baby and the mother should be treated as patients is a novel one for me that helps shed some light on the issue. I have two more questions in regrards to the topic, though.
  1. Some of you mentioned that if a pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, treatment that results in an indirect abortion is morally acceptable. In this instance, however, are you not making a value judgment about whose life is more important? In other words, if the indirect death of the child as the result of attempts to treat the mother is acceptable, is the indirect death of the mother as the result of attempts to treat the child also acceptable? And how is “indirect” defined in this scenario?
  2. I must admit I’m suprised to learn that not all Catholics are against the death penalty. While I can certainly see the validity of the idea that in some ways the death penalty reaffirms the sanctity of life, does it not contradict the hope for “the protection of life from conception to natural death”?
God bless,

Chris
 
40.png
Thepeug:
  1. Some of you mentioned that if a pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, treatment that results in an indirect abortion is morally acceptable. In this instance, however, are you not making a value judgment about whose life is more important? In other words, if the indirect death of the child as the result of attempts to treat the mother is acceptable, is the indirect death of the mother as the result of attempts to treat the child also acceptable? And how is “indirect” defined in this scenario?
God bless,

Chris
Click to expand...
The difference is that if the mother dies they both die, so its not a matter of which life is more important, it’s just that saving one life is better than saving neither.

In the case where the child is being treated to save its life, I do not think it is morally acceptable to put the life of the mother in jeopardy because the death of the baby is not going to kill the mother as well. So once again it is an attept to protect at least one of them from death.

I hope I am making sense! 🙂
 
40.png
martino:
The difference is that if the mother dies they both die, so its not a matter of which life is more important, it’s just that saving one life is better than saving neither.
Click to expand...
Ok, I see what you’re saying. Thanks for the clarification.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top