Patients with ectopic pregnancies

[weller2]

The loss of the baby when removing the tube is a side effect.

Likewise, killing a climber is a side effect of cutting his rope.

We have a tube about to rupture, and it’s removal, whether or not a baby is inside, is required.

Likewise, we have a rope which is about to break, and cutting the load – whether it’s a climber or supplies – is required.

We have no need for the baby to die (unlike methotrexate treatment) and we do not benefit from the death - we benefit directly, and only, from the removal of the tube.

Likewise, we have no reason for the climber to die, and we do not benefit from his death – we benefit directly, and only, from the decrease of stress on the rope. This will also apply if we try to kick the climber off the rope, as opposed to cutting it.

Again – I don’t agree that it’s moral to cut the other climber, but the double effect obviously allows you to justify killing him.

I can understand the desire to see all treatments for ectopic pregnancy viewed as forms of self-defence. But for this to be a moral way to view say, methotrexate injection, you need to find a way to permit murder in the course of self-defence,

By your own words, killing in self-defense is not a murder.

and you need to be able to characterise the baby (despite being helpless) as an aggressor.

Being helpless does not imply not being an aggressor. Being helpless means not being able to defend yourself. You can have one without the other – for example, an incoming missile is an aggressor while having no defensive measures.

Also, Jewish law treats the life-threatening fetus as an aggressor.

 

[Rau]

What about abortion performed in self-defense?

Oh, wait. You cannot perform abortion in self-defense, because abortion is always murder. Abortion is always murder, inter alia because you cannot perform it in self-defense.

Textbook example of circular reasoning.

Your sentence which I’ve put in red **creates **a circle where none is required!

No circular reasoning is required, as the following demonstrates:

Principle: It is never moral to commit murder.

Fact: Abortion is morally identical to murder. It is murder of the unborn. The prohibition against murder applies from conception.

Therefore, you cannot commit abortion. Please note: nothing circular.

It is not morally permissible to commit **murder ** for any purpose or in any circumstance, therefore it is not permissible in the service of self-defence (as explained in earlier post). Consequently, even if the woman believed the ectopic pregnancy met the conditions for a self-defence response against the baby, abortion cannot be committed (because it is murder).

 

[Rau]

By your own words, killing in self-defense is not a murder.

Now, you know I did not say that. I understand that it is what you would like to assert.

**Killing **(the consequences) in **self-defence **(intention) says nothing about whether murder occurred.

There are 3 fonts (sources) of morality:

1. Intention (why we do something - motivation); eg. self-defence
2. moral object (or proximate end - what we do);
3. circumstances (including consequences); eg. I live; aggressor dies.

[See: Intrinsic Evil and the Moral Object]

All have to be good for an act to be moral (the 3rd point is often a balance of good and bad outcomes).

“Killing in self-defence” tells us nothing about Item 2. If, in my anger and zeal (or otherwise), I resolve that my aggressor is to die, and I set out on that course and execute accordingly [Item 2], then the chosen act is murder - an intrinsic evil. The good intentions, and the on-balance good outcome cannot offset the intrinsic wrong. I will have acted immorally.

Euthanasia is somewhat similar. My intention might be good (“relieve suffering”), but the act chosen is the intrinsic evil of murder. The good intention does not nullify the intrinsically evil act.

Also, Jewish law treats the life-threatening fetus as an aggressor.

As I understand it, the Jewish law opposes abortion on demand (convenience), but is OK with killing the child (murder) if the mother is in danger. This conclusion is possible because they do not start with the same principles as Catholic morality does. Eg. Jews don’t consider full human life to commence at conception.

Here are a few quotes from a paper on Jewish laws, suggesting the principles are quite different:

“One fundamental principle that is agreed upon by all branches of the Jewish faith and that is that full human status is not acquired until birth. Thus, until then, the destruction of a product of conception does not constitute homicide culpable as murder.”

“According to the Talmud, during the first 41 days from fertilization until the completion of organogenesis, the embryo is defined as “plain water”, for the purpose of certain laws. Pre-embryo research may be therefore permissible if it is carried out in order to enable the sperm owner to have his own child.”

source: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2582082/

 

[Jaaanosik]

If you agree with my statements, we’ve made progress and you agree on the moral principles. Your issue now is just with the language of the CCC. I’m guessing English is not your first language, so perhaps you would just consider taking my word for it in regard to the differences between “intentions that inspire” and “intentionally”?

In any event, I’ll leave our discussion of this point. You might like to post your view on the CCC “error” in a thread of its own and invite others to resolve it for you. If you do, post a link here so I get alerted and can follow the discussion.

Here you go: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12339121#post12339121
Let’s discuss…

 

[Rau]

You’ve got that backwards. Methotrexate is the method that is debated by ethicists.

With surgery, removal of the tube is allowed, removal of the embryo from the tube is forbidden. On that ethicists agree.

Phemie, I read through the paper (“Ectopic Pregnancy and Catholic Morality”) you provided in one of your other posts.

This paper’s authors express the “standard” Catholic assessment, viz: that Salpingostomy and Methotrexate injection are immoral and that Salpingectomy is moral.

It also presents alternative arguments (expressed by others) in respect of Methotrexate and Salpingostomy.

In summary, the first of the alternative views on Methotrexate (by Kaczor) is that it acts differently than was thought, that it is actually not acting to kill the baby. However, the author asserts that Kaczor simply has the science wrong. Thus, the question is debated as a matter of science, rather than a matter of fundamental morality.

The first of the alternative views about Salpingostomy (also by Kaczor) rests on the idea that removing the embryo is not killing it. This idea is rejected by the author as failing to properly identify the moral object of the surgical act. The discussion commencing in the middle of page 674 explains it well.

The second of the alternative assessment (developed by Rhonheimer) applies to both Salpingostomy and Methotrexate (and other means to kills the baby) and is explained on page 676 and subsequent pages. It is truly a different moral tack on the whole subject. This assessment rests on the idea that killing is only wrong when it violates the virtue of justice. To quote: “As a result, the prohibition of intentional killing is not violated because, without a chance of survival, the unborn child or embryo cannot claim, in justice, any immunity from killing”. This amounts to saying that “**intentional **killing (of even the innocent) is wrong, except where it is not wrong (ie. violates justice)”. This line of morality is directly opposed by Church tradition and teaching.