Patients with ectopic pregnancies

[Rau]

What is important to notice in the CCC paragraph is that without intentions and circumstances there is no possibility to determine if the act is murder or not therefore all three aspects of the act - object, intentions and circumstances are inseparable in order to determine a morality of an act.

When we use the same logic then it’s reasonable to conclude that any treatment is licit because the circumstances will never be the same as it is in a case of an abortion.
This is no exception but standard object, intentions and circumstances analysis.

I agree with first para but don’t understand your 2nd. Look at the principles listed earlier regarding double effect principle. They enable the assessment to be made.

 

[Jaaanosik]

I agree with first para but don’t understand your 2nd. Look at the principles listed earlier regarding double effect principle. They enable the assessment to be made.

The second paragraph points out that the circumstances are different from those required for an abortion.
Therefore this is a reason that does not allow for any type of the discussed procedures to be called an abortion.
It means that the procedures are not evil and #3 from your list is satisfied.

 

[Rau]

The second paragraph points out that the circumstances are different from those required for an abortion.
Therefore this is a reason that does not allow for any type of the discussed procedures to be called an abortion.
It means that the procedures are not evil and #3 from your list is satisfied.

how can directing an attack at a baby be not morally evil? How can an attack on a baby be morally neutral or good? I must not be understanding you.

 

[Jaaanosik]

how can directing an attack at a baby be not morally evil? How can an attack on a baby be morally neutral or good? I must not be understanding you.

The circumstances are different. It’s an accident. It’s a hard luck for the embryo. How do you explain hard luck of someone being struck by a lightning?
How can we explain an attack at a young kid (but adult stature) that is trying to kill someone?

Either we follow structure setup by 2263 or anybody can claim anything being evil as they wish.

 

[Phemie]

The circumstances are different. It’s an accident. It’s a hard luck for the embryo. How do you explain hard luck of someone being struck by a lightning?
How can we explain an attack at a young kid (but adult stature) that is trying to kill someone?

Either we follow structure setup by 2263 or anybody can claim anything being evil as they wish.

You are aware, aren’t you, that the Church has already ruled that removing the tube is OK but simply opening it and removing the embryo is forbidden? It’s doesn’t matter that the ultimate goal is saving the mother. You can’t do an evil to accomplish a good.

 

[Jaaanosik]

You are aware, aren’t you, that the Church has already ruled that removing the tube is OK but simply opening it and removing the embryo is forbidden? It’s doesn’t matter that the ultimate goal is saving the mother. You can’t do an evil to accomplish a good.

Right…
It was already mentioned before but you maybe missed the post. Let’s do it again.

CCC 1756: " It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury,** murder **and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it."

A murder is evil solely by reason of its object, there is no need for the intentions and circumstances.

CCC 2263: " The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes** intentional killing**. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”

There is no way to determine if an act is murder or self defense without intentions and circumstances.

… but … A murder is evil solely by reason of its object, there is no need for the intentions and circumstances.
… but … There is no way to determine if an act is murder or self defense without intentions and circumstances.
… but … A murder is evil solely by reason of its object, there is no need for the intentions and circumstances.
… but … There is no way to determine if an act is murder or self defense without intentions and circumstances.
… but … A murder is evil solely by reason of its object, there is no need for the intentions and circumstances.
… but … There is no way to determine if an act is murder or self defense without intentions and circumstances.

…
How long should we go?
… and a reader must be really dummy to think that these two paragraphs are in contradiction. That’s impossible CCC would have such a contradiction.

Please, go ahead and find a solution to this issue yourself.
I am saying how I see it.

It appears a determination of morality of an act is an inseparable, indivisible entity. An agent with intentions set in circumstances using objects acts. Object/s, intention/s and circumstances are inseparable because the agent is one entity. There is no way to separate the head from hands and legs and still have the intact agent.

Murder has to include bad intentions and bad circumstances by definition.
In our case we miss bad circumstances (healthy woman) therefore we can not talk about an abortion.
Removing embryo is not abortion under these circumstances. We are not doing evil to accomplish a good.

Removing tube knowing the embryo is there and saying it’s different than just removing embryo alone, that’s hypocrisy!!!

 

[Rau]

Right…
It was already mentioned before but you maybe missed the post. Let’s do it again.

CCC 1756: " It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury,** murder **and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it."

A murder is evil solely by reason of its object, there is no need for the intentions and circumstances.

CCC 2263: " The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes** intentional killing**. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”

There is no way to determine if an act is murder or self defense without intentions and circumstances.

… but … A murder is evil solely by reason of its object, there is no need for the intentions and circumstances.
… but … There is no way to determine if an act is murder or self defense without intentions and circumstances.
… but … A murder is evil solely by reason of its object, there is no need for the intentions and circumstances.
… but … There is no way to determine if an act is murder or self defense without intentions and circumstances.
… but … A murder is evil solely by reason of its object, there is no need for the intentions and circumstances.
… but … There is no way to determine if an act is murder or self defense without intentions and circumstances.

…
How long should we go?
… and a reader must be really dummy to think that these two paragraphs are in contradiction. That’s impossible CCC would have such a contradiction.

Please, go ahead and find a solution to this issue yourself.
I am saying how I see it.

It appears a determination of morality of an act is an inseparable, indivisible entity. An agent with intentions set in circumstances using objects acts. Object/s, intention/s and circumstances are inseparable because the agent is one entity. There is no way to separate the head from hands and legs and still have the intact agent.

Murder has to include bad intentions and bad circumstances by definition.
In our case we miss bad circumstances (healthy woman) therefore we can not talk about an abortion.
Removing embryo is not abortion under these circumstances. We are not doing evil to accomplish a good.

Removing tube knowing the embryo is there and saying it’s different than just removing embryo alone, that’s hypocrisy!!!

Murder is willing through action the death of another. The circumstances or the reason (intention) don’t matter and don’t need to be considered. Murder is always wrong. That is what 1756 says.

Self defence may involve killing, but never murder. We never will the death of another in the course of licit self-defence - their death is not required nor sought. If, in defending ourselves, we are overcome with zeal and seek the death of the assailant, we have strayed from licit self-defence toward murder.

 

[Rau]

…
Murder has to include bad intentions and bad circumstances by definition.
In our case we miss bad circumstances (healthy woman) therefore we can not talk about an abortion.
Removing embryo is not abortion under these circumstances. We are not doing evil to accomplish a good.

Removing tube knowing the embryo is there and saying it’s different than just removing embryo alone, that’s hypocrisy!!!

Murder - willing through action the death of another - is always wrong, regardless of intention (reason/motivation) or circumstances. This is a principle. If you don’t accept it, we cannot reach any concurrence here.

A methotrexate injection to a mother suffering an ectopic pregnancy seeks the death of the child. It is murder. As a consequence of the death of the child (not of the injection!), the mother’s condition will be resolved (a good).

I can understand you seeing this perhaps as hair-splitting, or believing the wrong principle(s) have been applied. But I cannot see any basis to view the reasoning as hypocritical.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Murder is willing through action the death of another. The circumstances or the reason (intention) don’t matter and don’t need to be considered. Murder is always wrong. That is what 1756 says.

Self defence may involve killing, but never murder. We never will the death of another in the course of licit self-defence - their death is not required nor sought. If, in defending ourselves, we are overcome with zeal and seek the death of the assailant, we have strayed from licit self-defence toward murder.

… and going back to 2263 … there is no way to say if an act is murder without intentions.

I did it three times in my post and I don’t want to do it again with you in separate posts.
I’ll stop and say as I see it, this is a contradiction. How do we solve it?

 

[Jaaanosik]

Murder - willing through action the death of another - is always wrong, regardless of intention (reason/motivation) or circumstances. This is a principle. If you don’t accept it, we cannot reach any concurrence here.

A methotrexate injection to a mother suffering an ectopic pregnancy seeks the death of the child. It is murder. As a consequence of the death of the child (not of the injection!), the mother’s condition will be resolved (a good).

I can understand you seeing this perhaps as hair-splitting, or believing the wrong principle(s) have been applied. But I cannot see any basis to view the reasoning as hypocritical.

Objectively speaking killing is always wrong, everybody was placed here by God to live.
Any unnatural death is not good, there is something wrong when that happens.
We are trying to determine morality of an act of an agent with intentions, circumstances and object.
This is a different thing as saying killing is wrong.

 

[Rau]

… and going back to 2263 … there is no way to say if an act is murder without intentions.

I did it three times in my post and I don’t want to do it again with you in separate posts.
I’ll stop and say as I see it, this is a contradiction. How do we solve it?

No, no…you are misunderstanding the language. In 1756, the “intentions that inspire” is referring to reasons or motivation. In 2263, “intended” means “willed”, which is intrinsic to murder - it’s what makes it murder. Motivation on the other hand is irrelevant per 1756.

I hope that is clear now. The words look to be referring to the same idea, but their meanings here are quite different. There is no contradiction between the 2 paragraphs.

 

[Rau]

Objectively speaking killing is always wrong, everybody was placed here by God to live.
Any unnatural death is not good, there is something wrong when that happens.
We are trying to determine morality of an act of an agent with intentions, circumstances and object.
This is a different thing as saying killing is wrong.

The death of a person at the hands of, or due to, another is a bad effect of whatever actions were at play (driving a car, playing football, providing a medical treatment, battle, a home invasion, etc). But not all such outcomes involve murder, nor an immoral act.

Murder - willing by an act the death of another person - is always immoral regardless of the “intentions that inspire” (reasons, motivations) and circumstances. This is a principle, and any larger act (say, pregnancy treatment), that involves this act (murder) can immediately be ruled immoral without further analysis.

Removal of a tube (also leading to death of child) has good and bad effects. It is not murder (unlike methotrexate injection), so it passes the first of the conditions in double effect (“must not be itself evil”). It needs to be tested against the remainder of the conditions before it’s morality can be gauged.

 

[Rau]

This piece of the argument really bothers me…that somehow it’s only ok if the tube is also removed (which in practice it most often is). I don’t know if *reductio ad absurdum *applies as a philosophical argument, but it is indeed absurd.

This operation is never undertaken (by mother or physician) with the primary intent of killing the embryo.

Taking only a piece of the tube (leaving a partial one) is medically and ethically suspect, as that would increase the risk of an abdominal ectopic in the future. I don’t think it’s ever done. If done to satisfy some moral code, it is empty and misguided. It satisfies NO moral code. It simply allows someone to rationalize it as so.

Extracting the embryo or using medical means to leave the tube intact is not medically preferable, but might be an ethical choice in some circumstances–for example,
what if the woman only has that one fallopian tube? Then it could be argued that attempting to save that tube for a future pregnancy is better than removing all chance of that.

The argument about having to take the tube to make it moral reminds me of the other disingenuous games people play to get around rules.
Sorry, but it’s…absurd.

This is not correct reasoning or understanding.

Treatments which directly will the death of the baby, are by definition, murder. As the Church declares in ccc1756, murder (willing through an act the death of another) is an immoral act regardless of what motivates you to seek it, or the surrounding circumstances. No further analysis is required to decide whether murder is immoral. You can’t apply double effect to decide it, because the evilness of murder is a given principle itself.

Taking a bit of tube is not the issue. It’s not like we have to do some harm to the mother to share the pain around. We have to avoid the intrinsically bad act of murder.

Consider self-defence. I might kill in the course of defending myself. Did I do wrong? Well, if I committed murder - that is, I willed by an act the death of the assailant (perhaps in my anger and zeal), then I did wrong, because such is murder (always wrong, regardless of motivation and circumstances). But if I set out solely to stop the assailant, which does not require or seek his death at all, yet he dies, that is unfortunate but not immoral. I have the right to defend myself, but not to “murder” another. Defence might kill, but it never demands “murder”.

Methotrexate injection is evidently murder. We will the death of the baby from an injection, and that death (not the injection!) leads to the healing of the mother.

An operation to scrape out the embryo from a tube is not as black and white as the injection, but would still appear to be murder, as it is directed at the child.

The tube removal is not directed at the child, but the child is surely lost in the process. The act of removing a tube about to rupture is not evil, though it kills, so it passes the first condition of double effect (“the act must not itself be evil”). We need to go on and check the other condition of double effect to gauge morality of this act.

As I said in posts above to Jaasonick, one can argue on different principles and get to different outcomes. You can say that the distinctions made are hair thin, at least in terms of outcomes, or that even the outcomes don’t seem right (eg. Loss of tube). But you’d need to take a more flexible view on the morality of murder, which the Church is unwilling to do.

 

[Jaaanosik]

No, no…you are misunderstanding the language. In 1756, the “intentions that inspire” is referring to reasons or motivation. In 2263, “intended” means “willed”, which is intrinsic to murder - it’s what makes it murder. Motivation on the other hand is irrelevant per 1756.

I hope that is clear now. The words look to be referring to the same idea, but their meanings here are quite different. There is no contradiction between the 2 paragraphs.

No, no, no … to hairsplitting arguments and misinterpretation of words.
CCC 2263 “… intentional killing …”
intentional - deliberate, calculated, conscious, intended, planned, meant, studied, knowing, willful, purposeful, purposive, done on purpose, premeditated, preplanned, preconceived, …
How does the intentional is not supposed to be linked to a motivation or a reason?
That’s an insult to common sense.

On the other hand a person in self-defense is willing as ready or prepared to protect own life even by killing if there is no other way. If that was not a case then that person would give up and become a victim voluntarily.

Please, no words twisting and word gymnastics. What a shame.

 

[Jaaanosik]

The death of a person at the hands of, or due to, another is a bad effect of whatever actions were at play (driving a car, playing football, providing a medical treatment, battle, a home invasion, etc). But not all such outcomes involve murder, nor an immoral act.

Murder - willing by an act the death of another person - is always immoral regardless of the “intentions that inspire” (reasons, motivations) and circumstances. This is a principle, and any larger act (say, pregnancy treatment), that involves this act (murder) can immediately be ruled immoral without further analysis.

Removal of a tube (also leading to death of child) has good and bad effects. It is not murder (unlike methotrexate injection), so it passes the first of the conditions in double effect (“must not be itself evil”). It needs to be tested against the remainder of the conditions before it’s morality can be gauged.

More hairsplitting…
CCC 2263 describes your first two paragraphs in two words: intentional killing.
No matter how you slice it, that includes - intentions, reasons, motivations, aims, plans - whatever synonymous can be found.

Imagine being on a jury, how do you determine a murder?

 

[Rau]

No, no, no … to hairsplitting arguments and misinterpretation of words.
CCC 2263 “… intentional killing …”
intentional - deliberate, calculated, conscious, intended, planned, meant, studied, knowing, willful, purposeful, purposive, done on purpose, premeditated, preplanned, preconceived, …
How does the intentional is not supposed to be linked to a motivation or a reason?
That’s an insult to common sense.

On the other hand a person in self-defense is willing as ready or prepared to protect own life even by killing if there is no other way. If that was not a case then that person would give up and become a victim voluntarily.

Please, no words twisting and word gymnastics. What a shame.

The “intentions that inspire” is about motivation eg. to save the mother. That’s an “intention that inspires”, and it is irrelevant in judging whether an act (resulting in death) is murder.

You can serve that intention (to save the mother) by “intentionally killing” (ie. willing, by an act, the death of another aka “murder”, eg. methotrexate injection), or by some other method. A magical drug that prompted the child to migrate to the womb would be an example. It has the same intention - to save the mother - but is not “intentionally killing”.

I’m sorry - but English is what it is.

It is not realistic to conclude that the CCC, the most reviewed and studied document in the Church, just produced contradictory statements on two closely related topics.

 

[Rau]

…
CCC 2263 describes your first two paragraphs in two words: intentional killing.
No matter how you slice it, that includes - intentions, reasons, motivations, aims, plans - whatever synonymous can be found.

It does not. 2263 is about self-defence and an act which may kill. I listed a bunch of acts that may kill and which may not be murder, may not be “intentional killing” - indeed many are clearly not (eg. road accident, football accident).

The “intent that inspires” (per 1756) the act of self-defence was the good of defending my life. However - that is irrelevant in determining whether I committed murder [which is what 1756 says]. I committed murder if I sought out and pursued the assailant’s death - by willing, through an act, his death ie. “intentional killing”. Why should I want him dead? - I just want his aggression stopped, ending the mortal danger I’m in. Nevertheless, if at the time, I sought and pursued the death of the assailant - rather than just my defence - it is murder.

If I fire the gun to stop him from killing me - without seeking his death - it is not murder. Firing a gun to stop an assailant killing me is not intrinsically evil.

 

[Rau]

…two words: intentional killing.
No matter how you slice it, that includes - intentions, reasons, motivations, aims, plans - whatever synonymous can be found.

Intentional killing as a chosen course of action arises from motivations/reasons - clearly. But the word “intentional” does not embody those motivations. [It is not addressing the original motivation for the act.] The motivations are independent. They could lead to a wide range of possible courses. Willing the death (by an act) aka “intentional killing” is just one.

Put in its most basic grammatical terms, “intentions that inspire” an act which may (even will) lead to death and “intentionally killing” simply do not have the same meaning - they are not talking about the same thing. The former is independent of and completely pre-dates the other. The latter did not necessarily flow from the former.

There are only 2 conclusions you can reach from your reasoning. The first is that no treatment for an ectopic pregnancy is murder (which contradicts 1756), or that they are all murder. I assume you take the former position, in which case you reject a very fundamental principle of Catholic teaching. Unless we share that principle, we cannot ever resolve a view on morality questions involving foreseeable death.

 

[Rau]

…
Please, no words twisting and word gymnastics. What a shame.

That’s a bit condescending. Do you really think my trail of posts suggests I’m trying to trick you? Do you admit any possibility that you may have made an error in you understanding of the 2 paragraphs from the CCC we’ve been discussing?

 

[Rau]

…the Catholic Church, contrary to Jewish law, denies the woman right to self-defense in this scenario … removing an ectopic pregnancy without resorting to the above [the tubal surgery] carries a much more severe canonical sanction than murder. Yup, saving a woman’s life will get you excommunicated while intentionally killing her will not.

If CCC 2271 and related sanction were simply dropped, then, per CCC 2270, abortion would have been simply equated with homicide. This would end the absurd distinction between direct and indirect feticide, and therapeutic abortion would be a licit form of self-defense provided all other treatment options were exhausted (this follows naturally from applying CCC 2264 in this situation).

I think the self-defence point is a bit irrelevant. Murder (willing, by an act, the death of another) is not permitted **ever **. I may stand in need of an act of self-defence…I cannot fulfil (licitly) that need by deciding to end the life of my assailant and then going about **that **task. I’ve stepped over a line. I can fire my gun, but I must be seeking to stop the assailant, not seek his death, and I need to act consistent with that. If he dies anyway, that’s a bad outcome, but not immoral.

Likewise, I can’t kill innocents in order to save myself. If a mad-man points a gun to my head and says - “kill that child over there, or I’ll kill you” - I am certainly permitted to pursue an act of self-defence, but killing that child is definitely NOT permitted. It would be murder (albeit under duress).

Abortion is the murder of an unborn child. Yes, the church puts it into a special category. I don’t know the history to that. But, for a person who repents that act, to resolve their (automatic) excommunication is not onerous.

I don’t see that the presence of CCC2271 has any great bearing on the discussion about licit and illicit means to treat an ectopic pregnancy. Abortion is not evil because of CCC2271 - it is evil because it is murder!