Patients with ectopic pregnancies

[Jaaanosik]

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).
…

What is common to all these acts that may kill? Why did you write “may not be murder”? Why it’s not obvious that they are not murders? How do you know that a road accident is not a setup and therefore it would be a murder?
If the acts include a bad intention that inspires then they are definitely murders. Do we agree?
If they do not include an intention that inspires then what do we do? Do we check circumstances for negligence or not?

Please, can you define moral objects of murder and self-defense?
If you are on a jury can you determine murder without studying ‘intentions that inspire’ and circumstances that lead to a death?

How does an agent will without a cause, a reason, a goal, a motivation, an intention and outside of any circumstances?

 

[Rau]

What is common to all these acts that may kill? Why did you write “may not be murder”? Why it’s not obvious that they are not murders? How do you know that a road accident is not a setup and therefore it would be a murder?
If the acts include a bad intention that inspires then they are definitely murders. Do we agree?
If they do not include an intention that inspires then what do we do? Do we check circumstances for negligence or not?

Please, can you define moral objects of murder and self-defense?
If you are on a jury can you determine murder without studying ‘intentions that inspire’ and circumstances that lead to a death?

How does an agent will without a cause, a reason, a goal, a motivation, an intention and outside of any circumstances?

The agent has a motivation - to save his life, to help someone, to escape justice, whatever. The point is it does not matter what it is, if he wills the death of another through an act, he commits murder. Period. No more analysis required.

If you read the 2 paragraphs of the Catechism with the explanations that I and LeafbyNiggle gave you, do you agree there is no contradiction between those 2 paragraphs?

Please re-read my posts, as I think I have explained the subject matter and the reasoning as well as I can.

 

[Jaaanosik]

The agent has a motivation - to save his life, to help someone, to escape justice, whatever. The point is it does not matter what it is, if he wills the death of another through an act, he commits murder. Period. No more analysis required.

If you read the 2 paragraphs of the Catechism with the explanations that I and LeafbyNiggle gave you, do you agree there is no contradiction between those 2 paragraphs?

Please re-read my posts, as I think I have explained the subject matter and the reasoning as well as I can.

How do we know an agent wills death?

 

[Rau]

How do we know an agent wills death?

We speak of morality, not of earthy processes of criminal investigation. The agent knows. God knows. Don’t confuse what is willed with having a sense of regret about the willed outcome.

Can a man under duress by a mad-man and told to kill a school girl or be killed himself, morally kill that school girl to save his life? Would he feel regret, both before and after the event, if he resolved to do it?

 

[Jaaanosik]

We speak of morality, not of earthy processes of criminal investigation. The agent knows. God knows. Don’t confuse what is willed with having a sense of regret about the willed outcome.

Can a man under duress by a mad-man and told to kill a school girl or be killed himself, morally kill that school girl to save his life? Would he feel regret, both before and after the event, if he resolved to do it?

Please, correct me what is wrong in the following.

The moral object of a murder is evil, willed by agent therefore the act is a murder.
The moral object of self-defense is to protect own life, willed, a killing is a side effect, not willed, therefore the act is not a murder.

The moral object of an abortion is evil, willed by agent therefore the act is an abortion.
The moral object of removing an embryo from the tube is to protect woman’s life, willed, the embryo dying is a side effect, not willed, therefore the act is not an abortion.

Is there anything wrong here?

 

[Rau]

Please, correct me what is wrong in the following.

The moral object of a murder is evil, willed by agent therefore the act is a murder.
The moral object of self-defense is to protect own life, willed, a killing is a side effect, not willed, therefore the act is not a murder.

The moral object of an abortion is evil, willed by agent therefore the act is an abortion.
The moral object of removing an embryo from the tube is to protect woman’s life, willed, the embryo dying is a side effect, not willed, therefore the act is not an abortion.

Is there anything wrong here?

I don’t quite follow the expressions you are using. Some of your statements are circular. Do you agree with these statements:

As a principle, willing by an act the death of another (“murder”) is wrong, regardless of what wider purpose we may have in taking that act.

Self defence (preserving one’s own life) is a right and a moral good. However, I may not commit murder to achieve it (a good may not be sought by doing an evil).

A methotrexate injection is an act which wills the death of the baby (we know this, because it is only the death of the baby that gives rise to the benefit sought for the woman). So, it is a murder. Abortions (as the Church defines it) all will the death of the baby, so are murders.

The motivation for treating ectopic pregnancies - by any means, licit and illicit - is to save the woman’s life. It is absolutely clear that methotrexate pursues that by willing (intentionally pursuing) the death of the baby.

Surgical treatments take more consideration, and I understand ethicists themselves debate these back and forwards. It seems to me that if there were a procedure that could deliver the baby (very!) early, or relocate the baby to the womb, these would be licit. But there is none. (Isn’t the operation more akin to scraping the tube?). But, thinking about “abortion on demand” (which I assume you agree is unquestionably wrong - murder), if this were to be cast as just a “very early delivery”, one could argue that they are not abortions either, it’s just that the baby dies all the time (as a side-effect of an early delivery). [Not a great analogy I know, as there are other reasons why such a procedure would be immoral]. Bottom line is - these cases are harder to reach an obvious conclusion on. Removing the section of tube is clearly moral IMHO because it is directed to the mother’s body (and meets the criteria of double effect). Scraping the tube seems highly suspect and hard to distinguish from intentional killing ofthe child.

Do you agree the two clauses in the Catechism are not contradictory?

 

[Phemie]

A methotrexate injection is an act which wills the death of the baby (we know this, because it is only the death of the baby that gives rise to the benefit sought for the woman). So, it is a murder. Abortions (as the Church defines it) all will the death of the baby, so are murders.

The motivation for treating ectopic pregnancies - by any means, licit and illicit - is to save the woman’s life. It is absolutely clear that methotrexate pursues that by willing (intentionally pursuing) the death of the baby.

Surgical treatments take more consideration, and I understand ethicists themselves debate these back and forwards.

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.

 

[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.

Removal of the tube is plainly moral. Methotrexate is plainly murder, because it first kills the baby, and by virtue of the death of the baby, leads to the healing / safety of the mother. That one fails the double effect criteria unambiguously. If there is a line of reasoning by (catholic) ethicists that seems favourable to methotrexate, and unfavourable to surgically removing the baby confused I’d be interested to hear it!

I do agree that ethicists, who don’t accept the catholic principles which prohibit murder regardless of circumstances, could reach entirely different conclusions.

 

[Phemie]

Removal of the tube is plainly moral. Methotrexate is plainly murder, because it first kills the baby, and by virtue of the death of the baby, leads to the healing / safety of the mother. That one fails the double effect criteria unambiguously. If there is a line of reasoning by (catholic) ethicists that seems favourable to methotrexate, and unfavourable to surgically removing the baby confused I’d be interested to hear it!

I do agree that ethicists, who don’t accept the catholic principles which prohibit murder regardless of circumstances, could reach entirely different conclusions.

I just went back to the OP’s post where she shared what the ethicist had said to her:

As a side note, I would point out that although salpingectomy is clearly a moral procedure, as you note, and salpingostomy is not, there is considerable debate on whether methotrexate is morally acceptable under Catholic teaching. Personally, I have my doubts, but other orthodox Catholic moral theologians take the opposite view. This is an unsettled question within Catholic moral theology. Even salpingostomy is permissible if the embryo has died before the operation, which does indeed sometimes happen.

It’s interesting to see how ethicists have changed their minds over the years. You can read a good article here.

 

[Rau]

I just went back to the OP’s post where she shared what the ethicist had said to her:

As a side note, I would point out that although salpingectomy is clearly a moral procedure, as you note, and salpingostomy is not, there is considerable debate on whether methotrexate is morally acceptable under Catholic teaching. Personally, I have my doubts, but other orthodox Catholic moral theologians take the opposite view. This is an unsettled question within Catholic moral theology. Even salpingostomy is permissible if the embryo has died before the operation, which does indeed sometimes happen.

It’s interesting to see how ethicists have changed their minds over the years. You can read a good article here.

Clearly one can act fairly freely if the embryo has died already.

I had a quick look at the paper you attached (thanks). The issues in debate there viz a viz methotrexate tend to revolve around the technicalities of methotrexate’s medical effect, rather than the fundamental moral principles we’ve been discussing in the latter part of this thread. Alternative views of the surgical removal procedure was also outlined, though the argument seemed pretty flawed to me and to the author of the paper.

 

[Jaaanosik]

I don’t quite follow the expressions you are using. Some of your statements are circular. Do you agree with these statements:

As a principle, willing by an act the death of another (“murder”) is wrong, regardless of what wider purpose we may have in taking that act.

Self defence (preserving one’s own life) is a right and a moral good. However, I may not commit murder to achieve it (a good may not be sought by doing an evil).
…
Do you agree the two clauses in the Catechism are not contradictory?

I agree and I showed where the circular argument comes from a few pages ago.
You did not say what is wrong here:
*The moral object of a murder is evil, willed by agent therefore the act is a murder.
The moral object of self-defense is to protect own life, willed, a killing is a side effect, not willed, therefore the act is not a murder.
*
So here goes an explanation what it means.
An agent wills bad moral object it’s a murder.
An agent wills good moral object (self-defense - preserving one’s own life) and it’s not a murder.

An object of willing is called intention.

Your turn…
… and I did not want to do it so much … as I said a few pages ago.

 

[Rau]

I agree and I showed where the circular argument comes from a few pages ago.
You did not say what is wrong here:
*The moral object of a murder is evil, willed by agent therefore the act is a murder.
The moral object of self-defense is to protect own life, willed, a killing is a side effect, not willed, therefore the act is not a murder.
*
So here goes an explanation what it means.
An agent wills bad moral object it’s a murder.
An agent wills good moral object (self-defense - preserving one’s own life) and it’s not a murder.

An object of willing is called intention.

Your turn…
… and I did not want to do it so much … as I said a few pages ago.

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.

 

[Rau]

I agree and I showed where the circular argument comes from a few pages ago.
You did not say what is wrong here:
*The moral object of a murder is evil, willed by agent therefore the act is a murder.
The moral object of self-defense is to protect own life, willed, a killing is a side effect, not willed, therefore the act is not a murder.
*
So here goes an explanation what it means.
An agent wills bad moral object it’s a murder.
An agent wills good moral object (self-defense - preserving one’s own life) and it’s not a murder.

An object of willing is called intention.

Your turn…
… and I did not want to do it so much … as I said a few pages ago.

You are confusing the Intended End and the Moral Object. The following article may help you see the difference - look at the last section “Intended End vs Moral Object”.
catechism.cc/articles/moral-object.htm

I often disagree with Conte, but in this paper he gets it right.

 

[weller2]

I do agree that ethicists, who don’t accept the catholic principles which prohibit murder regardless of circumstances, could reach entirely different conclusions.

Catholic principles do not prohibit homicide regardless of circumstances – you are allowed to act in self-defense, you are allowed to execute criminals, you are allowed to wage war, you are even allowed to use WMDs.

Catholic principles do, however, prohibit feticide regardless of circumstances.

The ectopic pregnancy controversy only arises because the absolute prohibition on feticide (in a textbook example of circular logic) removes woman’s right to self-defense, necessitating a workaround involving the double effect doctrine.

 

[weller2]

You didn’t answer my questions. Is it moral for the person higher up the rope to cut the rope beneath him in the circumstances of a failing rope?

Another scenario (contrived) comes to mind. Consider 2 climbers, utilising ropes in an “upside down Y” configuration. Each hangs on his own rope segement, side by side, but the rope segments join above them into a common segment, which is fraying./failing. Do both men act morally if they frantically try to cut each other’s rope segment?

It’s not moral in both cases in my opinion. However, it can be justified under Catholic viewpoint, using the exact same reasoning which is used in case of ectopic pregnancy – the critical point of which is claiming that killing the other person is an indirect effect.

The moral thing to do is to cut your own rope. Of course, this is where the analogy fails, because the embyo has no agency and thus cannot self-abort to save the mother.

 

[Rau]

Catholic principles do not prohibit homicide regardless of circumstances – you are allowed to act in self-defense, you are allowed to execute criminals, you are allowed to wage war, you are even allowed to use WMDs.

Catholic principles do, however, prohibit feticide regardless of circumstances.

The matters on which you speak are spelled out in the Catechism, but not in accord with your statements.

Murder, the intentional killing of an innocent is never permissible. It is intrinsically evil and there is no motivation, nor no circumstance that makes the act moral. Self-defence is not murder. Capital punishment is not murder when it is the only viable means of defending human lives. It is rarely if ever justifiable.

Abortion is wrong because it is murder. The murder of spouses, infanticide, fratricide and parricide are considered especially grave by reason of the natural bonds they break

 

[Rau]

…
The ectopic pregnancy controversy only arises because the absolute prohibition on feticide (in a textbook example of circular logic) removes woman’s right to self-defense, necessitating a workaround involving the double effect doctrine.

Your statement fundamentally misunderstands the relevant elements of Catholic morality.

Treatments such as methotrexate injection are wrong because they constitute Murder. Abortion is a murder - it is not a uniquely distinct moral act. It is called out (along with some other familial instances of murder) as especially grave. It is also called out as attracting an automatic excommunication. BUT, and this is the key point, it is morally wrong simply because it is murder - which is intrinsically evil.

As to your point on self-defence, I thought I addressed this earlier, but please note that it is not permissible to commit murder as a means of self-defence. If in my zeal to defend myself, I form a view that I want the assailant dead, and I go about procuring that end, I in fact commit murder. I cannot be condemned for the death of my assailant if I simply pursued self-defence - seeking to “stop” the aggressor, but setting out to kill is a a different thing entirely.

Methotrexate sets out to kill. This is clear because the benefit to the mother flows only from the death of the baby. Unless the baby dies, the mother does not benefit. Methotrexate injection fundamentally is not an act of self-defence. (Quite separately, one can also debate whether the baby is an aggressor or an innocent. But either way, methotrexate injection is murder.)

 

[Rau]

It’s not moral in both cases in my opinion. However, it can be justified under Catholic viewpoint, using the exact same reasoning which is used in case of ectopic pregnancy – the critical point of which is claiming that killing the other person is an indirect effect.

The moral thing to do is to cut your own rope. Of course, this is where the analogy fails, because the embyo has no agency and thus cannot self-abort to save the mother.

The loss of the baby when removing the tube is a side effect. We have a tube about to rupture, and it’s removal, whether or not a baby is inside, 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.

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

 

[edwest2]

Here’s a good explanation from the National Catholic Bioethics Center:

ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=940

Peace,
Ed

 

[weller2]

Self-defence is not murder. …] Abortion is wrong because it is murder.

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.