Pro-Life answer about abortion

[Raxus]

It is likely I will not respond any more.

Taking your ball and going home? Your call.

If you cannot see the difference between Christian generosity and “open doors to all 24/7”, there is nothing more to talk about.

You JUST called for “unlimited generosity” on the part of all who would condemn abortion. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If you can’t yourself provide what you’re asking for others to do, maybe you should rethink what you ask of others.

It may be mere coincidence, but your responses parrot “talking points” from certain commentary sources that do not allow for an exchange of ideas.

Vague references don’t accomplish anything. Also, the fact that murder is wrong isn’t a “talking point”. It’s a fact.

Have a lovely spring.

Likewise.

 

[Catholicwife32]

I would say, legally speaking, the life exception is needed within the law. Morally speaking, this is still a situation where immoral choices can occur. The biggest issue is recognizing that the ends does not justify the means (though complex situations and timely issues can mitigate moral culpability), there is no lesser of two evils in Catholic moral theology, but there is the principle of double effect.

It is best to educate people on these principles when they’re not in the situation, emphasizing the value of all human life. I don’t believe it is appropriate to do more than pray for people who are in these very morally tough situations, that the Holy Spirit will guide and illuminate their path.

Some Catholic countries do have overly strict laws that have caused the death of women because the system of government interference and access to timely medical care got in the way. And I think we need to be careful about glorifying a disregard for the lives of women. That isn’t a pro life position at all. We should recognize that even saints who died after having a baby are not saints merely because of that one act. Moreover prioritizing your child’s care out of love is different from dying due to a lack of access to medical care.

Abortion should be outlawed in most cases, but we also need to recognize difficult moral situations and how it is not our responsibility to take over people’s moral agency and make decisions for them. Not permitting intolerable evil is one thing. Failing to recognize moral complexities acknowledged within Catholic moral teaching to the point of denying the very foundational principles of Christian moral theology is entirely another.

 

[Raxus]

Not permitting intolerable evil is one thing.

Murder is an intolerable evil. There is never a justified reason to target a baby in the womb for death, and as Catholics we must be vocal about that truth. Jesus didn’t just hang back and pray that people would find their own way. He did what he could to educate, and he did so fiercely and with courage.

 

[Catholicwife32]

Murder is an intolerable evil.

You’re reacting to things I’m not even saying. The principle of double effect does apply, but it is not possible to legislate the principle of double effect. As such, the left exemption is mandatory. If we neglect medical treatment to save women’s life, and both child and baby die when one could have been saved, that act of omission is murder. That is NOT a pro life stance.

 

[CelticWarlord]

Dr. David Anders gives an excellent expose’ on this topic here. Skip ahead to 41:20 on the timer.

 

[Raxus]

You’re reacting to things I’m not even saying. The principle of double effect does apply, but it is not possible to legislate the principle of double effect. As such, the left exemption is mandatory. If we neglect medical treatment to save women’s life, and both child and baby die when one could have been saved, that act of omission is murder. That is NOT a pro life stance.

Only if the objective of the treatment was not to murder the baby. For instance, chemotherapy for a pregnant mother with cancer who will otherwise die risks killing the child, but it is an unintended side effect.

ANY decision that says “This baby must die if the mother is to live” is a murderous choice and an intolerable evil.

 

[Catholicwife32]

Only if the objective of the treatment was not to murder the baby.

You’re WAY overeager to argue you’re case. You and I are in agreement. What you’re describing IS the principle of double effect.

 

[Raxus]

You’re WAY overeager to argue you’re case. You and I are in agreement. What you’re describing IS the principle of double effect.

Groovy. (10 characters)

 

[margaret42]

I agree. You can’t just remove the baby as a convenience to get over a medical problem. The baby itself has to be the medical problem?

 

[Arwing]

I agree. You can’t just remove the baby as a convenience to get over a medical problem. The baby itself has to be the medical problem?

Which would strictly speaking be something that could never be since the baby has the intrinsic value of human life. If the baby’s being there is causing the problem, there are still no cases where it would be permissible to take action against the baby’s life even for the purpose of solving whatever problem. You could in some cases do something moral in itself that is ordered towards a good (e.g. treatment of a life-threatening medical problem) that would have the unintended side effect of the baby’s death.

But as for “removing” the baby, it will depend-- to do so directly when the baby is not viable will not be permitted. When it is viable it will depend. And to do so indirectly (e.g. by removal of a tube in an ectopic) I believe may be permitted if necessary. But,

As with any treatment which (unintentionally) results in the baby’s death, I suppose it would depend on what the medical problem is. An unintended evil isn’t always a permissible one. (Here the intended good has to be proportionate so as to at least compensate for the unintended evil, in addition to the requirement that the act is licit according to the other conditions.)

 

[margaret42]

Or may the cause of the problem?

 

[Arwing]

So if the pregnancy itself is causing the problem, it won’t be permissible to directly remove the baby if it is not viable. OTOH if it is viable, I imagine there are cases where it may even be necessary to do so, e.g. to preserve the baby’s life-- but this can get complex and careful consideration of all aspects of the situation is required in addition to making sure that the action(s) taken are in accordance with Catholic moral principles.

 

[fmirenzi]

But I did read an article where a woman had pre-eclampsia. I’ve read that labour could be induced, but the doctor said the situation was too dangerous and labour would be too taxing for the mother, so an abortion was performed. In this situation, are there other options? I understand that directly killing the child would be considered wrong, but was the doctor wrong in claiming that abortion was the only way of saving the woman’s life?

Abortion is not indicated as treatment for pre-eclampsia. Most cases of pre-eclampsia occur around 32 weeks. Only two countries in the world allow for abortion this late: Canada and China.

Pre-eclampsia is conservatively treated with medication and induction.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Only two countries in the world allow for abortion this late: Canada and China.

Common myth.

And the United States of America.

There is no Federal law wrt term of the fetus and abortion. Some states have laws, however, every one of those contain loopholes that will permit termination through 38/39 + weeks gestation.

Fact-Checking Trump: Can Abortions Really Happen on the 'Final Day' of Pregnancy?

Experts say this is very unlikely and does not accurately reflect the reality of abortions in the United States.

www.livescience.com