A
Anesti33
Guest
The baby is innocent. If someone is ill with an infectious disease, would you recommend the death penalty to defend healthy people?
- Status
P
Pattylt
Guest
I agree the baby is innocent. It’s the pregnancy of that baby that’s the cause. I’m antiabortion but not in this case. The mother has a right to decide to live or die in this situation and in this case, it’s self defense on the mothers part to choose to live. I’m comfortable with her choosing to live even though it requires the death of the child.
A
Anesti33
Guest
…who doesn’t get a choice.
farronwolf
New member
P
Pattylt
Guest
I have a question…and I’m serious here…not trying to be a gotcha!
Catholics are allowed to kill in self defense when that is the only option available. How is this different? The pregnancy is what is killing her and the only self defense option is killing the child/ending the pregnancy. They could certainly try to save the child even though it wouldn’t be successful at that early stage but the mothers only option is to end the pregnancy…resulting in the child’s death.
I’d really love to hear your thoughts on this! Thanks…
Catholics are allowed to kill in self defense when that is the only option available. How is this different? The pregnancy is what is killing her and the only self defense option is killing the child/ending the pregnancy. They could certainly try to save the child even though it wouldn’t be successful at that early stage but the mothers only option is to end the pregnancy…resulting in the child’s death.
I’d really love to hear your thoughts on this! Thanks…
You do realize the death of the baby is inevitable. Either mom and baby die or just baby dies. Either way the baby dies.
A
Anesti33
Guest
Either mom and baby die, or the baby’s life is ended forcefully and violently, and the mother might still die.Anesti33:
You do realize the death of the baby is inevitable. Either mom and baby die or just baby dies. Either way the baby dies.
And…baby dies either way. Your “choice” comment is irrelevant in this case. The baby doesn’t get a choice either way.
Last edited:
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
Say one person in a pair of conjoined twins gets a lethal infection that has not yet spread to their twin, but will in a few weeks. It is untreatable, and has left the infected twin temporarily unconscious. Doctors determine that they can successfully separate the twins, but the procedure will kill the infected twin. Is it moral to take that twin’s life without their consent, even to save their sibling? If so, why? If not, why not?
F
F_Marturana
Guest
I’m not sure this is the same.
The goal is to separate the twins.
One of the twins died because of the surgery.
They wouldn’t kill the twin first. The death of the twin is unintentional.
Ideally, for the pregnant woman, there would be a treatment to keep her stable until a premature labor was possible.
The goal is to separate the twins.
One of the twins died because of the surgery.
They wouldn’t kill the twin first. The death of the twin is unintentional.
Ideally, for the pregnant woman, there would be a treatment to keep her stable until a premature labor was possible.
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
Okay, let’s revise. For the surgery to be carried out and leave the other twin alive, the infected twin must first be killed.
Now that sounds about right.
Ok…
This isn’t the only option.
You said…
That the baby can or cannot survive isn’t really the issue. The issue is that it is a medical procedure that will save her life and is not directly killing the unborn.
P
Pattylt
Guest
So, if they deliver this 10 week old fetus and made heroic yet futile attempts to save it, this would have passed muster? It’s not a direct abortion? Would this choice have spared excommunication of the Nun? Thanks…Pattylt:
Ok…
This isn’t the only option.
You said…
That the baby can or cannot survive isn’t really the issue. The issue is that it is a medical procedure that will save her life and is not directly killing the unborn.
In my opinion…yes, yes, and yes.
P
Pattylt
Guest
I’m out of likes for a bit! So, thank you. I wonder if they just never considered this or felt it was pointless…hopefully not because of the cost! 
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
No one said that.
G
Gorgias
Guest
No. If the intent was “terminating the pregnancy”, then the death of the fetus was the intended effect. If this were the case, then we would have to conclude that it was, indeed, an abortion and was gravely sinful.
In that particular case, IIRC, it was the placenta that was the salient issue (due to the particular medical issue from which the patient was suffering). I would argue – along the same lines that the ‘double effect’ argument is made in the case of a tubal pregnancy (that is, that the intend is to remove the damaged tube, and the unintended effect is the death of the baby) – that we could posit that the intended effect was the removal of the placenta, and the unintended effect was the death of the baby.
farronwolf
New member
According to the Church, it would not have spared the excommunication based on Church teachings. Not saying I agree.
As to the time, let the questioner remember that no acceleration of birth is licit unless it be done at a time, and in ways in which, according to the usual course of things, the life of the mother and the child be provided for". Ethics, then, and the Church agree in teaching that no action is lawful which directly destroys fetal life. It is also clear that extracting the living fetus before it is viable, is destroying its life as directly as it would be killing a grown man directly to plunge him into a medium in which he cannot live, and hold him there till he expires.
As to the time, let the questioner remember that no acceleration of birth is licit unless it be done at a time, and in ways in which, according to the usual course of things, the life of the mother and the child be provided for". Ethics, then, and the Church agree in teaching that no action is lawful which directly destroys fetal life. It is also clear that extracting the living fetus before it is viable, is destroying its life as directly as it would be killing a grown man directly to plunge him into a medium in which he cannot live, and hold him there till he expires.
Isn’t this splitting hairs, though? I know it’s what the Church teaches, but I just can’t comprehend it. Either way the baby dies. Whether you “remove the diseased organ” or remove just the baby—both with the intention of saving the mother—the baby dies. Why is it okay to remove the placenta when you KNOW the baby will die? I know the reason, I’m not asking for an explanation. I know why the Church says one is okay but not the other. But when you’re dealing with life and death for the one you CAN save…I’m sorry, but I just can’t wrap my mind around this. It makes no sense.
- Status