I know all that. I still don’t agree with it.You’re not directly killing the infant, though. You’re removing a diseased body part, and as such treating a disease. The death of the child is not directly intended during the procedure, but would result from the procedure. That’s different from a procedure intending the death of the child because in that case, the “medical treatment” involves the murder of a patient rather than the unintended death of the patient.
The person you’re killing in this instance will die one way or the other. You seem to be ignoring this part.You’re okay killing people who did nothing wrong without their consent to save someone else’s life?
This is a made up analogy and not what is being discussed here. Something tells me it doesn’t work that way. In the case of conjoined twins you would treat both of them with antibiotics. Either the antibiotics would work or they wouldn’t. End of story.So you would be okay killing one member of the above described pair of conjoined twins?
Changing the conditions of a situation but keeping the essence often reveals why the difference of opinion exists.This is a made up analogy and not what is being discussed here.
I said they wouldn’t. The condition is untreatable using antibiotics, bacteriophages, or any other treatment options for a bacterial infection.Either the antibiotics would work or they wouldn’t.
I’m not ignoring it, that’s why my change of situations included a change to the conditions of the surgery: The twin must be killed directly for the surgery to be successful.The person you’re killing in this instance will die one way or the other. You seem to be ignoring this part.
Because other kinds of abortion aren’t relevant.I also said I hate abortion to the core. But you have ignored that too.
Does the twin being killed have a chance of surviving or is that twin doomed either way?I’m not ignoring it, that’s why my change of situations included a change to the conditions of the surgery: The twin must be killed directly for the surgery to be successful.
I admire your intellectual consistency, but find your position rather abhorrent. Human lives do not have value to be traded. The ending of one non-aggressor’s life is never justified, even to save another.If the twin has zero, zip, zilch chance of surviving, then you save the one you can.
You’re acting like I’m a monster because I’m advocating for saving the life in the situation that has a chance at being saved rather than letting that life die when the other life can not survive either way.Because other kinds of abortion aren’t relevant.
What is to be gained by not ending the person’s life who would have died anyway? Nothing. Only more loss. Both people die when only one had to die.I admire your intellectual consistency, but find your position rather abhorrent.
It’s not a matter of value. For the millionth time—one life is doomed either way!Human lives do not have value to be traded.
Yes, I do believe that such a position is evil. Life has infinite value and cannot be bartered and traded, as if a life for a life is an equal trade. It never is. Lives don’t have equal value, they have infinite value, and are not to be taken unless protecting yourself or others from unjust aggressors.You’re acting like I’m a monster because I’m advocating for saving the life in the situation that has a chance at being saved rather than letting that life die when the other life can not survive either way.
That is exactly what they did by aborting their child. They committed murder, full stop. One may never do evil in the service of good.No one is out to maliciously destroy an innocent baby.
By killing the child, or the twin, you say “Your life is worth theirs. Therefore, I am justified in killing you to save them.” Your action is murder. It doesn’t matter what will happen to the one you kill. In that moment, you have taken the life of an innocent human being. Took fate into your own hands.It’s not a matter of value. For the millionth time— one life is doomed either way!
Nope. You’re saying that their life is not viable one way or the other and so you’re going to save the life that is viable. One person will die rather than two.By killing the child, or the twin, you say “Your life is worth theirs. Therefore, I am justified in killing you to save them.”
That’s the difference. Is the diseased part a unique human person or a body part? If it’s a unique human person that needs to be directly killed somehow to solve the problem, then you are committing murder to save someone else, and that’s wrong.But removing a baby
Removing the tube or whatever body part results in the death of the baby. Full stop. If you didn’t remove that body part, the baby would still be alive. It’s a very, very, VERY fine line between that and direct abortion. And the baby who dies in the cancerous uterus situation is technically viable and will not die either way. The baby has a chance. And that chance was taken away by removing the uterus to save the mother.That’s the difference. Is the diseased part a unique human person or a body part? If it’s a unique human person that needs to be directly killed somehow to solve the problem, then you are committing murder to save someone else, and that’s wrong.
I have to say I take offense at this. First of all, I really don’t think your twin thing happens in real life. You take antibiotics for an infection or you do surgery and work to save both. Second, I do not believe in going around murdering innocent people to save others. I have stated more than once that if both persons were viable in either the pregnancy or the twin scenario, then you’d have to let nature take its course. It wouldn’t be right to kill one person to save the other. I’m saying when one person cannot be saved no matter what you do then you do what you have to do to save the one who can be saved.Honestly, it just seems like your issue is more deep-seated than can be addressed here; a difficulty with Catholic teaching about taking lives. That’s not something that can just be restricted to abortion because, as my own analogy demonstrated, you believe it’s okay to kill innocents to save others in all variety of situations. I can’t say much against that other than it’s just not in accordance with what the Church teaches.
The result of an action is not always equivalent to the end result of an action. The result of a fallopian tube removal is the death of a baby, but the end result was the removal of the tube. The result of an abortion (and the end result) is the killing of the child.Removing the tube or whatever body part results in the death of the baby. Full stop.
Yeah, a fine line that needs to be drawn.It’s a very, very, VERY fine line between that and direct abortion.
It may not happen in real life, but MRSA does exist and conjoined twins often cannot be separated without death of at least one. The situation is unrealistic in that regard but captures the essence of the issue with new actors to see if that changes one’s answer.First of all, I really don’t think your twin thing happens in real life. You take antibiotics for an infection or you do surgery and work to save both.
Okay, but the impending death of someone is irrelevant. You are still directly intending they die so that someone else can live. It’s murder. Period. Stop saying “Well they’re going to die anyway” because it doesn’t matter if they will at the moment you take their life without consent. At that point, they’re alive and did not give permission to have their life taken. As such, doing so is a mortally sinful action; a murder.Second, I do not believe in going around murdering innocent people to save others. I have stated more than once that if both persons were viable in either the pregnancy or the twin scenario, then you’d have to let nature take its course. It wouldn’t be right to kill one person to save the other. I’m saying when one person cannot be saved no matter what you do then you do what you have to do to save the one who can be saved.
Is the procedure specifically designed to kill the child; i.e. is the procedure meaningless without a child present? In the case of a fallopian removal or a hysterectomy, no. Damaged fallopian tubes from ectopic pregnancies are generally removed due to the revelation that a defect exists. Cancer-curing hysterectomies are, well, designed to cure cancer. In the situation described in the OP, there is no meaning to the performed procedure except the death of the child. The procedure is designed to kill the child, and that’s it. That is murder.But the Church is fine with it because you removed the organ. Sorry, call it what you want, but you KNOW the baby will die and you do it to save the mother.
St. Gianna performed a heroic act but it didn’t need to be performed. If she weren’t pregnant, the hysterectomy would’ve been done regardless because it was necessary to cure a medical issue.Why not demand, under the pain of mortal sin, that the uterus not be removed so the baby doesn’t die, like Saint Gianna Molla did?
In Judaism, this is mandatory. If the child dies regardless, the mother must be saved. It also allows her to have further children even though that one can never be replaced. Perhaps, growing up Jewish, it’s why I just can’t wrap my head around this Catholic mandate? Even though Judaism also believes in life from womb to tomb, here she is clear that the mothers life takes precedence in a known fatal demise.What I have a problem with is when the death of the baby is inevitable —it’s going to happen no matter what—it should be permissible to save the one you can.