Sources I read implied she felt the principle of double effect applied.
Intent does matter. Where does compassion fit into all this?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Intent does matter. Where does compassion fit into all this?
E
ewohdrol
Guest
So do you feel the same with ectopic pregnancies?
M
MarkRome
Guest
Principle of double effect applies to ectopic pregnancies.
M
MarkRome
Guest
She was on the medical ethics board. She knew that it wasn’t. This wasn’t the first case of this nor is it the last. When we let our feelings dictate morality we can justify anything.Sources I read implied she felt the principle of double effect applied.
Tragic situation, but the Church hasn’t changed its stance on this and cannot change its stance.
This, apparently, is the only thing that matters. Nothing else. Not compassion, not the mother’s life, not the existing children who will have to grow up motherless, not the widowed husband who now is a single father, not anyone else who loved this woman.Intentionally killing a human being, no matter the reason, is intrinsically evil.
They say the two lives are equal, and the Church does not favor the baby over the mother. I say…think again.
That is extremely disconcerting.Tragic situation, but the Church hasn’t changed its stance on this and cannot change its stance.
And in this case, one absolute stance, that absolutely cannot be changed no matter what, is being used to justify allowing someone to die who did not have to die. Someone who had value and who mattered. Someone whose death will impact many other lives.When we let our feelings dictate morality we can justify anything.
Last edited:
J
JMMJ
Guest
It is the type of thing that makes non-Catholics question the Catholic version of “pro-life”.
BINGO. I was just about to post something similar. This case implies that Catholics don’t see individual lives themselves as valuable. They are so hung up on “direct killing” they fail to recognize that allowing someone to die who didn’t have to die is not respecting life.It is the type of thing that makes non-Catholics question the Catholic version of “pro-life”.
The Church says the mother and baby are of equal value. This scenario implies otherwise.
M
MarkRome
Guest
Your logic is flawed. It demonstrates that they are of equal value.The Church says the mother and baby are of equal value. This scenario implies otherwise.
A mother and child are in a boat. It will float with one but not two. Is it morally wrong for the mother to throw her child into the water and kill him/her to save herself?
I’m not getting into this again. Please revisit my posts on this thread where I state more than once that if the mother died and the baby could somehow still survive and develop normally in the mother’s dead body, then you’d have to let nature take its course. But the key thing in this particular pregnancy is that the baby’s death is inevitable and the mother still has a chance of being saved.A mother and child are in a boat. It will float with one but not two. Is it morally wrong for the mother to throw her child into the water and kill him/her to save herself?
No, it doesn’t. The baby cannot be saved. The mother can be saved. Even though there’s nothing to be done for the baby, you stand by and allow the mother to die in favor of not touching the baby—who cannot survive one way or another. Two people die when only one had to. This implies the mother’s life is not important and that the baby is more valuable. If you cannot see that, it is your logic that is flawed.It demonstrates that they are of equal value.
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
Well, one may infer such an error but the case certainly does not imply that.This case implies that Catholics don’t see individual lives themselves as valuable.
The case is a hard one, no doubt. The issues of what constitutes an objectively evil act and subjective culpability are separated in morality. We all rely on God’s mercy. The mother’s culpability for the child’s death may be mitigated or even eliminated. The morality of the act, however, in principle stands – that directly killing an innocent human being is objectively evil. Imagine the chaos if otherwise.
M
MarkRome
Guest
To be consistent with your position then you must say it is OK for the mother to throw her child overboard so that she may live.I’m not getting into this again.
This is not the same thing. In the boat, both people have the chance of surviving. In the pregnancy, one person (the baby) does not have a chance of surviving no matter what you do, while the other person—the mother—still has a chance. For the millionth time, if the mother died and the baby could somehow still survive and develop normally in the mother’s dead body, then you’d have to let nature take its course. But that’s not how pregnancy works. My position is more than consistent.To be consistent with your position then you must say it is OK for the mother to throw her child overboard so that she may live.
M
MarkRome
Guest
Nope. The boat will not float and they will both die. That’s the scenario.In the boat, both people have the chance of surviving.
Yes it does.the case certainly does not imply that.
And the absolutization of this stance is deemed more important than another innocent human being who could have survived but didn’t, when the other person could not be saved one way or the other.that directly killing an innocent human being is objectively evil.
That mother had value. She was made in the image and likeness of God just like the baby. She was important to her husband and existing children and probably others. None of that matters as much as the absolutization of “direct killing.”
What are you talking about? If that’s the case then they both die. I’m not sure what you’re getting at here.Nope. The boat will not float and they will both die. That’s the scenario.
As Deacon Christopher said earlier, such hypotheticals are not helpful to these discussions. Let’s just stick with the topic at hand, please.
M
MarkRome
Guest
Again, the mother could be saved if she threw her 3 year old child overboard. Why won’t you answer whether it would be morally ok if she killed her child to save herself?If that’s the case then they both die
This isn’t the argument you think it is. In the case of a sinking boat, the mother could throw herself overboard and the three year old would have a chance at surviving. In the pregnancy, the Church demands that the mother “throw herself overboard” and as a result the baby will still die and had no chance of surviving in the first place. Two people die when only one had to.Again, the mother could be saved if she threw her 3 year old child overboard. Why won’t you answer whether it would be morally ok if she killed her child to save herself?
I already stated that if the baby could somehow survive inside the mother’s dead body then you’d have to let nature take its course. But pregnancy doesn’t work that way. Your boat analogy is not the same because in it, the mother sacrificing herself allows the child to survive, unlike in the pregnancy, where her sacrificing herself does not save the child.
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
There are not two innocent persons. The moment the surgeon’s instrument penetrated the child’s body, the surgeon lost his innocence as did all others who cooperated in the direct abortion. The surgeon became an unjust aggressor.And the absolutization of this stance is deemed more important than another innocent human being
- Status
- Not open for further replies.