It’s the manner in which this occurs that matters. That’s what you seem to be missing. Under no circumstances can an innocent person be directly killed. Period.
It most certainly does. What a blatant mischaracterization.
If whether a person lives or dies mattered, then you would be allowed to save the one you can save in the pulmonary hypertension scenario and have the result of one person dying rather than two. You also wouldn’t categorize it as murder, as if it’s done with malice. It’s done with sorrow and intent to preserve life—one person dies rather than two. If whether a person lives or dies mattered, you also wouldn’t be allowed to do the hysterectomy of a cancerous uterus. You’d have to let nature take its course just like you do in the pulmonary hypertension scenario. Therefore, none of this is about whether someone lives or dies. It’s about avoiding direct killing. You yourself agreed with this up thread.
Nope, not missing it. I just don’t agree with it.
Murder doesn’t need to involve malice. It’s the taking of an innocent person’s life. That’s all that needs to be there.
Exactly. There’s nothing that justifies the direct killing of an innocent person.
So you don’t agree that taking an innocent person’s life is never justifiable?
Uh, yes, that’s how that works. We can’t murder someone to bring about any sort of good. This is what the Church and scripture have taught since the beginning of Christianity.
I think the ends matter more than the means when you’re dealing with actual human lives. I can only think of one scenario where you have to directly end the life of one person to save another, and that is this pregnancy scenario. As I’ve stated over and over, the clincher is that one will die either way. Save the one you can.
Thou shall not kill is the Commandment.
Another aspect of this is that Sr. McBride saw the patient again a few months later because the patient was in the hospital again because she was taking street drugs.
For the millionth time, if the baby could somehow still survive you wouldn’t be allowed to do it. To me the ends matter when you are dealing with someone who is about to die who doesn’t have to die.
Is it morally wrong for the mother to throw herself off the boat in order that her child may live? This case is different anyway…
So why is preserving life of higher moral value to you than not killing?
Not what we’re talking about, so stop saying it. I do not care what you feel about other situations with elements unrelated to this one.
And that puts you at odds with Church and scripture. Ends do not justify means.
Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. John 15:13
No. The child is dead. It isn’t analogous at all because the 11 week old wasn’t dead.
Yes it is. It is what makes a difference. You are mandating that the mother sacrifice herself only to have the child die as well. Two persons died rather than one. It would be different if the baby would be saved. That would be laying down your life so someone else can live, just as Jesus did. But in this instance you’re laying down your life so someone else can die anyway. I’m utterly perplexed that you don’t see this or think it’s important.
BECAUSE THE OTHER PERSON WILL DIE EITHER WAY AND SO YOU SAVE THE ONE YOU CAN.
I place higher value on commandments than sentiment.
Cool. One is a commandment, a law of utmost importance, the other is an objective to strive towards. Not directly killing is very clearly of more importance to God than preserving as many lives as possible is.
I agree. This is a case where I think the Jews have it right. I understand that the Church doesn’t agree. If ever someone is in this situation, personally, I’d hope it wasn’t in a Catholic hospital. Sorry, but that’s my opinion.
You can read why here…
Ah! That makes sense now. A logically consistent view.