M
MarkRome
Guest
Yep. Pretty much why some say it is OK to kill a fetus but not a 3 year old. Age, zip code, and appearance add worth.Pattylt:
Ah! That makes sense now. A logically consistent view.
- Status
E
ewohdrol
Guest
Very easy to claim that when not faced with the situation. Try explaining to your surviving 5 children you won’t be around much longer. Id bet many would reconsider their position.
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
Appeals to sentimentality do not change the facts of a situation.
E
ewohdrol
Guest
But she didn’t choose life. That is what is stumping posters.
Ultimately both still die. She had the option of at least saving one.
Ultimately both still die. She had the option of at least saving one.
S
Sarcelle
Guest
I wonder how that would impact the children’s attitude to the Church that has mandated that their mother die instead of undergoing a procedure that may kill the baby.
My friend whose mother sacrificed her own life in order to bring my friend into the world, once told me that her older brothers and sisters often tell her that they wished that their mother was alive instead of her.
She suffers from survivor’s guilt.
Either way it’s not easy.
Disclaimer: Before anyone claims I am pro-abortion, let me assure you that I am not. Just processing and pondering the difficult decisions that can come up in life.
Last edited:
M
MarkRome
Guest
Abortion kills the baby 100% of the time unless it is a botched abortion.
S
Sarcelle
Guest
I assure you I already know that.
What we are discussing is being caught in the horns of a dilemma.
To undergo a procedure that can kill a baby and the mother lives or do nothing so as not to harm the baby, but the mother and the baby both die.
What we are discussing is being caught in the horns of a dilemma.
To undergo a procedure that can kill a baby and the mother lives or do nothing so as not to harm the baby, but the mother and the baby both die.
A
Anesti33
Guest
There is nothing intrinsically evil about doing a procedure that might kill a baby as a side effect. There is nothing intrinsically evil about doing one that might harm the baby. So I see another straw man, and Guy Fawkes Night draws near - where’s my lighter?
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
By killing the other.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
I would recommend seeing what the Catholic bioethics would say.
Last edited:
E
ewohdrol
Guest
Who wouldn’t live either way.
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
Doesn’t make it not murder.
A
Anesti33
Guest
I would like a second opinion here. It is not a proven fact that a direct abortion would have caused the St. Joseph patient to continue living where she would certainly have died otherwise. Pro-lifers frequently assert that it is never necessary to kill the baby to save the life of the mother. I would like to know if that “never” means never. We may never know the exact facts of the case, but I think it is worth pointing out that it is highly disputed that direct abortions save lives.ewohdrol:
By killing the other.
E
ewohdrol
Guest
Much like removing a fallopian tube due to an ectopic pregnancy. As it is non-direct it somehow makes it an acceptable death.ewohdrol:
By killing the other.
Semantics.
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
Wrong. One does not fix an ectopic pregnancy by killing the child. It’s treated by removal of the damaged tube.
Yeah, that’s because direct killing is murder and not doing that thing is not murder.
I don’t understand why there being a fine line between what’s acceptable and what isn’t presents such a problem. Indirectly causing someone’s death with proportional reason is tragic but morally licit. Directly killing someone, no matter the reason, is morally wrong. Always. Direct vs indirect is what matters.
E
ewohdrol
Guest
I understand the difference between direct and non. The damaged tube has the fetus in it. Still killing it.
But that argument is really just semantics. They are both killing the fetus.
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
But the death of the child is not required for the procedure to be carried out correctly. When the tube is removed, and the procedure is complete, the child may or may not be alive and it has no bearing on the procedure’s success.
In the case of the OP, the child’s death was the sole determining factor in the success of the procedure.
One is direct, one isn’t.
But they’re doing it in such a way that one is indirect and not intentional, and one is. I do not understand how this isn’t clear.
E
ewohdrol
Guest
It is clear. I understand the difference perfectly well. I still maintain they know full well the fetus cannot survive after fallopian removal, although it is often alive during the procedure.
The outcome is exactly the same in each scenario. The journey to get there is slightly different.
The outcome is exactly the same in each scenario. The journey to get there is slightly different.
Last edited:
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
Yeah, and that matters.
O
o_mlly
Guest
? In either case, lives are “on the line” and someone dies. So, if I follow your reasoning, you reject that direct killing is essentially different than indirect killing. Do you argue as a principle, therefore, that a good intention can justify directly killing an innocent person?
The death of the child before term may be expected but it is not known. Nor is the death of the mother known if the child is carried to term but may be expected. What is known with certainty is that the direct abortion will not cure the mother of her underlying disease but the act will kill the child.
- Status