The pro-life common sense clincher

[Protestant101]

Thankyou to all who have been replying here. I have been learning lots. As an outsider of the Catholic Church, and looking in on this subject area; I hear Catholics telling me the following:

1/ That abortions are not allowed under any circumstances.

2/ That there are possible exceptions, under the umbrella of something called Doctrine Of Double Effect. This seems to be a survival of the fittest mentality, spawned from the hotbed of Darwinism.

I think that at best, this double effect standard is subjective; and leaves the Catholic Church in a similar position as other Churches on abortions. While the specifics for their respective exceptions sometimes vary; most of it will force the attending physician/parents to choose between saving one or the other, saving Mom, or saving the baby.

To call other Churches, including the Adventist Church “murderers” because their position is not exactly the same, is unfair, given that the Catholic Church, in effect, does allow abortions to take place, under certain, rare circumstances. I know you don’t call it abortion, yet, in effect, that’s exactly what it is.

I admire your pro-life stance and ministries except for this aspect. It is not very fair to those of other faith backgrounds who are also doing their best to prevent abortions, and to educate with, and provide abortion alternatives.

 

[JimG]

Thankyou to all who have been replying here. I have been learning lots. As an outsider of the Catholic Church, and looking in on this subject area; I hear Catholics telling me the following:

1/ That abortions are not allowed under any circumstances.

2/ That there are possible exceptions, under the umbrella of something called Doctrine Of Double Effect. This seems to be a survival of the fittest mentality, spawned from the hotbed of Darwinism.

I think that at best, this double effect standard is subjective; and leaves the Catholic Church in a similar position as other Churches on abortions. While the specifics for their respective exceptions sometimes vary; most of it will force the attending physician/parents to choose between saving one or the other, saving Mom, or saving the baby.

To call other Churches, including the Adventist Church “murderers” because their position is not exactly the same, is unfair, given that the Catholic Church, in effect, does allow abortions to take place, under certain, rare circumstances. I know you don’t call it abortion, yet, in effect, that’s exactly what it is.

I admire your pro-life stance and ministries except for this aspect. It is not very fair to those of other faith backgrounds who are also doing their best to prevent abortions, and to educate with, and provide abortion alternatives.

There is not much that’s subjective in Catholic moral theology. Most of the principles are pretty clear cut. It’s the application of those principles to specific actual circumstances that require prudential judgment, not subjectivism. I’m sure that there are others here who can more fully explain the principle of double effect than me; I haven’t studied the matter for a long time. The obvious example that jumps to mind is removing a fallopian tube to cure an ectopic pregnancy. The embryo will die, but the intent was simply to prevent rupture of the tube, which also would have killed the embryo, as well as the mother.

Even if I’m pointing a gun at an intruder and fire it, my purpose is to stop the intruder by whatever means possible, not to kill him.

As to abortion, while it may be a sort of heresy from the moral theology standpoint, I would cheer a law which limited abortion to only those cases in which it was deemed an absolute medical necessity to save a mother’s life. That would immediately stop 99% of all abortions.

At least in theory. In Kansas, for example, the law says that abortion is prohibited after viability except where continuation of the pregnancy would cause permanent damage to a major bodily function.

That law did not stop even one late term abortion. Why? Because of Doe v Bolton, the companion to Roe, which states that a detriment to “health” is whatever the abortionist deems it to mean.

 

[Canto]

Thankyou to all who have been replying here. I have been learning lots. As an outsider of the Catholic Church, and looking in on this subject area; I hear Catholics telling me the following:

1/ That abortions are not allowed under any circumstances.

2/ That there are possible exceptions, under the umbrella of something called Doctrine Of Double Effect. This seems to be a survival of the fittest mentality, spawned from the hotbed of Darwinism.

I think that at best, this double effect standard is subjective; and leaves the Catholic Church in a similar position as other Churches on abortions. While the specifics for their respective exceptions sometimes vary; most of it will force the attending physician/parents to choose between saving one or the other, saving Mom, or saving the baby.

To call other Churches, including the Adventist Church “murderers” because their position is not exactly the same, is unfair, given that the Catholic Church, in effect, does allow abortions to take place, under certain, rare circumstances. I know you don’t call it abortion, yet, in effect, that’s exactly what it is.

I admire your pro-life stance and ministries except for this aspect. It is not very fair to those of other faith backgrounds who are also doing their best to prevent abortions, and to educate with, and provide abortion alternatives.

The Church opposes each and every abortion full stop.
Those Catholics who support abortion under canon law are heretics and self excommunicated

If a mother’s doctor says she should have an abortion or she might perhaps die and the mother consents, that is an abortion.

If a mother was sick and seeking treatment and as an consequence the baby died - that is not an abortion.

In the first cenario the intent is to kill a baby to save the mother
In the second the intent is to save mother not kill the baby

 

[Young_Thinker]

Emphasizing adoption as opposed to aborticide(including the “morning-after” pill) might not be a bad idea. Psychological effects for the mother and child are also good, as is an example of a great person whom might have otherwise been killed in the womb.

 

[Worthy5]

*Preamble to the Constitution

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice,*

Well, the Court did not base its opinion on the preamble—did you read the opinion? Here is a good passage for you— Justice Blackmun delivered the opinion of the Court.

" This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

 

[Worthy5]

It forces them into stating why one human life is ok to kill as compared to another.

It forces no such thing—Pro-choice is a legal position not a moral one. This legal issue is who has the duty to protect the life at what stage and what is the nature of the duty. The Court in Roe simply concluded that, at least in the early term, the duty to protect the life falls exclusively on the women. As the life matures govt’s (society’s) role expands. The policy of protecting life is balanced with the policy of a " limited government". Here is Justice Blackmun:

“This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”

 

[PrayHarder]

This question has been treated by the Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas in his doctrine of the double effect. We all have a natural right to defend our lives. If, in the course of defending our lives, without wishing to do so we cause the death of an innocent bystander, we are not to find blame in ourselves.

Aquinas did not direct his argument at the question of abortion, but I think it applies. One chooses to defend one’s life by having a surgical procedure, let’s say, that will of necessity kill the baby the mother is carrying. That is a choice; but it is a choice “mandated” by the fundamental law of self defense, not by the selfish desire to avoid having a child or by the physician’s selfish desire to make money by killing unborn children.

Well said. I heard about “double effect” a while ago and completely forgot about it in regards to the abortion issue.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*Justice Blackmun

" This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." *

And thus did Blackmun instigate the murder of 50 million babes in the womb … that a woman’s right to kill her own child is a private matter between her and the child. Beautiful logic! I suppose the right of a wife to kill her husband is also a private matter between her and her husband.

I wonder how this devouring lion of the Supreme Court fared when he stood in the dock before the Supreme Being.

 

[Protestant101]

Well said. I heard about “double effect” a while ago and completely forgot about it in regards to the abortion issue.

Are there any official Catholic writings which would reflect this concept of “double effect” as being applicable re abortions?

 

[JimG]

Blackmun found the right of privacy, which is not in itself found specifically stated in the Constitution to be “broad enough” to protect the presumably private termination of the life of any unborn child, from conception till birth. Abortion on demand. The right of privacy could presumably be stretched broadly enough to protect the right of a family to terminate a sick family member of whatever age.

One of the Roe dissenters called the majority opinion an act of “raw judicial power” which becomes more evident with each passing decade, with each million deaths with each passing year.

 

[Protestant101]

Blackmun found the right of privacy, which is not in itself found specifically stated in the Constitution to be “broad enough” to protect the presumably private termination of the life of any unborn child, from conception till birth. Abortion on demand. The right of privacy could presumably be stretched broadly enough to protect the right of a family to terminate a sick family member of whatever age.

One of the Roe dissenters called the majority opinion an act of “raw judicial power” which becomes more evident with each passing decade, with each million deaths with each passing year.

Wow! What kind of world do we live in where we have a right to kill someone, and call it “privacy” rights? One can argue away about whether or not the abortion laws are “moral” or “legal” but one cannot deny the long list of deaths as a result thereof.

 

[JimG]

I was looking for some information on abortion and the principle of double effect, and found this article. I haven’t had time to read it through or research further, but it may be useful.

 

[Jermosh]

It forces no such thing—Pro-choice is a legal position not a moral one. This legal issue is who has the duty to protect the life at what stage and what is the nature of the duty. The Court in Roe simply concluded that, at least in the early term, the duty to protect the life falls exclusively on the women. As the life matures govt’s (society’s) role expands. The policy of protecting life is balanced with the policy of a " limited government". Here is Justice Blackmun:

“This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”

This is why I do not bring morals into the conversation, you cannot debate morals. But we do have laws protecting human life, why is one more important then another? RvW is a legal precedent, not a law.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Jermosh

RvW is a legal precedent, not a law.

Right. Laws are supposed to be passed by legislatures and signed into effect by the executive head of a state or country. However, Roe v Wade does have the force of law by **making legal **something that was in doubt as to its legality … abortion on demand.

The judiciary throughout the United States have usurped the role of state legislatures and Congress by making things legal or forbidden just by the decision of a few men or women. This usurpation of power can only be overcome by constitutional amendment, which unfortunately is a long, arduous, and divisive process. Yet abortion-on-demand seems to be about the worthiest of reasons to institute a constitutional amendment that would prevent courts from doing end-runs around common sense morality.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

JimG

Thank you for citing this well done article on the “double effect.”. catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0609uan.asp

Matthew Newsome’s many other articles of interests to apologists can be found at the same website.

P.S. I am not Matthew Newsome.

 

[Luke_K]

You should always make sure to refer to the woman as a mother, and not just a woman with a pregnancy.

Notice the different effect between these phrases:
1: A woman has the right to choose what to do with her body.
2: A mother has the right to choose what to do with her body.

1: An abortion is a decision between a woman and her doctor.
2: An abortion is a decision between a mother and her doctor.

Don’t give them control of the language. Never let them ignore the fact that the person they’re talking about is a mother, and the man she had sex with is a father. It dramatically changes the tone of what they’re asserting. It changes her from a woman with a medical condition to a mother who’s caring for a new human being inside of her!

 

[Christopher68]

Well, the Court did not base its opinion on the preamble—did you read the opinion? Here is a good passage for you— Justice Blackmun delivered the opinion of the Court.

" This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

Worthy5,

You mention the Ninth Amendment. I believe many people fail to understand this amendment and the nature of the Constitution in general. The Constitution was designed to limit government - NOT individuals. And the Ninth Amendment states that individuals retain all rights not taken away by The Constitution. For instance, the right to privacy does not need to be specifically stated in the Constitution as a right. Instead, the people retain this right because the right to privacy was not taken away from the people via the Constitution or via subsequent Constitutional Amendment.

 

[HappyRevert]

Thankyou to all who have been replying here. I have been learning lots. As an outsider of the Catholic Church, and looking in on this subject area; I hear Catholics telling me the following:

1/ That abortions are not allowed under any circumstances.

2/ That there are possible exceptions, under the umbrella of something called Doctrine Of Double Effect. This seems to be a survival of the fittest mentality, spawned from the hotbed of Darwinism.

I think that at best, this double effect standard is subjective; and leaves the Catholic Church in a similar position as other Churches on abortions. While the specifics for their respective exceptions sometimes vary; most of it will force the attending physician/parents to choose between saving one or the other, saving Mom, or saving the baby.

To call other Churches, including the Adventist Church “murderers” because their position is not exactly the same, is unfair, given that the Catholic Church, in effect, does allow abortions to take place, under certain, rare circumstances. I know you don’t call it abortion, yet, in effect, that’s exactly what it is.

I admire your pro-life stance and ministries except for this aspect. It is not very fair to those of other faith backgrounds who are also doing their best to prevent abortions, and to educate with, and provide abortion alternatives.

My understanding of why an abortion is allowed in the case of an ectopic pregnancy is because the embryo is essentially already dead, it just hasn’t happened yet. If the pregnancy is allowed to continue the mortality rate is 100% (for the embryo), and will probably kill the mother as well. Therefore, the mother is not choosing her life over the embryo’s - the poor baby doesn’t have a chance - she is removing her damaged fallopian tube.

This is similar to other situations which force an early delivery because of health. My cousin is a good example. She suffers from pre-eclampsia so at some point in her pregnancy the baby will kill her and will die as well if it isn’t delivered. Her earliest delivery ended up with a daughter that was just over 1 pound. This daughter is now 7 and doing well. If they didn’t deliver her little girl, they were both dead, but it still was a risk for her daughter. It was unfortunately the best option open to them.

I don’t think these show the Catholic church approving of an abortion. It is simply the only avenue available when the child’s life is already endangered. It isn’t a “choice” to terminate the pregnancy.

 

[Worthy5]

QUOTE=Charlemagne II;6263898]*Justice Blackmun

And thus did Blackmun instigate the murder of 50 million babes in the womb *…

It was the women involved who made that choice----all be it a wrong choice.

that a woman’s right to kill her own child is a private matter between her and the child.

Yes, that is what the Court decided, at least as far as the government is concerned in its use of its police power. This does not mean govt cannot use other means to convince the women to make the correct choice and not abort.

If women make the wrong decision and violates God’s law—then God can arrest her.

Beautiful logic!

The 14th Amendment language is very broad–airtight logic is a tricky thing.

I suppose the right of a wife to kill her husband is also a private matter between her and her husband.

Reasoning by analogy is always tricky as well—because, well, we are talking about an early unborn life inside the women— not a wife killing her husband.

I wonder how this devouring lion of the Supreme Court fared when he stood in the dock before the Supreme Being.

Justice Blackmun will meet his fate on the day of judgment as we all will----but that it not a matter necessarily for the U.S. and/or state govts.

 

[choy]

there’s a nice Editorial on The Province (Vancouver, BC) today regarding women’s health and how abortion doesn’t do anything to help it

can’t find an online version, perhaps they don’t post it online until a few days after it goes on print, so as to put some value on the print version