The recurring question without an answer

[Annie]

My understanding is that “direct abortion” refers to the procedures we typically think of as abortions: D&C, etc., so I think a C-section would not be a direct abortion.

ETA: altho it seems that some doctors say “abortion is never necessary,” so it may be that we are discussing something that does not exist.

 

[Vico]

My understanding is that “direct abortion” refers to the procedures we typically think of as abortions: D&C, etc., so I think a C-section would not be a direct abortion.

ETA: altho it seems that some doctors say “abortion is never necessary,” so it may be that we are discussing something that does not exist.

The Ethical and Religious Directives cover more than abortion, however abortion is defined as " Every procedure whose sole immediate effect is the termination of pregnancy before viability is an abortion".

 

[Annie]

Well, as I said, this may be a non-issue, as we may now be able to prevent maternal loss of life which might otherwise incline some people to suggest an abortion.

 

[AlbMagno]

try to deliver this child surgically, alive if we can, and give it at least some chance at survival?

This, I think, is the most ethical way, in such situation, if the mother decides to try to save her life, of course. I always dislike when people here in CAF refer as having the baby on time as the only moral option. If we try to keep the baby alive while outside her mother, it’s not an abortion (and it can very likely work).

 

[Vico]

Well, as I said, this may be a non-issue, as we may now be able to prevent maternal loss of life which might otherwise incline some people to suggest an abortion.

At least were there is good hospital care.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

try to deliver this child surgically, alive if we can, and give it at least some chance at survival?

Thank you, I think you touch on something very important here. Let’s say you have a pregnancy which is threatening the life of the mother. What is the earliest point at which the fetus is viable? Or let’s say the fetus has to be “born” before viability. Could artificial wombs ever be developed to accommodate human fetuses? Possible to transplant the fetus into a host “mother” where it could continue growing, a surrogate of sorts? I realize all of this smacks of Brave New World, but I am just trying to find a way to save the baby’s life, as well as the life of the mother — possible ways for medical science to progress in accord with Catholic principles.

This opens the dilemma of “is it better to have a child be born prematurely and possibly end up handicapped, with its natural mother allowed to live, or is it better to have the child born normal and healthy, but have the mother to die in the process?”. I have to think any mother would prefer to give up her life, as St Gianna Molla did, but there could be circumstances where the mother “has to live” if at all possible — sole support of her children, leaving the children (including the one being born) without a mother, whatever. I am going to take “hands off” at that point. There are any number of scenarios.

 

[AlbMagno]

Well, we don’t have artificial wombs, but we have very advanced incubators, so the question is, at what point in pregnancy can they be used, and if the mother can wait that time (if she was diagnosed earlier) without dying…

I think that in the majority of real life situations, something can be made to at least try to make the two live.

 

[macska]

Honestly, I don’t know why you are so reluctant to propose a concrete realization.

Because then the whole thread will be derailed to discuss the specific example. And tries to show that there might be some non-lethal method to deal with the problem. The scenario is what I stated. No “cop-out”.

But if you really want a specific case, take someone who is mentally disturbed, and who is therefore innocent of malice, and who - due to his diminished capabilities puts others into lethal danger. Or take a wild animal. Or someone who “plays” with some dangerous materials and unknowingly places others into lethal danger. Just use your imagination.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

But if you really want a specific case, take someone who is mentally disturbed, and who is therefore innocent of malice, and who - due to his diminished capabilities puts others into lethal danger.

That one I can answer, because the danger is imminent. Yes, if there is no other way to protect people from him, lethal force can morally be used against the one posing the threat, even if that person is not culpable for what he is doing.

 

[Annie]

If it’s good enough to have abortion, it should be good enough.

 

[macska]

That one I can answer, because the danger is imminent. Yes, if there is no other way to protect people from him, lethal force can morally be used against the one posing the threat, even if that person is not culpable for what he is doing.

How would you know that the danger is imminent? You may have information that he WILL cause harm sometime later. Even if he is not culpable, he is STILL innocent of any wrongdoing. And killing “innocent” people is supposed to be a no-no.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

That one I can answer, because the danger is imminent. Yes, if there is no other way to protect people from him, lethal force can morally be used against the one posing the threat, even if that person is not culpable for what he is doing.

How would you know that the danger is imminent? You may have information that he WILL cause harm sometime later.

If that is the case then you have failed to produce a concrete realization of the abstract problem. Now once again, if you can, produce a concrete realization - just one - where the danger is not imminent and yet there is no non-lethal way of averting that danger. Until you do that you do not have a question worth answering, as I have previously described.

Even if he is not culpable, he is STILL innocent of any wrongdoing.

That’s what “not culpable” means.

And killing “innocent” people is supposed to be a no-no.

Except as previously noted.

 

[macska]

If that is the case then you have failed to produce a concrete realization of the abstract problem. Now once again, if you can, produce a concrete realization - just one - where the danger is not imminent and yet there is no non-lethal way of averting that danger. Until you do that you do not have a question worth answering, as I have previously described.

What does the adjective “imminent” have to do with anything? The assumption that as long as there is some undefined delay, there is LOGICALLY a way to find a non-lethal method to deal with a lethal danger is simply an unsubstantiated assumption.

Just for the fun of it, here is another possible scenario. A chemist/biologist develops a new lethal malady. He does not want to release it, he wishes to destroy the last specimen of the active formula, but suffers a fatal heart attack, and dies. You know about the experiment, but you are bedridden and only can do one thing, blow up the laboratory by detonating a bomb in its basement. But that will destroy all the people in the lab’s neighborhood. If you don’t do it, someone will discover the lab, and - OUT of SHEER ignorance will release the agent.

This is a possible scenario. How do you deal with it?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I tell somebody.

Also, you say I “know about it”. But if I am so confined that I can’t even talk to anyone, how do I know my knowledge of the situation is still accurate?

 

[macska]

I tell somebody.

Also, you say I “know about it”. But if I am so confined that I can’t even talk to anyone, how do I know my knowledge of the situation is still accurate?

Don’t try to change the scenario. Deal with it as is, if you can. The “delay” does not ensure that there always will be a non-lethal response. That is the reason that I am hesitant to go to details. You try to change the problem and/or attempt to infuse some new possibilities.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I tell somebody.

Also, you say I “know about it”. But if I am so confined that I can’t even talk to anyone, how do I know my knowledge of the situation is still accurate?

Don’t try to change the scenario.

What scenario? You didn’t provide a scenario. You stated some abstract conditions that I see no way of being fulfilled. If you cannot present a concrete realization of your abstract problem, you don’t have a problem worth discussing.

 

[Rau]

How would you know that the danger is imminent ?

Killing people because they might do something at some time that might kill others is generally not a course open to us. And making assertions about “what is sure to happen in the future” (absent concrete explanation) takes the scenario out of the real world & into fantasy.

 

[EndTimes]

This is the question: “what does the church teach about this scenario”? I asked this question several times of several platforms. Never received an answer.

It’s not a question w/o an Answer…

The Church -
has never intended to answer every potential What If? speculative hypothetical question…

Which makes said question – False

Those who wallow in asking this form of questions
ostensibly viewed as the typical attack against Christians -
MIGHT become instantly viewed with Suspicion…

Thou Shalt Not Murder -

 

[o_mlly]

The “crazed” person is just like an animal …

Nope.

“if someone puts others into lethal danger, unknowingly and unintentionally, the the application of lethal force is permitted (if there is no other possibility available)”

Ignorance and intention of the aggressor do not matter in applying self-defense principles. Being an aggressor does. Just being does not.

 

[macska]

Killing people because they might do something at some time that might kill others is generally not a course open to us. And making assertions about “what is sure to happen in the future” (absent concrete explanation) takes the scenario out of the real world & into fantasy.

The operating word is “GENERALLY”. But this is a thought experiment, which you call “fantasy”.