When (if ever) is it ok to kill a human?

[fix]

Of course I don’t deny that intention and how we act matter. much more than the end result matters. I think you missed reading all I posted and therefore missed my points entirely.

I do not think I missed anything.

You said:

What about killing a robber in your house who was about to kill your kids? Is the guy somehow less dead cause you killed him in defense of your kids or in defense of yourself? Isn’t self defense claiming that the end justifies the means? The end being that you protected your family from death and suffering?

The death of the attacker is not willed. The intent is to save life. That the attacker dies is not the fault of one defending. The fault lies with the attacker.

 

[Syele]

In neither case does one intend to directly kill anyone. In self defense the attacker is guilty for losing his own life by his actions. With ectopic pregnancy the bay dies as a result of treating pathology. There is no intention to kill the baby.

Both removing the baby inside the tube and removing the baby from the tube treat the condition equally. NEITHER has an intention to kill the baby. My point was that saying it’s intentionally killing the child if you don’t remove tube with it makes no sense as the intention is the same.

Again, you are arguing the same side I am and saying I’m wrong, therefore one of us is totally misunderstanding the other.

 

[jmcrae]

Both removing the baby inside the tube and removing the baby from the tube treat the condition equally. NEITHER has an intention to kill the baby. My point was that saying it’s intentionally killing the child if you don’t remove tube with it makes no sense as the intention is the same.

Again, you are arguing the same side I am and saying I’m wrong, therefore one of us is totally misunderstanding the other.

If they stick the knife in the baby while it is still alive, then they have murdered the baby. But, if they take the baby out alive, and let nature take its course while doing their best to give comfort to the baby (which usually means that the baby dies) it is not murder, even though they knew that the baby most likely would die - because they had to get the baby out of there, for the safety and life of the mother.

Some day, technology will exist where they can save the baby, too. God speed the day.

 

[Syele]

If they stick the knife in the baby while it is still alive, then they have murdered the baby. But, if they take the baby out alive, and let nature take its course while doing their best to give comfort to the baby (which usually means that the baby dies) it is not murder, even though they knew that the baby most likely would die - because they had to get the baby out of there, for the safety and life of the mother.

Some day, technology will exist where they can save the baby, too. God speed the day.

exactly my point… why would you have to take some of the tube in order for it to not be abortion?

 

[jmcrae]

exactly my point… why would you have to take some of the tube in order for it to not be abortion?

In order not to directly kill the baby.

 

[Zooey]

exactly my point… why would you have to take some of the tube in order for it to not be abortion?

I don’t think that is where the distinction lies.
I think that there are some cases, where doctors have killed the baby while still in the tube, & then removed it, dead.
That is, IMO, different from removing a live baby. Babies will, some day, no doubt, be saved through some technology we don’t have yet…maybe transplanted into the ,mother’s womb.
Right now, we don’t have that option. There is a choice of either (A) removing a living baby [who will, with today’s medical knowledge, almost certainly die], and then there is ** kill the baby, & take it out, [whole or in pieces], but dead. Killed just as if there were an abortion.
That’s my own understanding of the difference. That in one case, the baby is directly being killed. In another case, the baby is sadly, going to die due to our present inability to save it…There was, of course, a point in history when both mother & child would have died. The process of removing the tube before rupture is an improvement on that.
It is still a tragic loss of life, but its not the same thing, as, killing the baby, & then removing what is left of the poor wee thing,because that is deliberate. The death of the baby who is removed alive from the mother’s tube, is an unfortunate accident caused by our lack of the knowledge about how to save babies in this situation.**

 

[fix]

Both removing the baby inside the tube and removing the baby from the tube treat the condition equally.

If you are making the distinction between excising part of the tube with the baby in it and slicing open the tube to kill the baby I would say they are very different moral acts.

The pathology to be treated is the tube, not the baby. That portion of the tube is the problem, the baby is not the disease.

NEITHER has an intention to kill the baby.

The intention may be the same, but the means to accomplish that end are very different. I would also wonder if the intent is the same. Why directly kill the child if one claims they are not intending such a thing? How is directly killing a child a medical therapy?

My point was that saying it’s intentionally killing the child if you don’t remove tube with it makes no sense as the intention is the same.

In one case you have a Dr. treating a pathologic portion of a tube. In the other you have a Dr. directly killing the child as if the child is pathologic.

Again, you are arguing the same side I am and saying I’m wrong, therefore one of us is totally misunderstanding the other.

Yes, there is a misunderstanding. The treatment in the case we speak of is regarding a diseased portion of the tube. That is the goal of the therapy. In the other case the goal seems to be to get rid of the baby.

 

[SoCalRC]

then why would it be ok to indirectly kill an unborn child that is inside a portion of a fallopian tube?

Just to be clear, the church has not been clear on rather this is, or is not, the case. The Church took its first stance on the morality of abortion for the sake of the mothers life in 1884. It was even more direct in1889 when it prohibited:

“[A]ny surgical operation which is directly destructive of the life of the fetus or the mother.” - Tribunal of the Holy Office

Some moralists thought that ectopic pregnancies would be an obvious exception (since the fetus’ lifespan is limited to months and has a certain prognosis of death, also, this was pre-plasma and antibiotics, so a fellopian rupture was much more likely to be fetal than today), so the question was posed:

“Is it ever allowed to extract from the body of the mother ectopic embryos still immature, before the sixth month after conception is completed?”

The Tribunal answered in 1902:

“No; according to the decree of 4 May, 1898; according to which, as far as possible, earnest and opportune provision is to be made to safeguard the life of the child and of the mother. As to the time, let the questioner remember that no acceleration of birth is licit unless it be done at a time, and in ways in which, according to the usual course of things, the life of the mother and the child be provided for” - Tribunal of the Holy Office

Next T. Lincohn Bouscaren, an ethicist, argued:

“[T]he tube has become so debilitated and disorganized, or destroyed by internal hemorrhage, that it now constitutes in itself a distinct source of peril to the mother’s life even before the external rupture of the tube.”

Bouscaren conceded that it was a “thin distinction”, but insisted that it was enough to invoke the principle of double effect. The “Bouscaren Approach” is still widely taught in bioethics classes in Catholic High Schools, but is actually not how the situation is widely handled in Catholic hospitals today.

Remember, at the time Bosucaren proposed the idea ectopic pregnancies were generally found when symptoms like vaginal bleeding, fainting from blood pressure drops, etc. were present. From a practical, medical perspective, the difference between performing a full or partial salpingectomy (removal of all or part of the fellopian tube) was moot. In fact, it was even believed that a full salpingectomy was superior because the scarring from a partial removal could increase the chance of future ectopic pregnancies.

Following the same “fine distinction”, moralists later rejected salpingostomy (removal of just the fetus). However, it did not escape everyone’s notice that the existance of the procedure brings the “fine distinction” itself into question. After all, if the minimum corrective act for the tube is simply removing the fetus, does the tube itself truly constitute a legitimate health risk?

The real problem for Catholic health care givers started with early detection and MTX. This leaves us with a difficult situation. Between antibiotics, plasma, etc., there is a real question as to rather the criteria for double effect are even met (note in the Catholic Encyclopedia, under “Abortion” that the effects must have equal or greater effect). Namely, that the fetus’ life is certainly lost, but while the pregancy represents a serious health risk to the mother, it is not, with any degree of certainty, a mortal situation.

Next, if a salpingectomy is performed early, the “thin distinction” does not exist at all. It is another prescribed procedure (partial sterilization) performed on healthy tissue, to somehow ‘avoid’ what everyone realizes is an abortion of medical necessity from being ‘direct’. This puts doctors in a terrible bind. The diagnosis is the same (ectopic pregnancy), but the surgery represents higher risk, higher cost, and an inferior health outcome (partial sterilization).

So, increasingly we are seeing arguments that MTX, a chemical abortificant, also meets ‘double effect’ in these cases. For example, in 2000 there was an article in the LINACRE QUARTERLY and in 1996 CHA published an article on adhering to the Directives that proposed MTX meeting the principle of double effect.

Double effect is not the only argument being used. For example, last year an article published by the National Catholic Bioethics Center argued that MTX was permissable, not because of double effect, but because the fetus was “dead or dying”. The argument is basically that it isn’t a pregnancy at all, but an interrupted miscarriage. The article did not elaborate on why our teachings on euthanasia do not apply, but the protocol is in use at several Catholic hospitals in the US.

Personally, I think they are direct abortions. But I am biased.

 

[SoCalRC]

Yes, there is a misunderstanding. The treatment in the case we speak of is regarding a diseased portion of the tube. That is the goal of the therapy. In the other case the goal seems to be to get rid of the baby.

That is the “thin distinction” I referenced above. However, in practice, it is thinner still. Remember, unlike when Bouscaren made his supposition, ectopic pregnancies are now generally detected and treated early.

In other words, the doctor is not treating a diseased tube, but a generally healthy tube. The treatment is pre-emptive. The physician is partially sterilizing the woman in anticipation of problems which may develop. This runs afoul of double effect in another way. Just as there is a real question as to rather the good effect is on par with the bad effect, the question of causality is raised. Medically, the ‘good’ result does directly come from the supposedly undesired ‘bad’ effect. As Sizmore noted, “No matter what the path, all the treatments ultimately end with fetal destruction, why pretend otherwise?”

 

[SoCalRC]

An ectopic pregnancy is 100% fatal, a guranteed death sentence for both the mother and the child.

FWIW, that is aboslutely false. Many ectopic preganancies are reabsorbed, others miscarry. Even in the case of felopian rupture, death is far from a certainty. In the absense of modern health care, rupture might result in death somewhere between 25% and 50% of the time. However, with antibiotics, plasma, and prompt treatment for shock, the survival rate is dramatically better.

It is a potentially serious health condition, but it is a gross exaggeration to assume that it is essentially a mortal condition for the mother, particularly at the early stages most interventions now occur.

There is currently only one treatment that I am aware of available for an ectopic pregnancy, the surgical removal of the fetus and the portion of the fallopian tube around it.

There are four common procedures. Partial removal of the tube, complete removal of the tube, removal of the fetus from the tube, and MTX (a chemical abortificant). All are in use in Catholic hospitals in the US today.

 

[fix]

That is the “thin distinction” I referenced above. However, in practice, it is thinner still. Remember, unlike when Bouscaren made his supposition, ectopic pregnancies are now generally detected and treated early.

In other words, the doctor is not treating a diseased tube, but a generally healthy tube.

That needs to be determined case by case. The doctor’s adivce is needed.

The treatment is pre-emptive. The physician is partially sterilizing the woman in anticipation of problems which may develop.

That is why each case needs to be judged on its own merits.

This runs afoul of double effect in another way. Just as there is a real question as to rather the good effect is on par with the bad effect, the question of causality is raised.

If delay would harm the mother that could be justification. If no harm then there is no justification.

As Sizmore noted, “No matter what the path, all the treatments ultimately end with fetal destruction, why pretend otherwise?”

It is not pretending to reason correctly. That sounds like the ends justify the means.

 

[SoCalRC]

If delay would harm the mother that could be justification. If no harm then there is no justification.

Actually, the argument should go further. Notice the following criteria from the Catholic Encyclopedia entry under abortion:

That we do not wish the evil effects, but make all reasonable efforts to avoid them;

That the immediate effect be good in itself;

That the evil is not made a means to obtain the good effect; for this would be to do evil that good might come of it – a procedure never allowed;

That the good effect be as important at least as the evil effect.

In treatement of tubal pregnancies, we don’t wait. So this puts the first two criteria in serious question.

As we’ve noted, all four treatments result in fetal death. Two result solely in fetal death, and there is no evidence that tubal removal, in of itself, serves any health purpose. This puts the third criteria in serious question.

Last, look at the call for parity. The most probable outcome for a promptly treated tubal rupture is sterility. Death is a possible outcome, but far from certain. This puts the forth criteria in question.

Small wonder that Catholic Health care organizations like CHA have widened the application of double effect:

chausa.org/Pub/MainNav/News/HP/Archive/1998/07JulyAug/Articles/Features/

“Others, using the analogy of normal childbirth—in which the result of the trophoblast, the placenta, is definitely separate from the developing fetus—maintain that MTX may be used because the directly intended effect, the treatment of the pathology by inhibiting the trophoblastic cells, is distinct from the unintended effect, the death of the fetus.”

Doctors, struggling to balance secular ethics (pointless operation, poorer health result for the mother, insurance company cost approvals, etc.), can be excused for wanting to accept that an abortificant that destroys every cell of a fetus’ being is just something they are prescribing to treat tubal inflammation. But reading the express statements of the Church and the criteria for double effect, I would suggest that families do their own deep moral reflection and seek pastoral council as well.

So many moralists now question this application of double effect that, again, others are now trying new arguments. I’m sorry, the NCBC articles are member only. But I find it interesting that, instead of arguing that MTX is not an abortion pill because of double effect, others are now arguing that the fetus itself is not a developing child.

It is not pretending to reason correctly. That sounds like the ends justify the means.

Doesn’t it? Lets say a doctor performs a partial salpingectomy, ignoring that a fetus is inside the tube, and focuses only on an area of slight inflammation. After seperating a piece of the tube, he/she realizes that the fetus is actually implanted at one of the intact ends, just next to the incission. Will the fetus be ignored? The two ends placed back together and the surgury ended?

Of course not, the developing fetus IS the risk to the mother’s heath, not the inflammation to the tube.

 

[fix]

Actually, the argument should go further. Notice the following criteria from the Catholic Encyclopedia entry under abortion:

In treatement of tubal pregnancies, we don’t wait. So this puts the first two criteria in serious question.

As we’ve noted, all four treatments result in fetal death. Two result solely in fetal death, and there is no evidence that tubal removal, in of itself, serves any health purpose. This puts the third criteria in serious question.

Last, look at the call for parity. The most probable outcome for a promptly treated tubal rupture is sterility. Death is a possible outcome, but far from certain. This puts the forth criteria in question.

Small wonder that Catholic Health care organizations like CHA have widened the application of double effect:

chausa.org/Pub/MainNav/News/HP/Archive/1998/07JulyAug/Articles/Features/

Doctors, struggling to balance secular ethics (pointless operation, poorer health result for the mother, insurance company cost approvals, etc.), can be excused for wanting to accept that an abortificant that destroys every cell of a fetus’ being is just something they are prescribing to treat tubal inflammation. But reading the express statements of the Church and the criteria for double effect, I would suggest that families do their own deep moral reflection and seek pastoral council as well.

So many moralists now question this application of double effect that, again, others are now trying new arguments. I’m sorry, the NCBC articles are member only. But I find it interesting that, instead of arguing that MTX is not an abortion pill because of double effect, others are now arguing that the fetus itself is not a developing child.

Doesn’t it? Lets say a doctor performs a partial salpingectomy, ignoring that a fetus is inside the tube, and focuses only on an area of slight inflammation. After seperating a piece of the tube, he/she realizes that the fetus is actually implanted at one of the intact ends, just next to the incission. Will the fetus be ignored? The two ends placed back together and the surgury ended?

Of course not, the developing fetus IS the risk to the mother’s heath, not the inflammation to the tube.

That not all moralists agree does not lead me to think these are all issues of free opinion, nor does it lead me to believe each opposing view is consistent with Church teaching.

As to your last point the fetus is never pathology. The effect on the tube and subsequence problems are the pathology. The site of clinical inflammation or infection near the attachment area does not mean there are not definite histolopathological changes where the fetus is implanted and I doubt that is discernable during the surgery.

 

[SoCalRC]

That not all moralists agree does not lead me to think these are all issues of free opinion, nor does it lead me to believe each opposing view is consistent with Church teaching.

It would be hard for me to disagree when I think that none of the common treatments are in true accordance with either Church teaching or the specific Directives the Church has given to health care providers.

Look at how the Catholic Encyclopedia interprets the 1902 Church ruling on ectopic pregnancies in the “Abortion” entry:

Ethics, then, and the Church agree in teaching that no action is lawful which directly destroys fetal life. It is also clear that extracting the living fetus before it is viable, is destroying its life as directly as it would be killing a grown man directly to plunge him into a medium in which he cannot live, and hold him there till he expires.

There is no doubt that the Church understands our moral reluctance when it comes to the lives of mothers, but there is still no ambiguity regarding Church teaching:

Every human being, even the infant in the mother’s womb, has the right to life immediately from God, not from the parent or any human society or authority. Therefore, there is no man, no human authority, no science, no medical, eugenic, social, economic or moral “indication” that can show or give valid juridical title for direct deliberate disposition concerning an innocent human life—which is to say, a disposition that aims at its destruction either as an end in itself or as the means of attaining another end that is perhaps in no way illicit itself. Thus, for example, to save the life of the mother is a most noble end, but the direct killing of the child as a means to this end is not licit.

Allocution to Italian midwives
Pope Pius XII
October 29, 1951

There is no doubt this is a difficult teaching. And I am not saying that Catholic mothers must accept possible death. Having been through this situation with my own daughter I would not presume to make such a judgement for others. However, I do think that it is important to accept responsibility for choices made.

Ignore the “thin distinction” for a moment and think about the situation. You are pregnant, tragically, the pregnancy is ectopic (happens about 100,000 times a year in the US alone). If the pregnancy is allowed to progress it might resolve itself. However there is a very real chance of tubal rupture. Should that happen, there is a significant chance of serious injury (organ damage, sterility, etc.) and even a chance of death.

You are offered three choices (assuming your insurance company is not cracking down on unnecessary surgery). Salpingectomy, salpingastomy, and MTX. All three will go onto the secular ‘books’ as abortions of medical necessity. IE, they are included in those numbers we use in ‘worse than the holocaust’ threads. Do you really think that selecting an otherwise unnecessary tubal ligation - another procedure that would normally be considered a grave sin stops an abortion from being an abortion?

Again, I understand the moral dilemna, but abortion is, by infallible teaching, an absolute in our faith. As such, it seems inappropriate to use the same sort of logic that Daniel presumably used when he convinced himself his hands would be clean in regards to Uriah’s death in battle.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

The Commandment that you should not kill is not for all deaths. It does not mean all killing is wrong. It applies to unlawful killing. For example, killing a robber in your house who was about to kill your family is not unlawful and is not a sin. A soldier killing in battle is also not an unlawful killing.

Actually, killing never loses its sinfulness, but killing in self defense is not mortally sinful.

At least, that’s my understanding.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Over the years I’ve been on this forum I’m come to see my idea of sin is so drastically different from a Catholics idea of it. It’s very confusing to sort it out.

I was just reading the thread on ectopic pregnancies. I didn’t see a single person posting what I believe. Abortion is killing human child before it is born naturally. After that we call it murder.

I see all this distinction of HOW the child is removed. Face it, the child is still removed, resulting in it’s death. this is an abortion how ever it’s accomplished. Any arguing that it isn’t is just dancing around the facts with twists in terminology. Just like saying abortion isn’t murder or that an unborn fetus isn’t a baby.

But my question goes well beyond ectopic pregnancies (if it didn’t I’d have posted int he other thread.) What about killing a robber in your house who was about to kill your kids? Is the guy somehow less dead cause you killed him in defense of your kids or in defense of yourself? Isn’t self defense claiming that the end justifies the means? The end being that you protected your family from death and suffering?

What about wars? Are they wrong no matter the issues or what is at stake? Because I have often seen Catholics here saying the end NEVER justifies the means.

If you really believe that killing is wrong in 100% of situations, how do you deal with the Scripture passages where God ORDERED people killed?

If you don’t believe that, where is the line drawn for Catholics? How do you know what is Murder and what is OK? Are the Church proclamations on each and every possible situation involving the death of a person at another persons hands?

An important part of Catholic Theology is about intention. When someone is threatening your family, your intention isn’t murder, it is to protect them. With an ectopian pregnancy, when the tube is removed, your intention is to save a life - the death of the fetus is a very unfortunate result, however, it is not an abortion. You are implying that any time an unborn child dies that it is an abortion, which is simply untrue. If during a surgery, the doctor purposely went in and directly killed the child, that is an abortion. Removal of the tube that results in the death of the child, not an abortion.

Hi Syele

Guldenat’s reply is fairly good, it is missing only imminent danger. ** When imminent danger is present, alternative solutions are unlikely or not present, and the overall intent is to preserve the innocent then you can kill**. It is a tough standard to meet and many Catholics do not understand it. This does not appear in a single strict form in the catechism. The best alternative might be “just war” usccb.org/sdwp/international/justwar.shtml I know that may be a tough mental jump (sorry)

Here is a review of the actual teaching concerning human dignity vs killing usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art5.htm

In the ectopic pregnancies case the mother is in imminent danger, a better alternative is not available; the overall intent is to save one innocent person as we do not know how to say two. *When we learn how to save both mother and baby it will become immoral to have the fetus removed!! *

if that is not clear please just ask

 

[inthecloud]

I remember french libertarian philosopher André Glucksmann (a agnostic secular jew) comenting on US bishops pronuclear disarmament position on the mid eighties and the said that was wrong according to classical Catholic doctrine.
He mentioned San Angustine dilemma, “if good people (christians for example) are not allowed to kill, what will prevent bad people to kill and slave good people”. He pointed that the 5th commandment in Hebrew read as you shall not murder. Murder means killing someone without justice. And justice cannot be deconstructed as Jaques Derrida found. The problem with abortion and euthanasia is that there is no disuasive justice in the destruction of human life unlike war or self defense were is a element of disuasive justice. The death penalty is suspect since the disuasive part in in doubt. André Glucskmann also said that the disuasive justice is the basis of natural law and private property and can be proven in a secular way using game theory for example. Glucksmann comented favorably on Pope John Paul teachings on the matter who not only were faithfull to classic doctrine but actually made more sense form a game theory point of view. Is good to hear a secular philosopher understand Catholic teaching on the destrucition of human life from a secular point of view.

 

[SoCalRC]

I remember french libertarian philosopher André Glucksmann (a agnostic secular jew) comenting on US bishops pronuclear disarmament position on the mid eighties and the said that was wrong according to classical Catholic doctrine.
He mentioned San Angustine dilemma, “if good people (christians for example) are not allowed to kill, what will prevent bad people to kill and slave good people”. He pointed that the 5th commandment in Hebrew read as you shall not murder. Murder means killing someone without justice. And justice cannot be deconstructed as Jaques Derrida found. The problem with abortion and euthanasia is that there is no disuasive justice in the destruction of human life unlike war or self defense were is a element of disuasive justice. The death penalty is suspect since the disuasive part in in doubt. André Glucskmann also said that the disuasive justice is the basis of natural law and private property and can be proven in a secular way using game theory for example. Glucksmann comented favorably on Pope John Paul teachings on the matter who not only were faithfull to classic doctrine but actually made more sense form a game theory point of view. Is good to hear a secular philosopher understand Catholic teaching on the destrucition of human life from a secular point of view.

Just to be clear, Augustine never accepted the concept of personal self defense. He interpretted the Gospels, particularly the Sermon on the Mount, as a direct admonishment against individually resisting evil. He argued that just war was possible because we are also specifically directed to love our neighbors.

This is why the criteria for just war are quite elaborate. Remember, prior to Augustine, Christians were overtly pacifist. Tertullian, who is often quoted for his early views on abortion, was crystal clear. If you want to be Christian and serve in the army, you have two choices. Quit the army or prepare to be martyred for refusing to fight.

But, by Augustine, several things changed. The Roman army stopped using pagan sacrifices, it’s focus shifted from empirial expansion to defense and order, and, most importantly, centuries of pacifism notwithstanding, Christians went from being oppressed by the empire to being representative of it.

I think it was biblical scholar Walter Wink who suggested that the term ‘just war’ be changed to ‘violence avoidance criteria’. For some reason, most of us think that any conflict we feel justified about is, by default, just. But the actual criteria are much more stringent. Take Iraq. There has been no more vocal disagreement with Rome than conservative columnist George Weigel. Between his column in Catholic papers, opinion pieces in FIRST THINGS, etc., he has written tens of thousands of words on the subject.

But, when he first wrote about the Abu Ghraib scandal he noted that it was essential that the problem be rooted out and rectified because on the matter of torture, just war theory is crystal clear. It is never an option. However, we now know that rendition and torture are, in fact, official US policy. Some Catholics rationalize this as a form of self defense, much as they rationalize the death penalty as a form of self defense.

But, with all due respect to our French libertarian friend, ‘self defense’ of this nature, particularly when the risks are statistically small and the application of justice readily questioned, is not clearly in keeping with “classical Catholic doctrine”.

 

[Zooey]

But all this brings me back to my original point…and I don’t think its a “fine distinction”, I think its a very clear one:
The mother & the baby are going to die, if no procedure is done. The question then becomes, what kind of procedure is ethical? It can’t be something that is intended to kill the child, even though the child’s death may, in fact, be inevitable.
Some procedures involve surgical removal of the tube or part of the tube. (If we had the technology of the future, the baby would then be placed in the womb, in an artificial womb/superincubator…something, and allowed to continue to live & grow, & eventually be born alive). These do not directly kill, even though there is really no chance for the child to survive at this time in history.
Other procedures involve what is, in essence, a chemical abortion.There is no other way to say it; the baby is deliberately killed.
That is not the same thing as removing a living infant who is, tragically, unable to survive. In this scenario, the baby can be held by his parents, & shown love & compassion by all around him, for the very short life that he will have.
But we can’t stab him, or slice him up with medical implements. We can’t shoot poison into his tiny body, & scrape out the remains like so much detritus. This is a human being with the same right to life,that we all have. God does not allow us to simply murder him.

These are 2 different things, & once you get your head around the idea of “what is the intent?”, it’s really quite simple. Painful, yes. Tragic, certainly.
But it’s not rocket science. It really isn’t. It’s a matter of the heart.

 

[dranzal]

What about the very rare situation with conjoined twins when one twin lacks essential organs and is, effectively feeding off the other twin. If they remain joined, both will die. If they are separated, the one without the missing organ(s) will certainly die at the moment of separation. The very act of separation will kill one twin and save the other.